Having read the statement my summary is. 1. They go to great lengths to prove their independence and unbiased. 2. To impose financial punishment on RFC(IL) the commission would be in breach of Insolvency Act 1986. 3. Paragraph 45 RFC ceased to be a club on 14th June 2012. 4. The commission cannot punish SEVCO. 5. The commission does have the right to remove trophies if dual contracts or payments to players not as part of a contract, but outwith payments declared to SPL/SFA are found, thus rendering players of rfc inelligible to play for the club. 6. D&P should have submitted documents requested and should have attended the commission, which will now proceed without them or their assistance. Overall, the commission has the authority to go forward with its investigation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9559456/Lord-Nimmo-Smith-defends-impartiality-of-panel-looking-into-Rangers-alleged-use-of-EBTs.html http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=s2&newsid=11719
Just as well Charles green decided to have nothing to do with the commission. As Lord Nimmo Smith makes it quite clear that he is not happy about having his impartiality called into question. It also appears he told the bears a big fat lie It is also necessary to quote certain of the Rules. Rule I1 provides definitions of various terms in the Rules. Of these, we refer to the following: Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club. The definition of "Club" in Rule I1, also quoted above, includes the owner and operator of a Club. Just to drum home the point Paragraphs 2 and 6 of the list of preliminary issues advance essentially the same argument, which is that on 14 June 2012, when the business and assets of Oldco were purchased and transferred to Newco, Rangers FC ceased to be a Club as defined in the Rules, . While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. No mention of history there. . Secondly, by initiating these proceedings under the Rules, the SPL is not acting as a creditor of Oldco and the proceedings are not at any stage capable of depriving the joint administrators of the possession of property which may be required by them for the purpose of the administration of Oldco. lol, So stripping of titles will have no bearing on newco as they don't have them.
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/leaguedivision3/4551484/We-see-secret-document-that-says-Hampden-beaks-wanted-Gers-stripped-of-9-trophies.html Exclusive By ROGER HANNAH Published: 11 hrs ago 35 SUNSPORT has seen documentary evidence that Hampden bosses asked Rangers to accept the loss of FIVE league titles and FOUR Scottish Cups. The draft papers were given to Gers chief executive Charles Green at a top-secret summit this summer. Top brass wanted Green to accept “EBT sanctions” in return for newco Gers getting the chance to be parachuted into Division One. The package of punishments — instantly REJECTED by Green — would have stripped Gers of NINE major trophies won between 2001 and 2011. They were NOT asked to give up any of their League Cup wins. Details of the offer, made during discussions involving Green, the SPL, SFA, SFL and administrators Duff and Phelps, emerged last night. Had Green accepted the EBT sanctions, he’d have agreed to “(i) the withdrawal from Rangers FC, RFC and Sevco of the award and status of Champion Club (as defined in SPL Rules) of the Scottish Premier League for each and all of Seasons 2002/03, 2004/05, 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11; (ii) the withdrawal from Rangers FC, RFC and Sevco of the award and status of winner of the Scottish Cup for each and all of Seasons 2001/02, 2002/03, 2007/08 and 2008/09”. Among a list of “Agreements and Undertakings” which Green was asked to accept were: “(i) accept and agree to be bound by each and all of the EBT Sanctions; (ii) the SFA and the SPL agree that no further sanctions will be imposed with respect to or concerning the EBT Payments and Arrangements; and (iii) RFC and Sevco shall not directly or indirectly make any claim and/or representation to have won any of the Championships and/or Cups which are the subject of any and all of the EBT Sanctions”. It’s understood Green rejected the offer of EBT sanctions as Gers have still to be found guilty of any misuse of the Trusts. An independent commission appointed by the SPL will begin a hearing on November 13 regarding the alleged undisclosed payments. HMRC is expected to announce the findings of its first-tier tribunal hearing on the EBTs within weeks. Gers have already refused to co-operate with the former hearing. And Green is facing an SFA charge of bringing the game into disrepute after claiming the process was “fundamentally misconceived”. The leaked papers appear to add weight to Green’s assertion that a range of penalties have been considered before any guilt is proved. SunSport has also seen an exchange of correspondence between HMRC and the SPL dating back to October and November 2010. Yet there was no official Hampden probe into Gers’ use of Trusts until earlier this year. But with Green having already threatened to take his case to law, the emergence of the secret documents shows stripping of titles has been on the Hampden agenda since the close-season. Earlier this month, Green said: “The club cannot continue to participate in an SPL process we believe is fundamentally misconceived.” Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ers-stripped-of-9-trophies.html#ixzz27C6ymrPB Was that not reported at the time? I remember reading that they wanted rangers to accept the stripping of titles if they were found guilty because of the fiasco with the transfer ban and going to court. How is this all of a sudden a secret document and new news?
Please, anyone posting a story from the sun, just C&P it. I don't want to click their links and support them in any way shape or form.
SO what. We knew about this months ago. The Tribunal lead by Lord Nimmo Smith has been put in place precisely because Green did not agree to the sanctions, as he did not believe the old club was guilty. The existence of the panel led by such prominent and highly respected legal minds means that the outcome is beyond question in terms of fairness and bias. Whether Sevco want to continue the fight by appealing, then this would go to the SFA surely. If on the other hand Green decides to take this to the court of the land, he has to remember that Uefa would consider this a breach of their regulations, as with Sion, and consequently would probably ask the SFA to consider a punishment which could well be expulsion. Certainly, Sevco's temporary membership of the SFL may well be withdrawn if pressure is brought to bear by Uefa. As to the League Cups not being withdrawn I interpret this as the SFL not wanting to upset servco fans, so that their member clubs can achieve the optimum financial benefit from sevco membership over the next 3 years. Do not be surprised if the LC are retrospectively removed once sevco are in the SPL, if they manage that.
The leaked papers appear to add weight to Green’s assertion that a range of penalties have been considered before any guilt is proved. It does no such thing.
Discussing penalties and bargaining re the severity and leniency of the punishment could only be done with Rangers/Sevco. When will body connected with governing Scottish Football not realise that Rangers/Sevco are the runt of the litter and should be cast into the blue corner and left their until they have fully accepted their guilt and sought forgiveness.
The leaked papers appear to add weight to Green’s assertion that a range of penalties have been considered before any guilt is proved. and what? The talk of stripping titles has been public knowledge for at least a year if not longer.
This is the response from Chico Verde............I quite like him. He literally doesn't give a ****. He just ignores the lies he tells one week and tells some more the next. I am sure Timmo Smith won't mind being completely and utterly misrepresented either. CHARLES GREEN, Rangers' Chief Executive, issued the following statement today: He said: "Lord Nimmo Smith, chairman of the Commission set up by the SPL, has highlighted an extremely important issue in his recent judgement regarding the Commission. "Lord Nimmo Smith has said that Rangers FC is a recognisable entity which continued in existence notwithstanding the change in ownership. "He also stated that Rangers FC, the club, includes its owner and operator. The Commission has in effect ruled that Rangers and its history did not die on 14 June despite numerous reports to the contrary. "This means that Rangers FC and its owner, i.e. me and my consortium, remained a member of the SPL even after the change of ownership. "The bemusing part is that no-one at the SPL or SFA appeared to realise that. The SPL made the club (including its owner and operator) reapply to be a member of a league that the Commission says it was in already. "If the Commission is right then the change of ownership was frankly irrelevant to SPL status. Nevertheless we duly applied and that application was rejected. "We were also informed by the SFA that Rangers FC had never in its long existence been a member. That really left us scratching our heads because pride of place in the Boardroom at Ibrox is a framed and mounted certificate of membership signed by Jim Farry confirming that "Rangers FC is a full member of the Scottish Football Association". "So taking the Commission's reasoning and our newly acquired framed membership certificate you would have thought, not unreasonably, that Rangers FC and its owners were in the Scottish Football family. "You would have thought wrong. No we were told. We needed to apply for oldco's membership! The SFA didn't officially recognise Lord Nimmo Smith's recognisable entity. "That recognisable entity, Rangers FC, then re-appeared suddenly when the SFA demanded that we pay oldco's debts despite there being no legal obligation to do so. "The SPL then wanted Rangers FC and its new owners to admit guilt in relation to EBT breaches that had never been framed and accept five stripped titles. "Rangers FC suddenly vanished again when UEFA informed the SFA that Rangers FC were due in excess of 300,000 euros for player participation in the Euro 2012 qualifiers, the SFA have refused to confirm that the monies are due to Rangers FC despite obligations placed on them from UEFA that these monies should be distributed to member clubs. "If the Commission is correct about this recognisable entity then the SPL and SFA must be wrong in making that entity apply to join bodies it was already in. "Maybe they should both appoint Lord Nimmo Smith to form a Commission to investigate and tell them who their member is. "In our view the Commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith has been placed in an invidious position by the SPL. "The establishment of the Commission is the most striking example of the chaotic way the fate of Rangers has been handled by the football authorities. "As we stated previously, it is impossible for us as a club to participate in a process we firmly believe is fundamentally misconceived. "We believe that most people would not think it right that a football authority that was willing to horse-trade league titles and cups for league status, should then embark on the course of action it has chosen in setting up a Commission. There is no clearer case of moving the goalposts."
"The SFA didn't officially recognise Lord Nimmo Smith's recognisable entity" I have no idea what Nimmo-Smith based his opinion on but I'm guessing he knows the law slightly better than the Yorkshire Pudding. Perhaps Scots Law does not apply where SFA laws are concerned and that is the reason Rangers are to be considered a new club under SFA rules and a recognisable entity under Scots Law.
Ahm just a simple Yorkshire lad, yer silly London laws don't mean owt to me. [video=youtube;TOWJECdobqk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOWJECdobqk[/video]
A recognisable entity. So if Charles is correct and RFC are due the Uefa monies etc, they are also still liable for the debts. Cant have it both ways.
