Stag Nation

This means that the SFA normally employ legal advisors who don't specialise in.sports law. Why does this not surprise me?

As I understand it, the loans were not made by Rangers. Rangers paid the money (let's say £100,000 for J Bloggs) into a trust for Bloggs' benefit. The trust then "lent" Bloggs the cash. The tax liability therefore arises from the payment to the EBT, not from the loan, and remains payable whether or not the loan is repaid, as the trust will still exist. It's probably academic. Why would anyone pay back the whole £100,000 instead of just paying the tax?

You can't buy or sell history. To suggest otherwise is nonsense, and casts doubt on everything else D & P said. As for Leeds, Middlesborough etc., their continuity is a harmless fiction which people go along with. It makes their fans happy, and no-one else cares much either way. If you want to believe that Rangers is still the same club that's ok by me. Other people believe that God or Santa Claus exists, or that the earth is flat. Or even that Rangers is the most successful club in the world, when all the evidence says they were just a big fish in a very small pool.

10% was, as I said, a generous guess. The real figure is almost certainly much less. Sponsorship is part of the club income which produced a £32 million profit last year. Ashley didn't take any of that, according to the club accounts. Advertising? - OK, the stadium is plastered with SD adverts, but how much is that worth when the entire support claim to hate SD and Ashley? Would you care to produce some figures to show how Ashley is benefitting? That means making more money than he would if he'd put his £250,000,00 in a building society.

Assuming a generous 10% net profit on retail sales, he'd need 50,000 Newcastle fans spending £50,000 each at SD to get his money back. That was never going to happen. Anyway, even if he bought Newcastle for his own benefit it is perfectly clear that it didn't work, and he must have known that before he bought his Rangers shares.

Mike Ashley has put about £250 million into Newcastle, with little or no prospect of ever getting it back. How does this amount to "exploiting the fans"? Without Ashley, they wouldn't have a club to whinge about. And BTW he did decide to sell, but no-one wanted to buy.

To be fair, Goram was in two minds about taking part.

Inclusive? If the bigots really are a "tiny minority", then the mainstream support shouldn't feel offended. If they do feel offended, then maybe it isn't a "tiny minority" after all. Puzzling, isn't it?

Really? You accused me of "Typical behaviour though, those who throw insults about our support and religion ...". (Post #206027). Seems pretty clear to me. For what it's worth, I wasn't insulting your support (except the bigots who are allegedly a 'tiny minority'), nor indeed religion. If I was insulting anyone it was the bigots. I would respectfully suggest that anyone who mentions "our" religion in the context of a football club is probably somewhat less than un-bigotted.

Note that I wrote "the bigots", not the Bears, or the H***s, or the K**n. The only people I may have insulted are the bigots, who are of course a tiny minority.

Interesting. 1. How has he invested £1 million in the last year? AFAIK they haven't issued any shares, so he must have bought existing shares. That hasn't helped the "club". 2. £1 million for 2.5% means he values Rangers at £40 million. Does this "financial genius" know something we don't? 3. Do the bigots know that their "club" is part-owned by someone called Kieran, who doesn't appear to share their religious affiliation?

January transfer window spend: Mike Ashley - £28.5 million Dave King - £0.5 million Remind me - why did the Rangers fans prefer King?

I'd have thought the reason was obvious: Anti-Catholic - check Paranoid and "victimised" - suggested by your posts on the topic I'm happy to accept that this doesn't apply to all Rangers fans. It's probably just a tiny minority who give you all a bad name (like the thousands singing the Billy Boys). But anyone really who believes that should have no difficulty in believing it's still the same club, or that Santa and the tooth fairy exist.

The KKK aren't just racist, they're anti-Catholic. Does that fit better? Also generally paranoid, ill-educated, "victimised", etc....

The word "Klan" is clearly inappropriate. The KKK is an organisation notorious for racism, bigotry, violence, intimidation, etc., and mainly composed of insecure, socially-disadvantaged and poorly-educated white males. Rangers fans, on the other hand, have proved themselves incapable of forming an organisation.

£120 million was probably neyond their reach, but £6 million would have outbid Charles Green. Also, if they're "aware of their responsibility", why do they persist in sectarian singing which can only damage the club/company. Or is that just a small minority?

The group alleging the advertising blackmail advertises itself as “DEFENDING OUR TRADITIONS” and “our people, our culture, our way of life”, concluding on the sectarian exhortation “No Surrender!” Sounds familiar"? "Ein reich, ein volk, ein fuhrer"

According to the Herald, Ashley gave the SFA "an undertaking not to exercise undue influence on the club's board." Since the SFA's concern is over dual ownership, they could only realistically object if he interfered on some matter where there was a conflict of interest with Newcastle. As a shareholder, nothing else he expressed an opinion on would be "undue". The GASL tried to ban him from voting altogether, which would have been illegal. Not that has ever stopped DCK before.

It doesn't take a forensic accountant to spot the word "unaudited" in the report. Indeed, it would be amazing if audited accounts appeared witjin a fortnight of the year end. Until the audited accounts appear, the £500,000 figure should be treated with the same respect as any other statement from Dave King, i.e. none.

"WE are pleased to announce that payment has today been sent ..." Honest, Mr. Ashley, the cheque is it the post ...

Challenging Celtic will cost money. Where do you see that coming from?

Maybe I'm being thick, but if Rangers came third in the second tier and were "reconstructed" into the top tier they'd still be rubbish. How would that dent Aberdeen's chances?

Agreed, provided they haven't cheated.

Yet another discriminatory policy down Govan way: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-ban-beards-from-murray-park-academy-1-3977736 "Traditionally, Rangers players were always clean shaven." Traditionally since 2012? So no Sikhs or Muslims. Or Graham Souness, Or indeed the old king (Gawd bless 'im). Or Jesus Christ (but he was probably a catholic anyway).

There's probably no denying that the top tier is poorer financially without Rangers, and indeed Hibs. However, isn't that missing the whole point of the league set up? Or indeed of competitive sport at all.