“You Can’t Take Our Titles – We Bought Them Fair and Square!” – Says Rangers Mr Green!

Charles Green’s statement earlier in the week where he declared less than full confidence in the integrity of the SPL Independent Commission process continues to reverberate round the halls of Scottish football.

I have a post analysing it all, but Mr Green was kind enough to produce so much material that the post is turning into War and Peace! I therefore wanted to focus on one issue covered in his statement – the question of the SPL titles.

As regular readers will know, I am firmly of the belief that it suits Mr Green for all of the clamour regarding possible sanctions for alleged rule breaches to be in connection with title stripping.

Even though the SPL Independent Commission has eighteen possible sanctions to impose, individually or in combination, in the event of guilt, the entire focus seems to be on the title question.

As I have said before, such a penalty would not cost Mr Green and his allies a penny, and would in fact unite the Rangers fans more firmly behind him. I do not mean to suggest that Mr Green’s ire regarding the perceived treat is spurious. However I believe that he is, in goalkeeping parlance, showing the penalty taker one side of the goal in the hope that is where the shot goes.

A financial penalty, or a determination that the Rangers FC be suspended from Scottish football, for example, would be far more damaging for his investors. If people keep talking about the stripping of titles in the way they are, it will establish it as the “Verdun” of the football authorities v Rangers dispute. Mr Green has taken on the Marshal Petain role, and is proclaiming “Ils ne passeront pas!” Perhaps that could be taken as a loose French version of “No surrender” or “We don’t do walking away”?

What did Mr Green say about the titles in his statement?

“Despite this, the SPL now see the new owners of the company, and the new company itself, which owns all the assets of Rangers FC – including SPL championship titles – as fair game for punishment for matters that have nothing to do with us at all.

“To make it crystal clear, the new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies.

“Any attempt to undermine or diminish the value of those assets will be met with the stiffest resistance, including legal recourse.”

I think we can break this down into its constituent parts.


1                    Mr Green states that the SPL championship titles are now “fair game” as a punishment.

2                    This would be an attack on the NEW COMPANY which owns all the assets of Rangers FC.

3                    The new owners PURCHASED the titles and trophies.

4                    Mr Green will go to the courts if the value of those assets, being the whole business and assets of Rangers FC, inclosing trophies and titles, is undermined or diminished.

Let’s get this clear – Mr Green is telling us that his company bought the titles and trophies. He did not say that they had “bought Rangers” but that they bought “all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies.”

If you buy an asset, does that mean it is yours no matter what happens? Of course not! There are many ways in which assets owned by people are removed from them as a result of legal processes. Sometimes this might be because the asset is derived from proceeds of crime. It could be that the property remains burdened, for example by outstanding car finance on a vehicle which the seller unaccountably failed to mention, and which you did not check up when you bought it.

Property might be confiscated, such as a car used in a second or subsequent drink driving case. Or a court may order that property be handed over to meet a legal obligation, such as from one spouse to another in divorce, of from a debtor to a Trustee in sequestration.

The precise mechanism of removing titles and whether the Commission can do so is for another day.

As regards the titles themselves, just because Sevco (which I use to refer to Mr Green’s company) bought all of the assets, that cannot give them a greater right to them than the seller.

If Rangers FC (oldco), who actually won the titles, had not sold them, then they could have been stripped of them. No one could have had a reasonable doubt about the rights of the SPL to do so.

Mr Green is therefore arguing, I think, that the fact Sevco bought the titles means that they cannot be affected by any action against the entity which actually won the prizes!

That seems to be to be a rather novel, to put it politely, legal argument!

Posted by Paul McConville




Filed under Charles Green, Rangers, SPL

49 responses to ““You Can’t Take Our Titles – We Bought Them Fair and Square!” – Says Rangers Mr Green!

  1. John Kerr

    Paul: You should be careful using or quoting French in your post, you could be accuses of being bigoted.

    • ecojon

      @John Kerr

      Ah but it wasn’t Olde French 🙂

      • mcfc

        ecojon, now that’s why Nick Clegg didn’t use the French “bigot” excuse when he was slapped down by all and sundry. He’s only fluent in modern French – and when he double checked on Google Transalte it wasn’t very helpful:

        English: bigot

        bigot = bigot
        fanatique = zealot, bigot
        sectaire = sectarian, bigot
        intolérant = bigot

    • if newco bought the titles and trophies then they are absolutely no good to them as they did,nt win them,and if oldco sold them to newco then oldco cant say they are theirs cos they no longer belong to them.i think pauls got it spot on,keep screaming about taking history away cos thats wot they actually want.but whose history cos its not oldcos cos they sold it

    • Budweiser

      au contraire mon ami, I have it on good authority that tomorrow at Ibrox the stands will be reverberating with – ‘Bonjour! Bonjour! nous sommes les garcons des Billie!

      • George Orange

        Well done Budweiser – tell AB that’s how to post. Still don’t like to hear that ancient song though – it belongs in history, not modern day

      • Budweiser

        Actually having recently glanced at some rm sites ,multilingual doesn’t accurately describe them. Given the amount of ‘ c…nts’ used perhaps cunnilingual is a more apt descrption.

  2. Textbook execution of a stonewall penalty, Paul, even if Green hampered his goalie by tying up his arms and legs with the sheer nonsense of his ‘argument’.

    I have recently been watching a lot of the US Daily Show, where host Jon Stewart and his team regularly and clinically skewer politicians – mostly, but not exclusively, Republicans – over their utterances of hogwash that often remind me of some of the comments emanating from Ibrox and its supporters (examples of which have been posted on this excellent blog in recent weeks).

    It astonishes me that with such high stakes as the US presidency, Americans can safely highlight stupidity in this manner on a national TV platform, yet the nonsensical rhetoric of an obvious chancer trying to make capital from an already damaged and increasingly irrelevant football club in a backwater football league, is deemed far too ‘hot’ for a nation’s media to tackle with some obvious and sensible questions.

    Could someone please organise an ‘Only and Excuse’ special, or similar?

  3. mcfc

    Ah yes, my dear Watson, only a genius would rely upon the Vicky Pollard defence, “yeah but no but yeah but no but there’s this whole other fing wot you dont know nuffin about so SHARRUP! u SHURRUP!”

  4. Al Ross

    Paul here’s a quote for CG from my most recent Archaeology lecture ”when we select material for preservation we should beware creating a rose-tinted vision of the past”. Strangely it also has a Yorkshire connection as it was referring to the efforts of the Yorkshire Tourist Agency in promoting the county as ” Bronte Country”as against in his words ”Pogrom County” referring to a massacare of the Jewish community in the 14th century at Cliffords Tower. Keep up the good work.

  5. Mr Green has declared that the SPL titles won by Rangers(oldco) are now assets of Sevco. It appears that these assets may or may not be subject some revaluation. Does this affect the potential offer price of future shares in Sevco. Is this Mr Green’s primary concern.

    One thing the market hates is uncertainty.

    How many times have you heard a business analyst say this?

    The fans of course are right behind Green. Its the oneupmanship over rival fans that to an extent drive football. Having won more league titles,more cups & silverware,finishing higher in the league even,that denotes the pecking order on planet fitba. But consider this.Could the Independant Commission consider demanding that league prize money be returned.Could that be the real “cost” of title stripping.

    As Mr Green asserts Sevco now own the “business & assets” of Oldco.

    Part of that business must, I assume, be the remuneration for partaking in SPL competitions.If the SPL asked/demanded that this be repaid it would put a large hole in Sevco finances. Mr Green says he is prepared to take “legal recourse” to prevent titles being stripped. That will not come cheap. Both financially and with possible sanctions from SFA/UEFA

    Now the markets aint gonna like that!

  6. Al

    i am outraged at this, are u telling me that any club could have bought those titles, am sure we could have doubled the creditors money had we known.

    one is not amused

  7. mick

    there is lots of ilegalalities surrounding the titles and who owns them the spl own them is the general feel green own the right to say oldco won them but from the minute the partisipent enters the compition then they have to abide by the rules if rules are seen then or in future then the win is invaiad its the same throw out sport and very simple to understand greens tripping out his tree no doubt from down checking quality control of the snake oil he produces

  8. Beeg_Reech

    Can a club ever actually claim to ‘own’ an honour? Surely any honour is only awarded because the awarding body felt that it was won within the rules of the competition; if they subsequently decide that this is not the case then, surely they have the right to revoke the honour.

  9. Paul appreciate your piece but feel that from the content of CG diatribe there would be more important pieces to discuss, this is a red herring worn to the bone in order to misdirect the attentions of the maases and MSM, I look forward to reading your analysis of the more important parts of his and D&ps statements and the subsequent SPL rebuke on the parts concerning EBT’s. Cheers.

    • mcfc

      Paul, I like this approach. It will help some of your less focussed followers concentrate on one point of law at a time, which makes it harder to drift off topic into conspiracy and abuse. Cam, AB, Iain are you out there ?

  10. ecojon

    Surely no one can buy a Title or Cup from a League or Association in any case. Surely all that a successful club gets is a loan of the title or cup for a year and then it is handed back and awarded to the winner of the following season’s compeitition.

    So all that transfers is the ‘award’ but then there is an argument as to whether this is for the year or forever.

    I realise I could be way off the mark here but I believe that the Records can obviously be changed by the League or Association to show another club as the winner. The club that loses the award may decide to keep the title award in its history but to be honest I think it would generate so much scorn that that couldn’t happen.

  11. John Pollock

    I wouldn’t loose much sleep over Mr Green’s amateurish attempts at playing the QC. After all isn’t this the same guy who thought he had a watertight claim to the players contracts who, yep, walked away?

  12. jim62

    I knew Whyte was going to be entertaining.but Green appears to be taking it to a different level

    Again the ‘internet bampots” are dismissed!!!

  13. mcfc

    Didn’t Newco agree to accept any SFA judgement on Oldco relating to the EBT matter as a condition of getting Newco SFA membership.

    Does anyone have chapter and verse of that agreement?

    Seems pretty cut and dried from what I remember. Maybe CG hopes to stall long enough with appeals and civil suits to get the hell out of there – with his cajones intact, if not his cash

    • cam

      The SPL’s explanation of Junihno’s EBT not being the same as other’s is one of their very best.
      Here’s me and my naivety thinking that lawyers poured over the paperwork for weeks but no the EBT was the same it just wasn’t paid when the wee guy was actually there!!!
      Doncaster,Lawwell,Harper McLeod,McKenzie,Gers £2MILL SPL prize money,Fullerton all the ingredients for a good film.
      Oceans 67 anyone?

      • Cam you should read the statement from CFC, ( not SPL as its not inclusive with all the facts….even I read with interest and more recently astonishment TRFC website), regarding the EBT matter.

        Basic point is that the shceme was reported as part of his contractural payments AND the scheme was advised by professional accountants to be unreliable and therefore the tax owed on the payment was made in full in alloted time to HMRC. CFC advised SFA/SPL at the time, full disclosure.

        It does not fall into the category of multiple contracts with side letters grouped together to disguise them on public accounts and NOT clearly reported to the authorities.

        Next you will be claiming that CFC were aware of RFC wrongdoings as far as EBT’s were concerned and deliberately established one contract in order that this might come to light and threaten the “establishment” now that would be a story and a half…………………don t you think?

        Just the one contract fully disclosed and tax paid on it…………..hmmmmmmm!!!

      • mcfc

        Focus cam, focus,

        We’re talking about ownership of titles and possible penalties if found guilty

      • jedi

        old chinese proverb: if a thousand doctors tell you “you’re ill” you are truly ill.
        Cam, you are wrong

      • Jacko

        Ok. Concentrate here Cam. I know it’s a tricky concept but we on here like to try to explain things.

        The EBTs are not of interest to the SPL panel. HMRC are interested in that so if you feel Celtic have a case to answer there then tell your local MP. Write to HMRC. Spill the beans.

        Now here’s the tricky concept.

        It’s the undeclared payments the SPL are interested in. They happen to have been paid, alledgely, through the vehicle of an EBT. The vehicle is of no interest. It is what was delivered in the vehicle that is what the SPL want to know about. It is completely feasible that HMRC can find in your favour but the SPL find against you and conversely HMRC may find against you but SPL say you declared your tax dodge and you have not broken their rules.

        Try to get the concept. HMRC and the SPL are investigating separate issues.

        Now Celtic declared the EBT to HMRC and paid the tax. HMRC are happy. I believe the EBT was used to terminate Juninho’s contract. He had left and did not play whilst receiving an EBT so nothing of concern to the SPL. I know you, Alistair Johnston, Charles Green et al can’t quite get this but it’s not so difficult.

        I’ve said before. If rangers paid tenners in a brown paper bag as a wee extra undeclared payment to players the fact that tenners are legal tender is not a defence. It is that they were undeclared that would be the SPL issue. If the tenners were declared but the result of a tax dodge that is the HMRC issue but no interest to the SPL. In fact this is proven by last season’s events. rangers declared all payments properly. No SPL issue there. However they did this through a massive tax dodge called NOT PAYING PAYE AND VAT.

        I don’t doubt this is tricky for you but with the amount of offences rangers have committed it is difficult to seperate them all and who is interested in what offence.


        • cam

          If you are gonna put out a long winded explanation you could at least get it right.
          Its the alleged dual contract that allegedly would result in the players registration being deemed invalid.
          I understand the defence will be that if Rangers played an invalid player then this means that Rangers were effectively playing with only 10 men for all these years and that all trophies are now the legal property of the oldco.
          This improper registration will have a butterfly effect meaning that all games involving these players are void and the last ten years results in Scotland,Europe and at international level do not exist.
          This potentially could open up a wormhole in the time space continuum, indeed all the signs are that this has already happened and it is being operated as the Phil Mac (Edited) blog site.
          An overhaul of the SFA and SPL rulebook may be required and i would imagine that Harper Macleod would be well placed to undertake that role under the methodology of ,,Big Pedro disnae like that wan so change it.
          Under inter galactic law it is illegal to knowingly interfere with the timeline so a wee e-mail by one of the Bhoys to the authorities could finally achieve the desired final solution.
          The pen used by K in MIB does exist and i can just see Coyote Pete getting an all day ticket for the subway and creeping up on unsuspecting Bears.
          I have a tricky enough concept to deal with at present but i may have cracked it! Using a combination of string and chaos theory and the motherboard from a Sinclair Spectrum ZX i have worked out that Glasgow will have a Lord Provost that supports the mighty Gers in 3041.

          • Mikey

            Oh dear, where do you start this this cow excrement?

            1 – Its the alleged dual contract that allegedly would result in the players registration being deemed invalid.
            — err, that’s what Jacko wrote about – try reading, not skimming!
            2 – I understand the defence will be that if Rangers played an invalid player then this means that Rangers were effectively playing with only 10 men for all these years and that all trophies are now the legal property of the oldco.
            — err, no! If true, Rangers fielded ineligible players, so the whole team was ineligible, so loses each match 3-0 (if that’s what is decided as one of the possible penalties).
            Furthermore, the trophies belong to the competition organiser, not the winning team, oldco (newco can’t buy the trophies as they never belonged to oldco in the first place).
            3 – the rest of your comment is just a waste of electronic inc!

  14. carl31

    The following is on the presumption that Rangers are found in breach. This is currently not the case.

    The precise mechanism of removing titles and whether the Commission can do so is for another day.

    I’m not comfortable with any of the language commonly used for this.
    Titles ‘stripped’, Titles ‘removed’, ‘Titles all taken away’, or Similar descriptions.
    I consider a better description would be the ‘correcting the record books’, or something like it. The records currently have Rangers as SPL champions on a number of occasions over the past decade. If these were won when, in fact, a number of players fielded in a number of games were ineligible, then the records do not properly and correctly represent the legitimate winners. They should be corrected.

    A discussion subject would be … is there any practicable way to allocate the titles in question? Any fair way to award titles to another team?
    IMO I cant see how, since the imponderables are too many. Award to the team in second place is too neat and simple in my book.

    For an additional wee story that springs to mind and illustrates the situation, please read on.
    When I was wee I was fond of a pudding after dinner (who wasn’t?). My favourite of these was apple pie and ice-cream – apple pie warmed so as to melt some ice-cream and give that hot/cold sensation. Still a classic.
    Anyhow, on one occasion when I was aged around 7, after mum had did the dishing out, my ‘4-years-older-than-me’ sister had been charged with taking the bowls to the table. She decided to, for a laugh and giggle, give me dad’s and give dad mine (dad’s portion was mansized whereas mine was kidsized). My eyes lit up, to say the least, at the huge portion of my favourite pud. I dont have perfect recall of the full events, but I’d wager that I may have actually drooled there on the spot.
    Its safe to say that sis felt extreme glee, when mum arrived at the table moments behind sis and corrected the situation by swapping the
    puddings to their rightful owners just as I had lifted spoon in readiness.
    I was howling!!!
    How could such an injustice be visited upon poor little me!? It was not right! it was wrong!! My rightful portion of pud should be returned forthwith!!
    Bedlam at the dinner table ensued… :O)

    [Timeout for a reality check: the portion of pud that I thought was mine, was no such thing. It may have been given to me by my sister, but that was not in her gift to give. The puds were swapped around by the authority on fair pud distribution, so as to correctly reflect the proper distribution of puddings served to owners/consumers of said pud.]

    Several explanations of the chain of event later, with the background noise of an incessantly giggling sister, I remained adamant that an injustice had been done. My perception was likely entrenched by the fact that I really did love warm apple pie and ice-cream. Really.
    I would not be moved. Even though the large portion was never actually mine and, instead, was rightfully the ‘property’ of dad, I was convinced that it was indeed mine and continued to moan about it for … lets say … the next 33 years.

    … (and counting, as my sister would no doubt add).

    Back to the present, it seems to me that these SPL titles in question are potentially the ‘large portion of apple pie’, which might never have rightfully belonged to Rangers in the first place.

    But where to from here?

  15. ian lewis

    Have never liked apple pie much-too old to change now.

    If Green maintains the titles have a value he should put a value on them now.

    • You could nt give to the second placed team as the inelligible players will have played in games against all teams in all competitions, ( I have nt checked but there were that many registered I am sure its the case in more than 85% of matches played), to go back and award individual matches would have an incredible effect on league standings and relegation, don t forget its not just CFC that “would gain” they are not interested really but smaller clubs could concievibly raise proceedings for recover of lost revenue and also against SPL/SFA for not acting under the terms of association due diligence/fit & proper/duty of service…etc

      Best just to remove the titles without redistributing if found guilty, but more importantly everyone forgets that the ultimate sanction is suspension or expulsion from the league which IS a real possiblity.

  16. Mícheál

    Great post, Paul!

    I totally agree that withdrawing the titles as the sole punishment would suit Mr Green, especially as he could continue his “circle the wagons” strategy.

    But I am more interested if there is a legal basis for the SPL to impose fines on the new company.
    Is it possible that you could write a blog about that.

    It would be very appreciated.

    • philip spicer

      From what I understand Mr Green agreed to Abide my any Decision made my the SPL in respect of EBT’s as part of the Condition to be accepted into the SFL and SFA. so Yes they can impose any punishment on the New Club.. maybe somebody will tell me if i am wrong….

      • philip spicer

        By = my

        • Duplesis

          Green may not actually have agree that. The wording of the joint statement on this point is very careful:

          “The Scottish Premier League has reserved its position in relation to the on-going investigation into EBTs.”

          It says nothing at all about RFC agreeing to abide by the SPL panel decision. RFC only agreed to accept conditions relating to the previous SFA bringing the game into disrepute charge.

          I think the SPL probably can’t impose any punishment on RFC at the moment, such as a fine or order for compensation, since the club isn’t in the league or subject to its “jurisdiction,” although as others have said I would expect the SPL can amend their record books.

    • Mikey

      I wouldn’t have thought the new company has any liability to oldco fines / penalties unless they explicity agreed to them, which would be dangerous, as it would potentially make them liable to accept oldco debts too – including HMRC.

    • Budweiser

      @ michael
      Totally agree with you on that Michael. Paul’s article concentrates mainly on the “title stripping” scenario, but as he states – there are eighteen possible sanctions available, including fines.How would the commission judge what the correct amount in fines should be and how would it be calculated? Although not a direct comparison the following might be a loose guide.
      In Feb. 2006 in a Scottish Cup game against Spartans, St.Mirren were found guilty of fielding an illegible player.The rule broken was that two under 21 players had to be named in the squad.The inelligible player in question was a goalkeeper who sat on the subs bench and took no part in the game. But hey, rules are rules -right? For breaking said rules [ Purely administrative and technical Your Honour] Saints were fined £25,000 later reduced on appeal to £12,000. This might be seen as paltry and lenient by some,But bear in mind that Saints were in the 1st div. at the time and it was mooted [although i am unable to verify this ] that £25,000 constituted nearly 3 weeks wages for the entire team ! Now, if we transpose this” St. Mirren Rate” to the rangers scenario ie one illegible player per game = £12,000 fine then given that rangers allegedly fielded up to 10 illegible players over perhaps 63 games, God, where’s my calculator,oh here we are,£7,560,000. No wonder chasboy bangs on and on about Titles. Of course the problem is “who pays the fines” oldco or newco? club or company? Did chasboy “buy” the dishonours as well as the honours? Help please Pual!

      • Budweiser

        Oh dear! just looked at the figures again,and the 63 games seems a bit random! I think that the Saints fansite[ where i got the figures] was referring to 63 games in one season including league cup,scottish cup and european runs as well as normal league games. So lets say just 30 league games per year at the” St. Mirren Rate ” of £12000 per illegible player per game , over 10 years, that calculates to a mere £36 m.

  17. JimBhoy

    2004/2005 season sickened me. greenie will abide by what he is told to abide by, i offer £1000 for Scottish league trophie 2004/5, BDO it’s more than Green purported to pay..
    I want to buy that game Archie scored against the Dutch 3-2 also, are these all on Ebay?

  18. Lance Armstrong spoke to a cancer conference last week and described himself as “Seven Times Winner of the Tour de France”.Was he correct to do so?

  19. dan

    Leaving aside the EBT stuff (they’re gonna get done anyway), what astonishes me, despite what we already know about the laxities of ‘succulent lamb’ churnalism, is the fact that no one in the MSM sees fit to even politely question Charlie’s increasingly preposterous utterances (apart from Mr. Mitchell, ex of the SFA, who did a decent demolition job on Chic’s blethers.)

    Thus we have had, for example, that devourer of baby sheep, Mr James Traynor, agreeing with Charlie that ‘enough is enough’ and that enough damage has been done to ‘Scottish Football’, thereby equating, nay conflating, Sevco, with the entire national game. And this on a radio programme where no other participant thought to ask him, why, if the old Rangers were guilty of improper registration of players, they should not be punished for their misdeeds. Then, tonight, we had whispering Ally boldly announcing that ‘one or two SPL clubs’ had their ‘reasons’ for supporting Newco’s demotion to the bottom tier of Scottish football, without anyone at the press conference asking the obvious questions, i.e. ‘which’ were the clubs, ‘what’ were there reasons, and how come the decision to demote the old Rangers was not apposed my any member club of the SPL.

    It seems to me that Chico and The Whisperer are getting away with murder, and that the mood they seem intent in whipping up, could result in precisely that.

  20. Why do you continue to peddle this anti-rangers agenda under the umbrella of ”thoughts on Scots Law” ? You are only embarrassing yourself and everyone in the legal sector is still laughing at you.

    Maybe a better subject regarding ”random thoughts on Scots Law” should be reasons you never really made it as a lawyer………..

    • mcfc

      If you really think that Paul’s comments are anti-Ranger then so is gravity, and pizza, and Morocco, and Bob Diamond, and Rollos.

      Get a grip man. Your club’s in a bad place but that doesn’t mean that anyone who discusses how things might work out is against you.

      As for the personal sledging – it’s not wanted here.

    • Frankiebhoy

      Pizza Cat,
      I’ve never posted on this sight before mainly because I’ve usually found
      the posters and their comments far more knowledgable than me. However, I’d like to thank you for lowering the IQ level sufficiently and allowing me to take part.
      Firstly, as far as I’m aware, P McC does not get paid for posting subject matter nor does he (I hope!!) make demands for payment from posters who submit their thoughts. Therefore, he is not peddling anything. The subject is there for all to read, or not, as the case may be.
      Secondly, I think you’ll find, if you take the time to research previous subject matters, (Could you be from Scotlands MSM??) that subjects posted do in fact relate to and pose some form of question in regards to legal matters.
      Freedom of speech is one of our greatest gifts. Please don’t abuse or misuse it by casting aspersions on someone’s professional cababilities because you don’t agree with what they say particularly as I would suspect you don’t actually know them!! Exercise your index finger and click that little red cross in the top right hand corner of your screen. I promise you’ll find that all the bad things will go away. 😉

    • JCN

      That pain you feel is called the truth.

  21. Alex Doherty

    Pizza Cat
    Its not an anti rangers agenda it is fact they bought the titles enjoyed the fame.Long live rangers
    But with greatness comes RESONSIBILTY PAY THE TAX MAN are we the people TAX DODGERS TO THE LAST.
    No we will pay what we as loyal people sometimes do LONG LIVE THE TAX MAN as all loyalist know

  22. Brian J

    Oldco, newco,sevco are all irrelevant. The SPL are not investigating the companies who own or previously owned Rangers. They are investigating the entity that is the club. The titles were never awarded to a company, they were awarded to the club. Any sanctions which are to be imposed will be imposed upon the entity that is the club, which Mr Green has long been at pains to assert is the same now as it was when the titles were awarded. Therein lies the answer to Messers Green and McCoist… by their own assertions that the club has continued as an entity with new owners so it follows that the SPL who awarded the titles to that club can remove the titles from that club.
    I think it behoves us to think twice about indulging their fantasies by engagining in discussions about the companies, to do so suggests that we have been taken in by their spin. Ignore the companies entirely, it was the club that broke the rules, the club that are being investigated and the club that will be subject of any sanctions imposed.

  23. COYBIG

    Charles Green said that his company/club have bought the titles Rangers ‘won’, so he is admitting that his company/club did not win them, therefore, even if Greens company/club are allowed to keep said titles, they still can not be added to, aka 43 – 0! We welcome the chase.

    As far as possible punishments go, if the SPL strip Rangers of titles then they must also take back the prize money won and redistribute it. If not, it would be like a bank robber being jailed for x amount of years but getting to keep the loot once he gets out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s