Rangers Banter Archive October 05 2012

05 Oct 2012 18:22:26
Bigbear 1873
You spent a great deal of time writing your post today and I agree with the majority of your statements apart from attending Sphell games away, for me these chairman and diddly team supporters put the knife into our great club and twisted it at every opportunity they kicked us when we were down and are still trying their best via this stupid EBT enquiry. The SFA and SPL were given open and full access to all RAngers accounts and not once did they question our declarations over 10 years. I wish these fans and chairman could have the grace of Dermot desmond

SFA job was not to question your club financial declarations, it was the job of your directors to declare all relevant facts.

Seems they did not give full details.... no details of which players had ebts.... oops.

If rangers paying EBT's to ex-managers who are running other clubs which rangers competing against what is this... i know what it looks like.... hope its not true.

Listen to the silence of 50+ ebt beneficiaries not running to rangers fc defense.... silence speaks volumes.

lets hope Rangers FC can survive this onslaught, all by the hands of rangers men.

Have you seen rangers accounts? Did it say anything about off shore payments ? The fans wanted rules applied most rangers fans wanted to go to the 3rd and now your saying it was everyone else's fault. Bet you cheered Craig whyte down Edmiison drive. Think you should start blaming the media who led you to believe craigie boy was a billionaire

Where has this 'full disclosure' of the EBT's suddenly came from?

on rangers last audited accounts, there was an entry that simply said "EBT".....nothing more, nothing less

so is that what is now classed as full disclosure, and not hiding it from the accounts?


taco

Can you explain Gavin Rae's paperwork and public statement?

To be fair to the Scottish footballing authorities - who have generally been hopeless - as far as I know, a simple figure was given regarding EBTs and nobody who recieved one was actually named by Rangers. Perfecty legal and anybody who expected these payments to be investigated by the SPL is naive.

Look at how long it's taken HMRC to ascertain their legality with their highly trained experts.

BARNEY BEAR

05 Oct 2012 16:30:51
Just had a quick look at the Day late Rebel,also known as the Daily Record,a newspaper ,who in the past had great sports reporters,who wrote with great passion about our football,and never shirked an issue,now we have a group of men,who would not be out of place in a Glasgow steamie,rumour,gossip,innuendo,so sad ,when i think of the likes of Alex Cameron and his ilk,they would no doubt be ashamed of the rubbish they now accept as journalism.I am glad i dont puchace that rag anymore,god bless the internet.Rangers then,now and Always.

I'm guessing you loved it when Whyte's off the radar wealth was printed by "scoop" Jackson.Even now Traynor is still an apologist for murray.........green jhedi

Just because they dont try to appease rangers supporters does not mean they are bad journalists to me you got all the flack from them you deserved

05 Oct 2012 20:54:58
If you want first class unbiased journalism then take the Independent or Guardian. You might find their interste in your football club is close to zero.

05 Oct 2012 13:30:58
A few points which have been bothering me and hoped to get off my chest:

EBT'S

I can understand where alot of anger from other fans come from regarding this issue. If we have used dual contracts (Which has still to be proven) then we should take our punishment, whatever it may be. However, the reason I don't think the punishment should be the stripping of titles because these titles were won on the park, no matter what way you look at it. Gers 11 men beat the rest and won more points throughout the season. It just feels to me like because they couldn't beat us on the park, other teams are just looking for any way of getting the titles that they couldn't win themselves. Yes, if they had dual contracts they have broken the rules of membership but no footballing rules were broken.

MCCOIST

I feel criticism of this great man has been way out of order in my opinion. What other manager in Rangers 140 year history has had to deal with what he has? None! He will come good and I think tomorrows game will be the start of it. The team is taking a bit more time to gel than everyone thought, but if everyone actually took the time to stop and think then you would see that for yourselves what was going to happen. He's almost had to build an entire team and no amount of tactical knowhow would make that any easier.

BOYCOTTS

I really don't get this idea. So what if they were trying to "Kick us while we're down"? We're still here aren't we? It was the opinion of the majority of fans to start again in div 3 wasn't it? Didn't we get what we wanted? Who cares what they think. Get to the games and support your team. If you really care what these folk think then show them that we're the best fans in the business by turning up in our droves and getting behind these great guys who are fighting to keep our team alive. Boycotting these games will only hurt Rangers financially and on the pitch because the players will start to wonder why they should bother trying when the fans can't be bothered.

CHARLES GREEN

This man has saved our club. Anybody who says any different in my opinion is either deluded or paranoid due to the events of the Craig Whyte regime. He has had to endure a large amount of criticism when he could have easily made himself a quick buck and sold the club debt free but he's still here. Whether the statements he has released are good or bad in the long run remain to be seen but I for one am in support and will continue to support him.

I know there are alot of "Fans" on here who will disagree with most of my points I have made but I am and always have been a Rangers fan and I will support them wherever and whenever they play. If they play badly I will not criticise in the manner which has been done by many on this site. I will not call for the head of the manager or chairman when things don't go our way. I will follow my team because they always have and always will be MY team!

BigBear1873

OP Point one.If dual contracts are proven and your against title stripping,what punishment would you suggest.Perhaps just
a wee slap on the wrist maybe.

Your missing the point about dual contracts. See if this made up senario explains. Suppose Henrick Larsson was sent off in a SC semi, automatic ban. In the final against Rangers, Celtic decide to play him anyway, he scores hat-trick, Celtic win cup. Would you be of the opinion that it was just 11 v 11 on the park, or would you be screaming blue murder because HE SHOUNDN`T BLOODY BE THERE!!

chasaboy

05 Oct 2012 14:55:25
as a Celtic fan I would have to say I admire the way you are getting behind your team where as others constantly talk about boycotts, "stealing titles" and the SFA being corrupt. Good on you for going to watch your team and getting behind your manager. I would be wary of Green if the roles were reversed though, seems to contradict himself now and again and is not making a posotive influence on the organisations looking to punish the club he represents.

However I will disagree with you over the EBTs. Yes those players won on the park, but if they were not registered correctly or whatever way you want to put it, they should not have been allowed on the pitch. Dunfermline & Spartans have been booted out the Scottish Cup for errors on the teamsheet, never mind misusing Ebts. Stripping of titles in most peoples eyes is the only fitting punishment for gaining unfair advantage over competitors, same in every other sport.

05 Oct 2012 15:04:27
Big Bear are you sitting comfortably? Good so I will try and explain why your EBT theory is wrong and has been shown to be wrong.
Your 11 v 11 argument...."won on the park" etc..
If your club did not have multiple EBT's your club
COULD NOT HAVE AFFORDED TO BRING IN TOP PLAYERS.
If you had kept to within the rules, with no tax dodges you would only have been able to sign the same standard of player as Celtic who abided by the tax rules.
Your club gained a financial advantage and was able to offer these players MORE MONEY, hence the reason they came, not for the love of your club.
Hope that explains things to all ex bears Timalloy

Why does miss use of ebts "if proven" automatically mean title stripping, thats what i cant understand. as i have said before, the sfa have already stated it is one of many options opened to them, not the only one, some fans just dont seem to be able to take that on board or dont want too !!

Don't agree with your comments on ally, he doesn't have a clue about tactics, long ball is a joke, he's played 3 SFL3 games and not win one, beat a highland league team 1-0 in the cup, your not being true to yourself if you think ally is man to take us forward, I don't think we would win 1st division under ally if we were in it TBH.

Dual Contracts

The said players wouldn't have been on the park had they not been signed using unlawful methods.

Charles Green

This man saved nothing, his CVA proposal was REJECTED. He bought the ASSETS from Rangers and formed a new club.
Only in Scotland could you get half wits that think something still exists after liquidation has been confirmed!!
His new club was rejected entry into the SPL and had to start at the bottom. His new club won't be allowed in Europe until it has 3 years worth of audited accounts. If it was still the same club it would be playing in the Europa league this year.
UEFA's website unequivocally states that Rangers played their last game in May.

1) what good does a so called investigation into a company that does not exist do for anybody. If anybody can tell me what EBTs have to do with Celtic losing two late goals to Motherwell, I will reconsider. But the truth is the EBTS made no difference on the pitch. The runners up in those years don't want the titles.
I would also suggest that the SFA all go and get jobs with HMRC, because SFA decided guilt after the BBC programme. The HMRC tribunal cannot decide after 8 months.
This investigation is a waste of time, effort and money and serves no good at all.
Why not have an investigation in why the SFA and SPL accepted our annual accounts, gave us a licence for Europe, and did not question EBTs which were clearly shown on those accounts.
Why if acceptable then, why not now?
If they are looked upon as dual contracts now, why not then?
Why are SFA and SPL inept. If you tell authorities , or show authorities documents and accounts and they pass these accounts, why is this even being discussed.
I am afraid it is one last piece of the plan to kick the big boy when he is down, nothing more, nothing less. Well let me remind you that when the big boy gets up you are in trouble.

OP--if trophies are stolen from us by Liewell's Spl will you still be against boycotting? Your other points are good. Broxi

I think we're missing the point with the EBT thing here.

It was clear that we could afford (and I use the term loosely in light of what's happened) these players, so they would still have been on the pitch, so it's still 11 v 11 (despite what the poster above says about Henrik). In this respect it's an administration error. If we'd declared the contracts, the only difference would have been the SPL were aware of them. Nothing else would have been different.

Therefore, title stripping is an excessive punishment.

Rangers would have still signed the players. They were running at a loss for most of the period in question so what makes you think that some additional expense would have been too much for Murray to allow given his ego and the fact he was trying to buy success?

@9.) Yes I would still be against a boycott and the reason is that nobody will take my memories away from me. I will always remember the two final day title wins. If they take the titles then fine but it doesn't mean I think it is the correct punishment. There will always be people who disagree. All these clubs bowed to fan pressure and doesn't the song go "No one likes us, we don't care"?

From alot of the posts on here I would say that people do care.

I certainly don't! I support my team. Take the titles, ban us from Europe, fine us, deduct points but I will always and forever follow my team.

BigBear1873

05 Oct 2012 16:46:41
Getting a bit bored of Rangers fans saying "it wasnt EBTs that made Celtic lose 2 goals to Motherwell", but they are totally missing the point that should the dual contract case go against Rangers, it will show that Rangers did not register players properly and should not have been allowed to play. Fair enough Celtic lost that game, but if hadn't played players of a higher quality than you could afford illegaly then it is very logical to think that without these players the league would not have been taken to the last day of the season.

G93

No. 10, you are quite right.

As most sensible people who have been keeping up with the story know, Rangers use of EBTs at the time was not illegal. That point is not in question. What the enquiry is for, is to see if Rangers had players on dual contracts. One disclosed to the SPL/SFA and the other, for whatever reason, not. (Although this issue appears to be muddied now too, as it is now claimed that the SFA knew years ago....)

So Rangers were still paying the players a vast some of money. The disclosure or not would have made no difference to the money the player earned.

The issue is contractual / administrative, not whether players were paid money illegally.

I also agree that the stripping of titles is excessive. What punishment would be suitable though, I have no idea.

If Rangers are found guilty, surely the people to be punished should be the club owners/administrators/directors at the time of the 'offence'.....but of course, the SFA/SPL have no power to punish David Murray etc as they are no longer involved in the game....

Money does not buy titles,how many millions did chelsea and man city spend before they became champions,the titles were won on the park.the celtic support will be happy to win the next 3 titles even when their players are earning five times more than the eleven other spl teams,so where is the even playing field ?

05 Oct 2012 18:25:16
@14 What absolute nonsense.

The last time Chelsea won the league before they were bought over was 1955, Man City 1968, new oners come in and spend the most in transfer fees and wages over 3 years and win the league. Their turnover is not the highest in the league but billionaire owners bankroll success. Are you saying next season Stoke and Norwich have an equal chance to win the league as Man City?

As for Celtic, they run their club like a business, SUCCESSFULLY, attract huge sums in sponsorship and season ticket money and live within their means, the same way st mirren and every other spl teams do, without possible tax evasion. your point is totally invalid and irrelevant.

G93

@8 Yes EBT'S were in Rangers account but
the issue here is dual contracts.How many times do you have to be told the same thing.And the rest of your post is also total
rubbish.

@ 16. Im gonna bet my last pound that in a court of law the case of 'dual contracts' will be found not proven, a side letter is not a contract.

And can you prove Murray couldn't have just borrowed more £ from the bank to pay for these players instead of using ebts, as the BBC program showed he just needed to ask for a loan and he got it, the end result would be the same, Rangers too much debt, administration, liquidation.... but it would not be tantamount to cheating according to the logic of some of the posters here due to no ebt.........
@ 8 is right its not only Rangers that have been inept but sfa and the spl..

I think you have a hidden agenda against Rangers if you think @8 post is rubbish.

Wise auld Bear

@17: not only Rangers doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished. That's like saying in court it wasn't just me that stole stuff lol

@ 18 my point is why is the spl sfa not under investigation with the possibility of punishments....comon trying to get Rangers to accept title stripping before a proper investigation had been carried out,unable to enforce their 'rules' for years(yes at the time we were deemed to be conforming with them).....Where is the INTEGRITY in that.

Why not let FIFA carry out the investigation, go the whole hog and investigate Rangers,Sfa and the Spl and if we are guilty then so be it.... but at the same time if the Sfa and Spl have found to be inept and unethical in their practices then OBLITERATE both of them and start again from scratch.

So chap stop seeing what you want to see in peoples comments....you must be blinkered if you think the Sfa and Spl are not part of the problem here.

Wise auld Bear

@9 I assume when you talk about "Liewell" you are refering to Charles Green. Oh no, maybe its Craig Whyte. Then again, maybe it's be David Murray. Could you be more specific.
Thanks.
Al

06 Oct 2012 13:13:01
@20. No, we're definately talking about 'We're going on a tour of Japan, so couldn't possibly postpone league games' Lawwell.

20,

He is obviously on about the wee odious toad at the glitterdome. Not the one from over the water either.

05 Oct 2012 13:23:54
THE SFA returned a Not Proven verdict against Charles Green today in relation to the charges that he brought the game in to disrepute.

Their ruling read:

Alleged Party in Breach: Charles Green (Rangers)
Date: On or around 12th September 2012
Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached:

(1) Disciplinary Rule 66 (Bringing the game into disrepute by calling into question the integrity of the Commission, chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith and appointed by the Scottish Premier League Limited (SPL�) to examine alleged breaches of the SPL's Rules regarding the use by Rangers PLC and Rangers FC of Employee Benefit Trusts to pay players, by suggesting in a media interview that the outcome and sanction of said Commission had been pre-determined by the SPL.)
Outcome: Not proven

(2) Disciplinary Rule 71 (Not acting in the best interests of football by calling into question the integrity of the Commission, chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith and appointed by the Scottish Premier League Limited (SPL�) to examine alleged breaches of the SPL's Rules regarding the use by Rangers PLC and Rangers FC of Employee Benefit Trusts to pay players, by suggesting in a media interview that the outcome and sanction of said Commission had been pre-determined by the SPL.)
Outcome: Not proven

Rule 66: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.

Rule 71: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football. Furthermore, such person or body shall not act in any manner which is improper or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.

05 Oct 2012 11:54:53
Alexander


Argyriou Perry Cribari Wallace


Hutton Black McLeod


Shiels McCulloch Aird


What do you guys think of this starting 11 for Saturday? This would be my pick if I was in charge.

05 Oct 2012 02:21:48
Just wondering if Green will now come out and say Inverness were one of the good guys or will he say they were amongst the anti-Rangers teams?

I'm going for good guys and there are roughly 50,000 reasons to justify it.

05 Oct 2012 11:55:59
This good guy/bad guy stuff needs to end, it does not help us in anyway. I believe the chairmen of other SPL clubs at the time were 'damned if they do, damned if they don't', most were put in an untenable situation. The sooner we ALL start working together and stop the bickering and in-fighting the better. After all it's in OUR long term interest for things to stablise.

Well said, I for one am sick of this boycott talk. You are a breath of fresh air