Rangers FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2012/2013

Dempsey

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/15992698.stm

Shows how much of a farce the fit and proper persons test if anything. Do the SFA not do their own background check to ensure that the information provided by the party buying a club is accurate or did they turn a blind eye at the time?

TheBuilder

Dempsey wrote: »

Shows how much of a farce the fit and proper persons test if anything. Do the SFA not do their own background check to ensure that the information provided by the party buying a club is accurate or did they turn a blind eye at the time?

Turned a blind eye to get one over on Celtic mate.

Dempsey

TheBuilder wrote: »

Turned a blind eye to get one over on Celtic mate.

No, their motivation is obviously to ensure that the SPL is a strong a product as it can possibly be. They bend over as it is for TV companies.

TheBuilder

Dempsey wrote: »

No, their motivation is obviously to ensure that the SPL is a strong a product as it can possibly be. They bend over as it is for TV companies.

It'll take more than Craig Whyte to convince people the SPL is a strong product.

Being raped by Sky over that new deal actually, Sky demanding 4 OF games means no league restructure.

Dempsey

TheBuilder wrote: »

It'll take more than Craig Whyte to convince people the SPL is a strong product.

Being raped by Sky over that new deal actually, Sky demanding 4 OF games means no league restructure.

Rangers not getting a buyer with a tax case hanging over them could have be hugely detrimental to the 'product' they are trying to sell.

Like, how the fiddlers did Romonov pass it?

Suspend reality for a second and imagine the SPL becoming an investors wet dream, not on the scale of the EPL but a chance to make a few million. The current test would probably only stop short of allowing convicted gangsters! The fit & proper test should be there to protect clubs, all clubs, and I dont think he it comes anywhere near an acceptable level.

The SFA/SPL should do what is best for the development of the game itself and worry about what sort of tv deal they can get 2nd. SPL clubs are too reliant on playing the Old Firm 4 times a season to break even. We are in a scenario that is detrimental to the game long term. Nobody in charge is brave enough to take the 2 steps back to take 4 steps forward.

TheBuilder

Dempsey wrote: »

Rangers not getting a buyer with a tax case hanging over them could have be hugely detrimental to the 'product' they are trying to sell.

Like, how the fiddlers did Romonov pass it?

Suspend reality for a second and imagine the SPL becoming an investors wet dream, not on the scale of the EPL but a chance to make a few million. The current test would probably only stop short of allowing convicted gangsters! The fit & proper test should be there to protect clubs, all clubs, and I dont think he comes anywhere near an acceptable level.

The SFA/SPL should do what is best for the development of the game itself and worry about what sort of tv deal they can get 2nd. SPL clubs are too reliant on playing the Old Firm 4 times a season to break even. We are in a scenario that is detrimental to the game long term. Nobody in charge is brave enough to take the 2 steps back to take 4 steps forward.

Not arguing any of that mate, totally agree, the whole set up needs stripped back and re-developed in my opinion.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Rangers not getting a buyer with a tax case hanging over them could have be hugely detrimental to the 'product' they are trying to sell.

Like, how the fiddlers did Romonov pass it?

Suspend reality for a second and imagine the SPL becoming an investors wet dream, not on the scale of the EPL but a chance to make a few million. The current test would probably only stop short of allowing convicted gangsters! The fit & proper test should be there to protect clubs, all clubs, and I dont think he comes anywhere near an acceptable level.

The SFA/SPL should do what is best for the development of the game itself and worry about what sort of tv deal they can get 2nd. SPL clubs are too reliant on playing the Old Firm 4 times a season to break even. We are in a scenario that is detrimental to the game long term. Nobody in charge is brave enough to take the 2 steps back to take 4 steps forward.

But no one is listening to sensible ideas within the hallways of the SPL/SFA so thats you talking sense means ziltch to them they don't care about the fans

KeithAFC

I am sick of hearing about the whole tax thing and Craig Whyte etc. I keep waiting for something to happen but nothing so far. Still might but sick of saying could and should etc.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Rangers face Euro ban unless accounts are signed off by independent auditor
Dec 2 2011 Keith Jackson



TOP BRASS at UEFA last night warned Rangers face expulsion from European football next season unless the club's financial house is put in order.
Record Sport can reveal that as things stand, the SPL leaders would be denied an £18million ticket into the Champions League even if Ally McCoist led his side to a fourth consecutive league title - but Rangers sources insist they still have four months to ensure their accounts are signed off and submitted to the SFA ahead of the March 31 deadline.
The Ibrox club have breached UEFA president Michel Platini's tough new Financial Fair Play Regulations by publishing their latest set of account WITHOUT having them signed off by an independent auditor.
On Wednesday night, the club announced their annual financial figures for the year ending on June 30 to the PLUS Market but, for the first time in the club's history, the figures were not approved by appointed accountants.
Edinburgh firm Grant Thornton have refused to discuss why they have not signed them off but UEFA have made it clear Rangers will be denied entry into the Champions League or the Europa League unless their accounts are rubber-stamped before the end of the current campaign.
It's understood Rangers have until December 31 to publish a fresh set of figures and then lodge them with Companies House in Edinburgh.
But if those results are not given a clean bill of health by the auditors, the club's chances of being granted a licence in time for next season will be damaged further.
Although the situation would then become ever more serious, the stricken club believes the vital date for Euro approval will not arrive until next March.
A UEFA statement read: "Glasgow Rangers FC, as with any club participating in UEFA competitions, will have to go through a licensing process which the national association in question manages.
"Subsequently, the national association (not UEFA), the SFA in this case, will assess whether or not the club has fulfilled the mandatory licensing criteria.
"This will take place in March/April. If the answer is yes, the club can take part in UEFA competitions next season and if not, they won't receive a licence."
The SFA, who last night announced their own probe into Rangers owner Craig Whyte, are already aware of the breach in Platini's policy. They are now bracing themselves for the potential fall-out should they be forced to freeze a member club out of European football.
The Hampden beaks refused to comment on the situation last night but, as things stand, they would have to turn Rangers down flat.
UEFA's Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations article 47 spells out the need for all financial results to be signed off by auditors. It says: "Annual financial statements must be audited by independent auditors."
And last night an SFA insider informed Record Sport that Rangers will have to "work extremely hard" between now and the spring if they are to pass UEFA's criteria.
The source said: "When Rangers submitted their application for this season they were up front about a number of financial issues they were dealing with.
"They were in dispute with the tax man but this was declared and, as it was a legitimate dispute, it was allowed and they still satisfied the criteria.
"But if they do not satisfy the criteria this time then they won't get a licence for Europe.
"There is a lot of work to do before they can qualify. Right now Rangers and the SFA are in a difficult position. The club has an obligation to provide a signed set of accounts and if they are unable to do so then their application cannot be approved.
"It really is becoming quite a serious mess."

Tiocfaidh Armani

KeithAFC wrote: »

I am sick of hearing about the whole tax thing and Craig Whyte etc. I keep waiting for something to happen but nothing so far. Still might but sick of saying could and should etc.

But it is, hearing January 16th. These things don't happen overnight. In the **** for not declaring Mr Whyte was barred from being a director for seven years and now releasing unaudited accounts, which an accounting firm has refused to sign off. Oh dear!

KeithAFC

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

But it is, hearing January 16th. These things don't happen overnight. In the **** for not declaring Mr Whyte was barred from being a director for seven years and now releasing unaudited accounts, which an accounting firm has refused to sign off. Oh dear!

We will see if anything happens but I doubt it.

Tiocfaidh Armani

KeithAFC wrote: »

We will see if anything happens but I doubt it.

You base your assumption on hope rather than anything solid. The BBC summed up that chancer just right.

lubo_moravcik

taken from an ff'er

The club are right, they have until the 31st of March 2012 to produce audited accounts to the SFA for domestic and european club licensing.

However, the audited accounts need to be produced for Companies House by 31st December 2011 and before the announcement of an AGM (and the AGM cannot held until 21 clear days after the announcement unless 95% of the shareholders agree). The AGM must also be held by 31st December 2011. Failure to produce audited accounts to Companies House will a) suspend the shares on plus incur a fine C) open the directors to ligitation

I'm actually surprised more hasn't been made that for the first time in our history as PLC we've produced unaudited financial information, (put it this way I wouldn't be investing in a company which failed to produce audited accounts 5 months after close of play instead choosing to submit an unaudited statement two minutes before an automatic share suspension). There is absolutely no good reason why the accounts should still not be audited at this time. None.

For the first part in bold, does that mean audited accounts have to be submitted in the next week? I don't know, maybe am reading it wrong.
2nd part, Does anyone know of any reason why they haven't been audited?

KeithAFC

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

You base your assumption on hope rather than anything solid. The BBC summed up that chancer just right.

Just a gut feeling. Hopefully the Establishment help us out.

lubo_moravcik

KeithAFC wrote: »

Just a gut feeling. Hopefully the Establishment help us out.

They're no really doing much to help you just now by keeping so quiet about it. The longer it goes on, with heads being buried in the sand, the worse it will be in the long run.

Do you genuinely think this is all OK and nothing will come of it?

lubo_moravcik

HAIL HAIL THE CELTS ARE HERE for post 1967

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQrB9PSvv4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFVU8Si9tPU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNeOJaY0eLs

Jelle1880

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

You base your assumption on hope rather than anything solid. The BBC summed up that chancer just right.

You were saying something about me and my credibility ?

If you know what you're talking about you'd also know the BBC didn't claim he was simply banned from being a director, but that he handled as a director in that period.
Whyte never denied from being banned as a director, it's the BBC's accusation that he's willing to fight in court.

So they didn't 'sum up that chancer just right'.

As for that piece about being banned from Europe, sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

edit: Crap, I was hoping to start a new page to get rid of lubo's post

Tiocfaidh Armani

Whyte never denied it? He never said he was either. You know because they failed to tell the Stock Exchange as you normally do. Chancer;)

Dempsey

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Whyte never denied it? He never said he was either. You know because they failed to tell the Stock Exchange as you normally do. Chancer;)

Failed to inform the SFA for the fit and proper persons test too

KeithAFC

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

HAIL HAIL THE CELTS ARE HERE for post 1967

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQrB9PSvv4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFVU8Si9tPU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNeOJaY0eLs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9aa8nCT-r8

3 in a row.

KeithAFC

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

They're no really doing much to help you just now by keeping so quiet about it. The longer it goes on, with heads being buried in the sand, the worse it will be in the long run.

Do you genuinely think this is all OK and nothing will come of it?

Lets hope you are wrong and they give us a helping hand. The SPL won't allow it and with the odd talk from the Establishment, everything should be fine.

lubo_moravcik

Dempsey wrote: »

Failed to inform the SFA for the fit and proper persons test too

Aye, but it's Celtics', and Lawwells, and Regans' and the odious creeps, and the Sunday Liams fault.

lubo_moravcik

KeithAFC wrote: »

Lets hope you are wrong and they give us a helping hand. The SPL won't allow it and with the odd talk from the Establishment, everything should be fine.

What helping hand should you be given? What are the reasons for yous being given a helping hand, in your opinion??

KeithAFC

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

What helping hand should you be given? What are the reasons for yous being given a helping hand, in your opinion??

Scotlands best club, the key to keeping the SPL alive as a league. The SPL won't allow it.

Dempsey

KeithAFC wrote: »

Scotlands best club, the key to keeping the SPL alive as a league. The SPL won't allow it.

One set of rules for Rangers, different rules for the rest of the league?

Jelle1880

Dempsey wrote: »

One set of rules for Rangers, different rules for the rest of the league?

Isn't that what certain Celtic-minded people have been claiming for years now anyway ?

edit:

A response to the SFA investigation.

A source close to Mr Whyte said: “No regulations have been broken. This relates to a matter that dates back to 1996, well beyond the five-year fit-and-proper person rule the SFA has over club ownership.

“Mr Whyte took full legal advice on the issues and regulations while putting the deal in place, and complied with all the SFA regulations.”

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/whyte-faces-sfa-probe-1.1137843

lubo_moravcik

KeithAFC wrote: »

Scotlands best club, the key to keeping the SPL alive as a league. The SPL won't allow it.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Isn't that what certain Celtic-minded people have been claiming for years now anyway ?

So you's admit it then, you're bang in trouble?? :eek:

KeithAFC

Dempsey wrote: »

One set of rules for Rangers, different rules for the rest of the league?

If we actually believed this establishment nonsense, yes. But for the survival of the Scottish Premier League, it won't happen IMO. Just my opinion.

lubo_moravcik

KeithAFC wrote: »

If we actually believed this establishment nonsense, yes. But for the survival of the Scottish Premier League, it won't happen IMO. Just my opinion.

So if it won't happen, does that mean that you shouldn't be punished then? That this is ok, that Celtic can go ahead and do exactly the same???

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Keith Jackson story about Celtic = Its all lies he is a H*n, Its the Daily Ranger

Keith Jackson story about Rangers = It must be true He wouldn't lie


Ernst & Young's Neil Patey says there is nothing surprising in Rangers' accounts but that the outcome of the club's ongoing tax case with HMRC may be what is holding up the process of having them signed off. (Scotsman)


And maybe this will help clear up the unaudited accounts


"The financial information presented above has been extracted from the draft
unaudited report and accounts of the Company for the year to 30 June 2011. The
Company's auditors have not yet finalised their audit report.
The Directors of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. accept responsibility for
this announcement."

Dempsey

KeithAFC wrote: »

If we actually believed this establishment nonsense, yes. But for the survival of the Scottish Premier League, it won't happen IMO. Just my opinion.

Celtic werent far from going to the wall, Gretna went to the wall. Neither got special or exclusive treatment from the SFA/SPL. Special dispensation should not exist for any club no matter what the consequences for current state of the SPL 'product', alot of good would come of it being reduced to rubble imo

KeithAFC

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

So if it won't happen, does that mean that you shouldn't be punished then? That this is ok, that Celtic can go ahead and do exactly the same???

I don't know. We will have to wait and see. Like I have said, in order for the SPL to survive as a league or a "brand" (:pac:) it is important the league has two teams fighting it out for the title at least. Otherwise the recent SPL deal will be completely pointless.

Jelle1880

Dempsey wrote: »

Celtic werent far from going to the wall, Gretna went to the wall. Neither got special or exclusive treatment from the SFA/SPL. Special dispensation should not exist for any club no matter what the consequences for current state of the SPL 'product', alot of good would come of it being reduced to rubble imo

Do you believe that nothing would have happened if Celtic had definitely gone bankrupt ?

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Keith Jackson story about Celtic = Its all lies he is a H*n, Its the Daily Ranger

Keith Jackson story about Rangers = It must be true He wouldn't lie


Ernst & Young's Neil Patey says there is nothing surprising in Rangers' accounts but that the outcome of the club's ongoing tax case with HMRC may be what is holding up the process of having them signed off. (Scotsman)


And maybe this will help clear up the unaudited accounts


"The financial information presented above has been extracted from the draft
unaudited report and accounts of the Company for the year to 30 June 2011. The
Company's auditors have not yet finalised their audit report.
The Directors of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. accept responsibility for
this announcement."

I'd no problem with them being declared unaudited even if it was not common practice. It was just another dig at your current state of affairs and I'll happily continue to poke fun at your problems for as long as they exist or Rangers exists. What went around has come back.

The problem I had was you jumping to the assumption that they must be audit because of x y and z is corrupt!

KeithAFC

Dempsey wrote: »

I'd no problem with them being declared unaudited even if it was not common practice. It was just another dig at your current state of affairs and I'll happily continue to poke fun at your problems for as long as they exist or Rangers exists. What went around has come back.

The problem I had was you jumping to the assumption that they must be audit because of x y and z is corrupt!

You not got bigger things to worry about though? Heading out of the Europa league and behind the Scottish champions in the league.

Dempsey

KeithAFC wrote: »

You not got bigger things to worry about though? Heading out of the Europa league and behind the Scottish champions in the league.

Minor details that will be rectified in due course. I'm not worried as I believe that over the course of the season Celtic will win the league with matches to spare.

Europa League should be treated with the contempt it deserves. Its a competition driven by exploiting fans for extra gate receipts rather than prizemoney/TV money.

KeithAFC

Dempsey wrote: »

Minor details that will be rectified in due course. I'm not worried as I believe that over the course of the season Celtic will win the league with matches to spare.

Europa League should be treated with the contempt it deserves. Its a competition driven by exploiting fans for extra gate receipts rather than prizemoney/TV money.

Its amazing what a few good games can do for belief. But we all know reality will bite.

Dempsey

KeithAFC wrote: »

Its amazing what a few good games can do for belief. But we all know reality will bite.

My belief has been unwavering since the start of the season. who are you going to support when rangers go out of business?

lubo_moravcik

KeithAFC wrote: »

I don't know. We will have to wait and see. Like I have said, in order for the SPL to survive as a league or a "brand" (:pac:) it is important the league has two teams fighting it out for the title at least. Otherwise the recent SPL deal will be completely pointless.

If it was any other team then, what punishment should they receive? Or again, will it be ok for others to do the same in the future??

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

My belief has been unwavering since the start of the season. who are you going to support when rangers go out of business?

LOL if you believe that you really need to give up the drugs


And we will be punished anyone who thinks we won't be is IMO off their nut

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

[/B]

LOL if you believe that you really need to give up the drugs


And we will be punished anyone who thinks we won't be is IMO off their nut

Even when its an obvious a wind up/dig you always bite, dont ya? Ya just cant help yourself

Who will you support?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

[/B]

LOL if you believe that you really need to give up the drugs


And we will be punished anyone who thinks we won't be is IMO off their nut

Even when its an obvious a wind up/dig you always bite, dont ya? Ya just cant help yourself

Who will you support?

See my problem with you is your either at the wind up or being deadly serious and with you it's very hard to tell

I will support the teddy bears as always

lubo_moravcik

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

[/B]

LOL if you believe that you really need to give up the drugs


And we will be punished anyone who thinks we won't be is IMO off their nut

What do you think the punishment should be BBE?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

[/B]

LOL if you believe that you really need to give up the drugs


And we will be punished anyone who thinks we won't be is IMO off their nut

What do you think the punishment should be BBE?

It all depends what the club is found guilty of and if they go into administration
I would expect any punishment to be inline with the rules

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Teams for Rangers v Dunfermline


RANGERS: McGregor; Whittaker, Goian, Bartley, Boradfoot; Aluko, Davis, Edu, Wylde; Bendiksen; Jelavic.

SUBS: Alexander, McCulloch, Lafferty, Ortiz, Bedoya, Perry, Hemmings.

DUNFERMLINE: Gallagher, Dowie, Potter, Keddie, Boyle, Mason, Hardie, Willis, Cardle, Graham, Barrowman.

SUBS: Smith, Kirk, Buchanan, Clarke, Thomson, Byrne, Campbell.

REFEREE: Steve Conroy.


Pleased to see Bendiksen get a start

Coillte_Bhoy

Jelle1880 wrote: »

As for that piece about being banned from Europe, sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

edit: Crap, I was hoping to start a new page to get rid of lubo's post

How is it wishful thinking?? there is a direct statement form UEFA quoted in that piece. Dear god, do you ignore everything in the hope it will all go away?

TheBuilder

Decent performance, everything there but more goals. Credit to Dunfermline, they defended well, excellently at times.

Aluko's penalty was extremely soft, but after not getting one last week the "these things even themselves up", idea obviously is partly true.

KeithAFC

Back to winning ways. Always good to get a win after a defeat.

Coillte_Bhoy

What were ye like today?? Only caught glimpses of it.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

What were ye like today?? Only caught glimpses of it.

Was it to difficult to read two posts back