The little backhander as you put it is perfectly legal and I am pretty sure other clubs run/have run EBT schemes (including Celtic).

I am going to go out on a limb here and say administrative errors would be picked up in most clubs dealings if they were subject to the scrutiny that Rangers have been over the last year ... mistakes are made we are after all human and Oldco have paid the price for that today.

As to what it achieved, and how much damage it has done in the grand scheme of things (along with the Big Tax Case) well I think we are only just getting to the beginning of all this charade ...

I'd love to gave Phat Sally, one of those !

Dunfermline and Hearts were up sh*t creek before you lot went bust. So no.

That's completely incorrect and I assume is just a misreading on your part. What was said is that the payments didn't break any rules, but that the failure to disclose did break rules (hence the fine). I think that's already been proven above.


If it isn't a fair hearing then why are you backing its conclusions? The fact that Rangers were found guilty of an offence clearly justifies the investigation in the first place. On the other hand it's obvious that it was a fair hearing (at least not an "anti-Rangers" hearing) because it didn't end up with titles being stripped, as had been feared at one stage. Far from being a cock up, the investigation has actually drawn a line under the whole issue in a fair and objective way. If the investigation had never happened we'd probably be having this discussion about stripped titles for the next 20 years.

See I dunno, I haven't followed the Rangers stuff much but part of my job is to prepare paperwork for buying and selling both businesses and companies.

They are most certainly two separate entities. If someone buys a company, they buy the whole thing, debts and all. But if they decide to simply buy the business and assets and leave the debts behind, the purchaser would usually set up a new company and a business transfer agreement is drawn up to transfer the business and assets, goodwill etc to the new company. Indeed the very point and benefit of the business/asset purchase as opposed to the company purchase is that you can "cherry pick" the parts of the business you want and leave behind the parts you dont want (ie the debts). The old company is then wound up it liquidated if necessary/appropriate. It's actually very common.

I dont really understand how the Rangers situation differs from that but admittedly I dont know much about it and deal in private limited companies mainly.

Because the club isn't an asset.

The club (being the company) owns the assets. Those assets were then bought by the new club (new company).

The Rangers will have Blackthorn Cider on their kit next season after an extension to the C&C deal was agreed.

Those world leading brands must've pulled out then.

Only a one year deal as well.

Or maybe they just didn't exist?

Chuckles will need to be careful what moonbeams he puts out there now that they are a TRIFC are a plc.

I never said the club was an asset - the club is surely the business? The company is the vehicle holding the business, owning the assets etc. and this is all transferred to a new vehicle. As I said, this is really common.

You're wasting your time trying to explain that Kung Fu to people with an agenda against a football team. Their hatred for Rangers outstrips love for their own team.

No, club and company are synonymous in football.

The club is the company; the business is competing in football competitions.

I thought Adidas were desperate and needed Sevco as the likes of Bayern Munich just wasnt enough for Adidas lol

They are still separate entities. Whilst people may refer to the company as the club this is not the case legally.

Sevco this Sevconians that. Loving the hatred

Could you provide evidence to support that.

Because as far as I can tell, the registered company was (and indeed still is) "Rangers Football Club Plc.". The new company is "The Rangers Football Club Ltd.".

The name of the company contains the word club in it. That is all that is in the above.

Which means that the club is the company, in the same way that Royal Bank of Scotland is a bank and Virgin Trains is a train operator.

Do you have evidence to support your claim that the club and company are separate legal entities?

Company law means the club and company are different. (i.e the club is an asset of the company.)

Football law means the club and company can be treated as the same - if the 'holding company' goes down the tube, the sanctions still apply to the club. (See Southampton for details)

Again, is there a reference to support that?

The brand may be an asset, but not the club as a whole which is the company.

Read this blog

http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/

Might help a bit.

Dunfermline players only paid 20% of their wages and have been given no assurances when they'll get the rest - neither Yorkston or his successor could meet the players to tell them.

Some of the younger players were paid just £52 for this month.

Neil Lennon understands Rangers were found guilty in making non-disclosed payments of £47m to players and will keep his views on whether there was any competitive advantage to himself as he has a quarter final and Champions League match to prepare for.

That's the jist of his answers on it during the press conference.

Neil Lennon speaking to the media on the outcome of the SPL commission yesterday: "I have only seen some snippets in the paper..." (MH)
NL: "...and I believe they were found guilty of paying £47 million over 11 years in non-disclosed payments." (MH)
NL on being asked if he felt there was no competitive advantage: "I have my own views on that, but I will save that for another time." (MH)
NL: "As regards the competitive advantage they gained or didn't gain, have my own views on it, will keep those to myself for now." (MH)
NL: "Wasn't our fight, it was the SPL. Doesn't affect us. Have a quarter-final to prepare for & playing Juventus in last 16 of CL." (MH)
NL: "The way we behave & do our business has been impeccable - the reason we are in the position that we are now." (MH)
NL: "So like I said, will reserve judgement on it for another time." (MH)

This causes Chris McLaughlin to deem Neil Lennon unhappy with the guilty verdict.

Preach lenny, preach.

“We are playing Juventus in the last 16 of the Champions League. We're not renting out a training ground to them.” - The tie is over
"So like I said, will reserve judgement on it for another time." - No, please why not now?

WHO CARES what he thinks
it's not his problem