Rangers Banter Archive April 03 2013

03 Apr 2013 20:47:42
The sacking of Sandaza is a disgrace. Charles Green has used a minor misdemenour as an excuse to get him off the payroll, this man cannot be trusted. In all my years of watching football I have never been aware of a player getting sacked, shame on you Charles Green! {The Ed039's Note - He was not sacked for a minor misdomeanour, he was sacked for breach of contract which is gross misconduct)

How fickle are we as fans? Many a post on here has been slating Sandaza and questioning why he was even at Ibrox. now he has been given the boot, Green is the bad guy!
Iain

Never heard of a player being sacked? Are you serious? What about the high profile saking of mutu bu chelsea, who chelsea subsequently sued, and won millions.

04 Apr 2013 02:19:26
chelsea sued mutu and won millions, not the other way about.

Really guys, compairing someone who told how much he earned, to someone who failed a cocaine drugs test. hardly the same thing, is it?. shammy {Ed001's Note - both a breach of contract, so it is very much the same thing. Mutu wasn't sacked for breaking the law, so it can be compared. Just a shame most clubs would rather send their cokeheads to rehab on the quiet than get rid, or we might not have such a problem with it in the sport.}

@3 that's what he said!

001, ok technically you're correct. but come on, I earn £800 a week. nobody can sack me for telling you that, I would however be sacked for being found with cocaine in a drugs test. so no, not the same thing really. shammy {Ed001's Note - no, you wouldn't be sacked for that necessarily, you could be forced to attend rehab, but it would come down to the employer to decide as there are other options. I know of a number of footballers that have tested positive and been ordered to do a period in rehab.}

Thank you 001, I wouldn't be sacked for that. so sandazza is in pocket {Ed001's Note - no because it is up to the employer how seriously to treat the case. With it being breach of contract, terminating the contract is perfectly acceptable even if the breach is a minor one.}

Good post ed some people are not as bright as they think

Shammy please try and get a handle on this m8,

His contract will be completely different to yours and the vast majority of us? can you not see that? a breach is a breach whether its telling the cleaner of something which your contract does not allow you to do? I have seen so many people dismissed after going into a disc meeting with the same unwise thoughts as you, Tommyblue

03 Apr 2013 19:31:37
Sandazza sacked, well done Tommy the taxi driver, not been brilliant at Rangers but has a family all the same.

When will this nonsense between both sets of fans end! PB

Sandaza will now sue the taxi driver and hel deserve it {The Ed039's Note - How much do you think a cabbie earns?????)

It was meant as a prank same as te one he done on Craig whyte. It's a shame it's cost him his job all the same. I

Sue taxi driver for what? Sandaza breached his contract. Not the taxi driver.

Let's face it Sandazza has been a flop and Charles Green has taken advantage of this cretin Tommy's call - does anybody think if he'd been scoring every week he'd be gone?

Green going into Sheffield United mode now, ignoring what McCoist wants, sacking staff without good reason and he even seemed to be doing some scouting on Sunday not to mention his bust-up with Malcolm Murray. {The Ed039's Note - He wasnt scouting players, he walked into St Mirrens directors lounge, uninvited I might add, and was discussing with them how they might vote on league reconstruction)

I think it's unfortunate what has happened, and while the blame of the entire thing does sit with the Taxi Driver, I think that Fran Sandaza has been treated pretty appallingly by Rangers. CG, ever the opportunist.

The Patient

ED039. So the directors box rumour was true? Is this guy starting to look like a fool? {The Ed039's Note - I dont know if its 100% true but it really does stink of Charles Green)

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in general prohibits interception of communications by a third party, with exceptions related to government agencies. A recording made by one party to a phone call or e-mail without notifying the other is not prohibited provided that the recording is for their own use; recording without notification is prohibited where some of the contents of the communication—a phone conversation or an e-mail—are made available to a third party.

So it was illegal for him to release the tecording!

Response of 4} how do you know he is ignoring Ally, how do you know sackings not justified [think about scouting record], how do you know Murray was not in the wrong, can only assume you sit in on board meetings. {The Ed039's Note - From what I can find out Murray has been a bad boy and its all been swept under the carpet)

Sandaza might have been a flop, but nobody deserves smart ass tommy the grass, s comments hope he feels proud of what he did, I think taxi drivers do alright for themselves, do they still use the bottle of irn bru behind the meter lol doug t. s. o

Ed how can anyone just walk into the directors lounge uninvited I am sure that had Green not been allowed in there the security staff would have stopped him? {The Ed039's Note - Do you think St Mirren have bouncers standing aroung outside their directors lounge?)

Green has definately taken advantage of the situation and am now very concerned about the way the club is being run. Looks like Green trying to blame everyone else for the poor team instead of getting rid of the main reason I. e. McCoist

Ed your not trying to tell me that anyone can just walk into the directors lounge at St Mirren without being challenged by security staff? Think you'll find every club will have security staff at their grounds and in particular near the directors lounge {Ed001's Note - and he is a director of a football club that would have easily been able to get through security.}

Its a joke - it shows how far rangers have fallen and continue to fall - this idea of players talking privately to agents is normal. funds are so short let's sack a player at the smallest excuse - Fran will have his day in court and rangers will loose even more than his contract total for unfair dismissal. {Ed001's Note - he deserved to have his contract terminated, I have seen people fired in factories for the same thing. Contracts are confidential, he breached his T&Cs by revealing the details without prior permission. Rangers are perfectly within their rights to discipline him, it is certainly considered a sackable offence in many workplaces around the country.}

N6 cg was their by invitation of stewart gilmour so I don't see how cg could gatecrash party if invited

I think the media need to take a look at themselves as to how they covered this story. Only upon listening to the call did I hear how much Sandaza praised the Club, the fans, and Ally McCoist. I never read that anywhere- it was all focused on how he was there for the money, not the level of football. Footballer in 'playing the game for money' shocker.

The Patient

You are right 13. Sandaza will have his day (or 2) in court. Chelsea sued mutu in court after he breached hos contract and they WON.

Sandaza may also take legal action against the taxi driver. It is ILLEGAL to record a call in the uk if you DICLOSE IT TO A THIRD PARTY.

Hopefully Rangers sue Sandaza, and subsequently, he sues the taxi driver.

04 Apr 2013 01:15:08
firstly. it isn't illegal to disclose a call to a third party, so stop capitalising your statement to make it look legal, and 2ndly ed, it isn't gross misconduct in factories to disclose your contract details, only in security conscious matters, I know, its my job, Tommyblue {Ed001's Note - you obviously don't know, because that is complete nonsense. It depends on the contract you sign and the company you work for, nothing to do with 'security conscious' matters. Some companies include confidentiality clauses in the contracts, football clubs tend to as a matter of course. I have no idea what your job is, but you are talking crap there, sorry.}

Re Mutu. If I'm wrong I apologise but did Chelsea not sue to recoup their losses as he broke company/FIFA/uk law by taking cocaine making him unavailable to play due to being banned for 2 (?) years? I wouldn't compare it to sandazzas situation at all. {Ed001's Note - 7 month ban, which only came along after they sacked him for breach of contract (which is what Sandaza has been sacked for). It was nothing to do with being unable to play, everything to do with breach of contract, so directly comparable as it was his own actions that breached the contract in both cases.}

04 Apr 2013 21:06:06
excuse me ed? in a everyday run of the mill contract it won't be detailed that financial matters will not be discussed, this will be included in certain, usually high earning, or security related matters, I was not saying it was all contracts, I've already posted that many contracts are diferent, and particularly a pro players contract, tb

03 Apr 2013 16:47:10
Charles has publically stated rangers are a new club& has your press manager traynor!, Also Mr Greene has admitted its not title 55. Everyone apart from the deluded& still in denial know the rangers are a new club. sm

Are you not bored with this debate? Don't know why people keep posting about it. Bottom line is nearly all Rangers fans say it's the 55th title and many fans from other teams say it isn't. your post won't change anyone's mind and no one really cares about your view. A boring post about a now boring and over debated subject. Move on and at least try and post something interesting!

Its 54 top division titles and 1 Division 3 title

Mate are you in a dark hole. Rangers are, under the regulatory directive of the SFA and UEFA. They are the governing bodies of football in our country and Europe. They have both said catagorically that the football club is the same but the company that runs RFC is new. There fore without having to draw it for you the history of trophies stay. Get over it mate. {The Ed039's Note - When did UEFA say that? Can you find me a link)

03 Apr 2013 20:00:04
Correct bud, but 54 + 1 = 55 a title's a title
*ksd*

ED 39

It was the European club association that insists our history is intact {The Ed039's Note - I knew of that, but UEFA have never made a statement either way. I have emailed them for clarification but they never replied, in fact I was discussing it with Ed007 and he has emailed them for different things in the past and guess what ....... they didnt respond. There is no point in them having a contact us link on their webpage)

Yeh I've never seen anything official from SFA or UEFA regarding rangers. Maybe the SFA should release a statement and put the argument to bed. Strange they haven't

@5 & ED039' I think the old club are classed as "live" until the liquidation is officially confirmed as concluded. Usually this is when there are no outstanding disputes or contractual wrangles and the creditor pot is up to date. That is the case with setanta, a guy I know was a driver for them and they are still waiting for conclusion.

Charles Green said that the title wouldn't count along the others as it is not a top division title. Get your facts right. WATP.

@ OP I'm deluded. It's 55 titles, albeit 54 major + 1 minor. Next season will be 56 and counting. WATP.

@9: at least you admit your delusion. Now answer this: which is the most successful club, regarding league titles, in England?

Eca is not an official body, just a self interested cartel. the most pertinent fact regarding uefa is that rangers fc won a place in this years champions league. they did not take up that place as they were liquidated. the rangers fc have never qualified for uefa competition and cannot for at least 2 more years. if I started a new club tomorrow and gained entry to the league, the same conditions would apply, as it a new club. this holding company thing is nonsense. this version of things has a club with no assets, no players, no paying customers, not even a jersey does it own, but lives forever. so what is it? a ghost? uefa only accepts incorporated entities. if you say you support a club which has no players etc. you are saying you support nothing.

03 Apr 2013 15:33:27
Why are we chasing a Honduran DEFENSIVE midfielder? We've got plenty of them!
We need a box to box midfielder, who will score goals and set up chances!

No we have horrendous! defensive midfielders!

Cos they will be cheap. and won't want £1 million for 4 year work.

03 Apr 2013 11:31:15
Neil Alexander has broken his silence about his contract negotiations, Green and co are a disgrace, the way they are carrying out Rangers business is no better than in Craig Whites tenure.

I'm not saying Alexander is a great keeper, but he signed over to the newco and this is how we repay that loyalty. I fear Rangers is being run as a business with football being a secondary concern, after all 40000+ of us will turn up week in week out and watch whatever they serve up.

In my opinion the worst is yet to come, nothing adds up with either Green or McCoist and they will do irrepairable damage to Rangers unless we stop them.

Looks like green picking the goalie, just like at sheffield.

ally just sits on bench and points aimlessly. strings being pulled by Mr Green.

65% pay cut, would you?

Gents, can we just get this in perspective, Alexander says he has already put car and house for sale in order to reduce family's outgoings, let's get real he ain't going to a salary in line with most of us, and I cannot imagine any move is to a 3bed semi and a ford fiesta, he has been WELL PAID during his time here and if wanting to stay would still have a nice little earner.

Ally wanted Alexander to stay. Ally wanted Neil Murray to stay. Maybe time for Ally to prove he isn't just a Charles Green yes man and speak out.

Ally should be backing Alexander. The keeper did not walk away Ally for what? To be treated like this, huge wage cut in his contract. Disgrace.

Fans keep going on about high wage bills yet moan about alexander being offered a drastic wage cut. Especially, if cammy bell signs, he won't be 1st choice. Makes sense to me.

Ally won't say word, green paid him in full - 5% of rangers.

ally locked in for good.

Was alexander not offered 10k 1 year deal then turned it down cause he wanted 2 year deal, so we signed cammy bell so he can't really complain were offering him reduced terms, in reality we don't really need him

He is 35 for goodness sake, get shot of him

Fair play to alexander but his displays this season has not been good

@5 because Alexander didnae walk away he deserves 10k a week there's not one player there worthy of earning that a week

Response to 4) how do you know Ally and Green had different points of view on Alexander and Green, if it is what you think ok, but stop making it sound like fact.

N4 ally asked everybody to stay and alexander has had a good time at rangers and is not skint let's sea if any other club offers him ten grand a week cheers

03 Apr 2013 06:01:46
So the SPL has decided to reverse their decision to move on and now reverts to childlike attempts to further punish Rangers. It is fairly obvious to most even and unbiased onlookers that this is an attempt to once again stir the pot in the already laughable comedy that is Scottish football at this time.

Before I continue it is important to re-enforce one important aspect of this saga for the blinkered and educationally challenged who often frequent these boards and I apologise to those with much clearer thought and business processes for mentioning this again, but, it is important to my point.

Rangers are the same Club. Different Company. ie: Newco/Oldco = Company. Rangers = Club

Who are the SPL going to pursue for the money. It can't be the Newco because they did not participate in the process and have been refused participation in the SPL and therefore are not subject to its or any affiliated bodies rulings. So it must be looking for the Oldco to redeem its needless costs.

I must admit I was astonished when I read about this, until upon consideration I realised what the true motivation behind this ploy may be. The SPl in financial trouble already realise they have very little money to cover their irresponsible actions and are panicking over finding the money to pay for there ill conceived kangaroo court, as they cannot pursue the Newco for the 250. 000 fine or costs.

They do however have money which was due to the Oldco for coming second etc, and they will now probably look at this as an excuse to keep this money for there own depleted coffers under the guise that it is a legitimate business deduction, in essence robbing the creditors of a significant sum 750. 000 that could have paid of a few small businesses.

And people called us cheat's. Disgraceful if this is the case.

Ozzie Al

Usually case in law if you loose, you pay costs of other side. admit it you lost, but keep titles.

cost £750,000 k - small change if worth £500 million as green says.

move on - take punishment like men

No money has gone to creditors. It went to D&P as wages now its going to BDO as wages. That's the truth. Both of them will have scraped in £18m including Green's £5.5m but creditors get nought.

The issue is spl titles and the club claiming to hold them.
Old RFC club and company is gone.
New TRFC and trifc company are claiming spl titles so its their bill.
Practically, NS needs paid, therefore it has to come from TRFC. It's ludicrous to suggest SPL pays on winning its civil case. NS knows that is a point of law, he also wants paid.

@1 In law courts yes, if found guilty you pay costs. This was not a law court, but rather a judiciary panel ( not the same thing). I really do not see any sense in explaining further. Anyone who would be willing to pay a 500. 000 bill when they are not liable for it, is going to be unable to comprehend my response anyway.

@3. Do not want to bamboozle your small mind any more than it is already, but you are fundamentally incorrect. Club is the same. The judiciary panel case was against Oldco, tHe holding company, not the Newco the new holding company. Therefore no liability

@5) from 3) I'm afraid you're wrong. Obviously Ill educated. Club and company are the same under UEFA regulations, SFA are just dragging their feet to go public with it simply to assist green in getting his new club up and running with fans money.

If club and company are the same entity answer me this when were rangers and celtic founded. then tell me what year the companies joined them.

go on. if if they are the same date then I will concede that they are the same if not (like I know they ain't then it proves that the club was there before the company for both rangers and celtic and therefore impossible to be the same thing. for the tic fans out there (this is off the top off my head) you were founded in 1888 but a company was never involved with celtic until about 1894 or something I once read. if the company and club were the same thing then celtic were not founded in 1888!

In 60 years of watching scottish football I have never saw any people like regan doncaster liewell petrie and thomson they are a total disgrace with the hatred to rangers to the point of being corrupt

Fergus mcann changed celtics company when he took over in 1994 in fact celtic has changed companys more than any team in scotland

Lns fined rangers 250grand everyone knew the fine would be a pence in the pound situation cause the fine is for oldco so maybe they should try chasing oldco up for the half million cause I think they've more chance than nl turning out playing for rangers at the weekend cheers

@9 Fergus McCann changed the name, did not take them into,
A. Administration.
B. Liquidation.
That's the difference
Tam

Administration, liquidation nothing to do with it. Same club different company, same as Rangers