rangers "success" from 2000 to 2011.

[happytim]

do any buns feel this has gone flat and yous dont take a lot of pleasure or satisfaction from this alleged success due to knowingly being found guilty of breaking the rules during this timescale to achieve this "success".

[John65]

[quote="happytim".[/quote]
lol - like they are going to say!
They couldn't even bring themselves to say a bad word about the hooligans assaulting two wee lassies, so you're unlikely to get anything out of them on this...

[happytim]

must be galling for them they cheated to get some success from what was possibly thier best ever side.

[eastcoastscot]

the tink reve is obsessed :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

[sideburnsam]

What were Rangers guilty of?

[happytim]

they were found guilty of non decleration of side contracts regarding the EBT.s which breached sfa rules.

and they were found to have knowingly mislead the authorities.

[sideburnsam]

Thought it was legal though?

Also were that no cleared of that

[Sir_Walter_Timslayer]

they were found guilty of non decleration of side contracts regarding the EBT.s which breached sfa rules.

and they were found to have knowingly mislead the authorities.

And the appropriate punishment was applied.

[happytim]

using ebt,s was declared legal, thats not what they were found guilty of, it was for breaking sfa rules for 11 years. the appropriatte punishment was not handed out.

football clubs who are punished dont get out of it by the fine applying to thier previous owners.

rangers should have been stripped of all silverware between these years.

cheating is cheating and should be treated as such.

[John65]

must be galling for them they cheated to get some success from what was possibly thier best ever side.
Aye, but they wouldn't have had that side if they hadn't cheated...

[sideburnsam]

From the commission...

"Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC."

So where did Rangers cheat?

[Rab_The_Ger]

[quote="happytim".[/quote]

Are you going on Sunday Reve?

More still, you will most probably be posting obsessive pish on here about it.

Whatever will be will be...No...

[happytim]

whether they gained an onfield advantage is irrelevant and open to opinion.did lance armstrong gain an advantage

in sport if you break rules and knowingly do so you are cheats. never has anyone been allowed to claim they didnt gain an advantage.

ps. the commission must have missed the part that rangers were fined.

so as they were punished, they must have done something wrong.

[John65]

From the commission...

"Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC."

So where did Rangers cheat?Hmm... let's set aside the legal jargon for a wee minute.
There is no argument from anyone that the EBT's meant that rangers fc could pay higher net wages to a player than they would have been able to if they were using conventional methods.
It is a moot point whether such players would have actually signed for, and therefore been playing for, rangers F,C had they not been paid the higher amount.
It is therefore a matter of opinion as to whether this was dishonest, amounting to fielding players you couldn't afford