"in its written responses Rangers FC in substantial measure admitted the factual averments and a number of the alleged breaches of the rules, under explanation and mitigation"
Yes. the same parts I highlighted? Your point? Oh I see, you don't actually understand what it says. Here i'll help you. in its written responses Rangers FC in substantial measure admitted the factual averments and a number of the alleged breaches of the rules. That means they admitted their guilt and attempted to argue for a dilution of the punishment because it was all Craig Whyte's fault.
"admitted . . . . a number of the alleged breaches of the rules, under explanation and mitigation" I read that as they didn't admit to all of the alleged breaches but admitted to some of them, giving reasons for those breaches.
And how many breaches were they cleared of? ONE. The reasons for the breaches - according to Rangers' Lawyers - was that it was all Craig Whyte's fault. When it was pointed out that "By Law" that Craig Whyte was in effect the "Controlling Mind" (sic) of Rangers, they stopped arguing the toss and accepted Rangers' guilt. Maybe you should read the full report like I did.
Failing to disclose to the Scottish FA the fact that Craig Whyte, Director of Rangers FC, was disqualified to act as a director on 13th June 2000 for a period of seven years. Craig Whyte, Director - failed to disclose to the Scottish FA his said disqualification Suffering an insolvency event on 14th February 2012 Failing to disclose to PLUS Stock Exchange the said disqualification of Craig Whyte; by failing to lodge Annual Accounts by 31st December 2011 Failing to hold an Annual General Meeting by 1st January 2012 Non-payment to Her Majestyâs Revenue and Customs of Pay As You Earn tax payments and National Insurance Contributions for employees of Rangers FC and Value Added Tax Failing to pay to Dunfermline AFC by 21st February 2012, monies due to them for the Scottish Premier League match played on 11th February 2012 Failing to pay to Dundee United FC, on the day of the above match, monies due under the Scottish FAâs Cup Competition Rules being Dundee United FCâs share of receipts for the above match Failing to pay to the Scottish FA, within three days of the above match, monies due; being the Scottish FAâs levy on admission charges for the above match. Pretty serious Admin Errors eh?
DUNFERMLINE chief John Yorkston says the SFA have no choice but to boot Rangers out of the game because a Scottish Cup ban is too soft. The Pars chairman saw his club kicked out of the cup in 2010 for clerical mistakes that saw them field the suspended Calum Woods as a sub in a 7-1 win over Stenhousemuir. They are far from the only ones with Spartans, Brechin City and East Stirling all having been expelled from the competition for fielding ineligible players through honest mistakes. So Yorkston insists it would beludicrous to deal Rangers the same punishment for dodging taxes and putting the nation’s football future in jeopardy by pursuing the SFA through civil courts. While he doesn’t want to see Rangers die, Yorkston believes that in a stark choice between terminating the club’s SFA membership or letting them off with a cup ban, there really is no alternative for the game’s bosses. Because the lesser punishment simply does not fit the crime. Yorkston said: “Most of us feel that because they are who they are, Rangers would get away with the lesser sentence but a cup suspension is not enough. This is more than a small administrative error that saw us and other clubs expelled from the Scottish Cup. “None of us want to see Rangers go out of business but given the choice between the options available to the SFA, there is only one decision. “I always thought relegation was the appropriate measure but I don’t know if they can find a middle ground any more because they tried that already with the transfer embargo. “That’s what makes Rangers’ decision to go to the courts so foolish. They were badly advised because everyone knows you don’t go to court. People will blame the administrators for that but there are still folk at Rangers who should have known you just don’t do that. You don’t go to court unless you know all the facts and not enough research was done to check what the consequences would be.”
You should know by now Tarq that i'm like a dog with a bone when I feel like it. I like to really hammer home the point i'm making, it's one of my many many flaws.
What happened with that. They told us the decision was to be made yesterday. They must telling rangers to just accept the punishment or they will have to follow the rule book and suspend the club for possibly a year.
sorry I didn't read the full report but I have a life outside internet forums and only pop in here for a few minutes at a time. probably if my obsession in life was hating glasgow rangers then I would live in here and digest every single fact I could find about them. (I support them and I don't even bother reading every article about them) but as long as you're happy with your hatred that's the main thing.
So in esence you are saying that you want to offer an opinion without knowing all the relevant facts? Sounds about right. As for me hating Rangers, if you believe that then you are stupider than I thought.
Ho Ho Ho, Nae chance of getting Gattuso. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...t-able-exploit-transfer-loophole-Rangers.html
Close, I had some sort of allergic reaction to the shower gel I was using. They were on ****ing fire from Sunday right through to last night and now they look like Fergie's nose.
