[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

I wish he'd shut his cakehole and just go, he's only interested in money.

I would say it's 50/50 on that one.

Any pay off is more than likely linked to a gagging order to ensure the truth of what's going on behind the scenes is suppressed. Because Fatty won't sign a gagging order, I suspect the the board are shitting themselves that he's going to start blabbing the minute he's out the door. They're stuck with him.

It looks to me like old Lard Arse has them over a barrel. He knows where the bodies are buried, he knows where the smoking guns are, and he knows who's pulled the triggers.

I would bet he's using that knowledge for one of two ends:

1. To negotiate a Super Salary bumper pay off. or:

2. To actually stand up and do the decent thing, i.e. blow the lid on the whole house of cards at the end of his 12 months.

By serving the 12 months he'll claim that he stayed to protect Rangers interests in the long term and didn't just "walk away".

So, a greedy b*****d, or a self styled "Rangers man"? Time will tell, eh? In the meantime, enjoy the circus.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

Yet you did mention UK insolvency rules and when I mentioned that other clubs in the UK had went through the same process you tried to narrow the argument, basically it seems you are quite happy to say 'what about these clubs but not these clubs' sorry but you do not get to control the scope of the discussion.

No the SFA did not change them to suit, no matter how many times you or anyone else attempts to push this conspiracy bullshit I will not be drawn into it. Sometime between 2009 (i think) and Feb 2011 the SFA removed a rule which could have allowed them terminate Rangers membership, however even these old rules started with 'Full membership or associate membership may be suspended or terminated' may being the key word, this had no effect on another long-standing rule that allowed the transferral of the membership which was the the route they took.

The SFA, like it's bigger brothers FIFA and UEFA, change the rules all the time to suit specific agendas. Usually for the benefit of the "bigger clubs".

There is no better example of this than the "Champions" League, which every year includes many teams that aren't champions, haven't been for a long time and are unlikely to be any time soon. But hey, it's a nice earner for the "big" clubs.

There is no absolute proof that the rules were changed for Rangers benefit, but on current form, most people would believe that they were. It's not just possible, it's probable and we all know it.

It really is taking the piss when you make out that the SFA is an inscrutable organisation, diligently following rules to make Scottish football a fair and equal playing field. It's not anything of the kind; it's a snakepit ruled by vested interests. And generally, it always has been.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

That's unbelievable. I thought it was a spoof at first - I'd never read that blog before. He fair gives Mad Phil a run for his money.

I dread to think what anyone outside of Scotland thinks about our football, if they were ever unfortunate enough to stumble across the two mad mac's blogs. Those blogs are everything that's shameful about our game.

Rhetoric inspired by hate and bile, and only filling a void because the mainstream media are utterly useless. A sad state of affairs all round.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

I can understand that the bank wanted Murray to offload Rangers.

I can understand that Murray had to do it if he wanted to save other businesses.

I can understand why they were sold for a pound.

I can't understand, and I've seen no explanation, as to why it had to be to Whyte. If the bank wanted the club off their books, then surely it didn't give a flying f**k who it was sold to? It made no difference whatsoever.

Murray seems to have had more than enough information that Whyte was utterly unsuitable, but sold it to him anyway. As the free for all over the carcass of Rangers shows, there would have been others willing to chuck a pound at the club.

I wouldn't claim any other candidate would have been any better than Whyte, but it does appear that Whyte was the chosen one.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

Yet again, it's a case of the ruthless leading the deluded.

Surely to god the Rangers fans are going to realise at some point that they hold the key to power at Ibrox. They always did.

No income for the club = no club. None of their fans are happy, yet they continue to feed the beast. It's so obvious a three year old could understand the implications. They've been fleeced, continue to be fleeced, and seem happy to be fleeced for the foreseeable future.

Whilst the majority of us diddies would shed no tears at the demise of either of the ugly sisters, it's unfeasible that Rangers or Celtic could ever disappear off the face of Scottish football simply because of what they are. However much people loathe them it's inevitable that they will eventually pop up again, albeit in another guise.

The Rangers fans simply have to withhold money, support, and ensure a boycott of any corporate sponsors. It's all they have ever had to do. They can easily force the spivs to sell up to a new "messiah". The spivs will sell before the club goes bust, simply because getting a bit of money is preferable to getting f**k all.

Without the fans money, the board are a busted flush. The fans could have brought them to their knees a long time ago, and forced a change of ownership. The performance of their supporters clubs throughout the whole debacle has been woeful. If they'd spent less time dicking on about world domination, and "getting back" at the rest of Scottish football, and more time tackling the board head on, they wouldn't be in the position they are now (which is bent over and fucked up the ass).

Mind you, it's been a bit of a giggle for everyone else.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

Dear Mr Ashley.

You bought the naming rights to our beloved stadium for £1. Some suggest it may have been the makeweight in a bigger better deal for Rangers.

Can you please let the loyal Rangers fans know before the close of business on the 12th September 2014 if this is the case and explain what other deal it was a makeweight for. If it wasn't a makeweight for a better deal then we would respectfully request you cancel the agreement.

Can you please advise us before Fridays deadline as Rangers are not playing on Saturday and some of us may wish to purchase sporting goods. We would like to purchase these items with a clear mind and choose the correct outlet with out prejudice.

Craig Houston

Sons of Struth.

Yep, I'm sure Mike Ashley became a multi millionaire by spunking away his time reading a load of mad pish spouted out on obscure facebook pages.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

Given that we are speculating how Ashley's contract will survive 'admin' or 'liquidation' who currently owns the ip rights is neither here nor there.

The IP rights are simply an asset, like any other, which can be used as security to ensure the contract is fulfilled.

I'm fairly certain Ashley's contract may well have a clause in it where the image and brand rights transfer to him automatically in the event of administration or any breach of contract.

Who the rights are registered to at present is simply irrelevant.

Don't forget Ashley ponied up cash advances to secure this contract along with costs of setting everything up ...

He certainly needs some sort of security that the deal cannot simply be ripped up and handed to someone else by putting the club into admin or liquidation ...

Using the IP rights as security via penalty clauses in the contract are one way of ensuring that.

From the 2012 IPO:

On 31 July 2012 RFCL entered into a joint venture shareholders’ agreement (the “Rangers

Retail SHA”) with SDI Retail Services Limited (“SDI”) relating to terms under which the

joint venture vehicle Rangers Retail Limited (“Rangers Retail”) would operate with RFCL

holding 51 per cent. of Rangers Retail. Through Rangers Retail the parties agree to run jointly

the production, supply and sale of branded products and carry out retail activity at the Club’s

superstore at Ibrox and on the Club’s online webstore.

Under the Rangers Retail SHA, each of RFCL and SDI have the right to appoint

two directors, SDI is to be responsible for day to day management including the provision

of accounting and retail-related services and Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited (an affiliate

of SDI) agrees to provide a facility of £1.5 million to Rangers Retail available for drawdown

for a period of 5 years at an interest rate of Barclays Bank’s pass through rate from time-to

time and interest is to be capitalised. Any sums drawn down under the facility would be

secured by a debenture to be given by Rangers Retail over all its freehold and leasehold

property. The loan facility and debenture have not yet been entered into.

The Rangers Retail SHA contains restrictions on share transfers, reserved matters and other

provisions common to joint venture agreements. The agreement contains deadlock provisions

which require deadlock matters to be referred to senior management of the shareholders and

then to mediation. If the deadlock matter has not been resolved then SDI has the right to

acquire RFCL’s shareholding at a set price (50 per cent. of the profits of Rangers Retail in

the previous twelve months). If this buyout takes place, SDI agrees to procure that a royalty

according to a formula is paid by Rangers Retail to RFCL in consideration for rights under

an intellectual property licence agreement relating to the grant of an exclusive worldwide

licence of certain intellectual property rights of RFCL to Rangers Retail in return for Rangers

Retail producing kit and branded products (at cost price plus 10 per cent.) (the “IP Licence

Agreement”). Mandatory share transfer provisions apply at the same transfer price where a

shareholder undergoes a change of control or an event of default (including insolvency,

material breach or if the IP Licence Agreement is validly terminated). The Rangers Retail

SHA is governed by English law.

Under the IP Licence Agreement RFCL agrees to indemnify Rangers Retail against loss

arising out of a third-party intellectual property claims in respect of RFCL’s intellectual

property rights. In turn, Rangers Retail agrees to indemnify RFCL against loss arising out

of similar third-party claims in respect of intellectual property rights other than RFCL’s rights.

And that was back in 2012. I imagine Ashley has strengthened his position considerably since then.

Looks like an asset stripping frenzy is on the cards.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

Still the busiest thread on the forum I see eh !?? There must be a clinical term for this illness, having such an unhealthy obsession with something (or someone) you clearly detest so much?

Just trying to fill the time until the long promised Armageddon arrives.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

From the IPO share prospectus:

12.1.3Sports Direct joint venture

On 31 July 2012 RFCL entered into a joint venture shareholders’ agreement (the “Rangers

Retail SHA”) with SDI Retail Services Limited (“SDI”) relating to terms under which the

joint venture vehicle Rangers Retail Limited (“Rangers Retail”) would operate with RFCL

holding 51 per cent. of Rangers Retail. Through Rangers Retail the parties agree to run jointly

the production, supply and sale of branded products and carry out retail activity at the Club’s

superstore at Ibrox and on the Club’s online webstore.

No mention of selling the naming rights.

Make off that what you will, but it does seem that a transaction appears to have been made, which wasn't disclosed. I suppose it's all down to what someone thinks the naming rights are actually worth, however, taking a wild stab in the dark, I bet it's worth more than a pound. In fact, I know a few groups of people who would relish the prospect of getting their hands on the naming rights, and they'd certainly pay more than a quid.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

As I read this, it appears to have happened around August 2012, when Ashley effectively took control of 49% of Rangers Retail.

It also appears to have been done before the completion of the IPO.

Surely anyone investing in New Rangers shares should have been informed that the naming rights for the stadium did not belong to the club/company? The implication of this is obvious. Naming rights are a valuable asset, and non ownership could ultimately affect the perceived value of the club/company. The fact this deal has been kept under wraps from shareholders, who ultimately own the club/company makes it seem all the more dubious.

A £1??? How on fucking earth can anyone justify a deal of that sort?

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

Kidding aside, there could be an explanation for the pound naming rights. Maybe Ashley paid via his share purchase in some sort of deal that had to have a nominal value attached to cover the naming rights. Rangers supporters would hope so. There is still a smell of clay about again though.

I've no doubt that there is an explanation for the £1 naming rights. Wouldn't be surprised though if that explanation involved the words "dodgy", "corrupt", "shambolic", "bizarre", "laughable", "underhand", dubious", "deceitful", or possibly even "Craig Whyte"

Going to be a cracking Christmas show down Govan way this year. They appear to have a total monopoly on pantomime villains at the moment.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

I have seen it done abroad, a player loaned from Bayern to one of the smaller teams (can't remember which one now) played against them in a Bundesliga match. Remember the commentators talking about it but I think it's fairly standard over there.

Recall Arsene Wenger kicking off about this when his team had to play against Everton with Lukaku, when Lukaku wasn't allowed to play against Chelsea due to the fact they were his primary club. Claimed it made it an unfair advantage for Chelsea.

On the other side of the coin, I remember an incident last season in the Champions League when Chelsea tried to enact a £4.5M clause if the keeper who they'd loaned to Real Sociadad played against them. UEFA said he could play and that the clause was null and void in the interests of fair play.

[Israel And The Palestinians (now with added Iran)]

He was claiming Pete Townsend's offences were as bad as Gary Glitter's. Wooden spoon.

You're right again. I condemn all pedophiles, but I accept your right to champion one over the other.

[Israel And The Palestinians (now with added Iran)]

Your world is nice and simple. It suits you.

Your right. Mass murder = wrong. Child abuse = wrong. I would lock them all up and throw away the key.

However, it's my opinion, and I'm not really going to be convinced that either act is acceptable.

[Israel And The Palestinians (now with added Iran)]

So watching underage porn is as bad as buggering an eight year old? And killing one person in a rage is as bad as massacring a village?

As I've said it's your right to believe kiddy porn or murder isn't so bad.

If you're happy with it, then it's your choice.

No arguments here.

[Israel And The Palestinians (now with added Iran)]

I am happy to say if one person kills more than another then they are a worse person, similarly if one person commits a minor crime in one category it doesn't make them as bad as someone who commits a more severe crime in the same category. I would say that's perfectly normal reaction, you know unless your a little simple and unable to separate crimes or have no concept of scale.

It's your choice, and indeed your inalienable right, to separate pedophiles or murderers into nice or nasty categories if you believe that's perfectly normal. It's also my right to believe they're as bad as each other and anything otherwise would make me an apologist for mass murder or child abuse.

Hope that's simple enough for you.

[Israel And The Palestinians (now with added Iran)]

You claimed Israel were "worse" because of the civilian deaths.

Why is this?

because the incredible number of civilians israel has killed ?

Nice logic. If a murderer kills 10 people, then he is a better person than the murderer who kills 20?

I think the majority of us (obviously excluding you) would deem them both to be scum.

How far do you go with this logic? Is Pete Townsend a nicer pedophile than Gary Glitter because he only got a caution and Glitter got a conviction?

Christ on a bike.

and thats my point , its not a civilised western democracy it pretends to be.

Can't recall Israel ever claiming to be a "civilized western democracy" any more that the government of Gaza, who incidentally came to power by murdering the opposition Fatah party members.

But feel free to prove your "point" by posting where Israel claimed this.

Have to say, it's beyond my understanding why football supporters in Scotland with no ties to either Gaza or Israel feel the need to wave the flags of governments who condone the murder of unarmed civilians.

[Israel And The Palestinians (now with added Iran)]

And im not aware of any other mentioned countries banning immigrants from Arab countries, Like Israel does?

What about Saudi Arabia then? No non muslims are allowed citizenship, and are only allowed to enter the country to work. Both Christians and Shia muslims are heavily discriminated against with public worship and religious items such as Shia texts and Christian bibles and crucifixes banned. In one case a Shia was beheaded for refusing to convert to Sunni.

Arab Christians and Shia muslims are fleeing Arab countries en masse, including Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Gaza and the West Bank due to religious persecution. The majority of those fleeing persecution are not being welcomed with open arms by other Arab countries.

As for the Jews, around 900,000 resided in Arab countries in 1948. This dropped to around 100,000 by the early 70's and is down to around 30,000 today.

If you're are a non Sunni muslim Arab and need to emigrate to another Arab country due to persecution as a Shia muslim, Christian, Jew or even a Buddhist, I wouldn't fancy your chances.

So now you know. It's happening on all sides.

[Israel And The Palestinians (now with added Iran)]

TBF, he made a 90 minute speech. Where much of what he said was indisputable. It's no surprise the Zionist controlled media jumped onto that particular part in an attempt to paint him in a bad light. Here's the original speech...

Whenever I watch or read any of George's grandiose, self promoting, publicity seeking outbursts, the term Narcissistic Personality Disorder springs to my mind.

• Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments
• Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others
• Envies others and believes others envy him/her
• Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence
• Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others
• Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior
• Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic

I don't think the media portray him in a particularly bad light. I think he manages just fine on his own.

[Israel And The Palestinians (now with added Iran)]

no suprise to see a zionist apologist on the sidelines desperate to brand someone anti semetic for condeming Israels slaughter and blockade.

I condemn the Israeli government for the killing of civilians, just as I condemn the Gaza government for the killing of civilians.

However, it's not Israel's blockade.

It's Egypt and Israel's blockade.

In fact, not only do Egypt enforce the blockade, they've been known to gas or flood the tunnels. They are also building the wall underground to prevent the tunnels being built, which of course causes the existing tunnels to collapse on their occupants, which I imagine is a bit of downer if you've already survived gassing and drowning.

Condemning only Israel for the blockade, instead of Israel and Egypt; or condemning only Israel for killing civilians instead of Israel and Gaza does come across as anti semetic. Why not condemn the governments of America or France which are providing technical support on building the Egyptian blockade? Or why not condemn the Greek government for preventing an aid flotilla sailing to Gaza a couple of years ago? Or the British arms industry for supplying arms to the Israeli government? Or the Iranian government for supplying arms to the Gaza government?

There's plenty of blame for all parties in this current debacle, and it does no good to lay it all on the doorstep of one government. No side can win a moral argument on the basis they have murdered less innocent civilians than the other.

Let's hope that the latest round of talks makes all those involved look at their culpability and saves innocent lives on all sides.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

Supporters’ group The Union of Fans called for a Government inquiry into HMRC’s handling of the case.

They said: “Rangers Football Club and its fans have been the victims of a witch-hunt by HMRC ... which has done huge damage to a proud Scottish and British institution.

“Why did HMRC continue with this spurious claim when they were offered settlement?

“We deserve answers on why this was done to our club.”

The "huge damage" referred to here wasn't done by HMRC, who are under obligation to the taxpayer to investigate and challenge what they believed to be a dubious tax avoidance scheme. Rangers have not been singled out in any way. These challenges are wide ranging and commonplace. Just ask Jimmy Carr, Gary Barlow, George Michael, Arctic Monkeys etc. It's what HMRC are specifically employed to do.

In the scheme of events that have subsequently transpired, it's also clear that the Big Tax Case had no relevance on the liquidation process.

Rangers were liquidated for non payment of undisputed tax, which was in no way related to HMRC's pursuance of the BTC.

If Rangers had paid their legitimate tax bill, they would still be here.

If blame needs to be apportioned, then it should lie with those who refused to pay up.

Having had my own disputes with HMRC, I'm surprised to find myself defending them. However, as a taxpayer, this is exactly the type of scheme I would expect them to challenge.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

MacGoebbels has been ranting about anti-irish racism from Dolly supporters - is that half true?

Does Philthy want it to be true? Or is it just true? Not true at all and they were in fact attacking Lonnen for shits and giggles?

As the Dolly supporters big Philthy up over the latest fantasies concerning his obsession - I think we should be told.

Whatever is going on, it's high time someone (probably someone at the heart of Rangers) told the truth about what's actually happening financially. All of this "move along, nothing to see here, everything's fine", just doesn't wash anymore.

As a Dundee supporter well used to boardroom financial shenanigans, this all reminds me of our old owner, Angus Cook: "Crisis? What crisis?"

It doesn't really matter what Phil Mac blogs if the club are being open and honest. Unfortunately, I can't say there's been much of that since Whyte's reign.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

This is a cracking read and Phil is not hiding behind .. "I heard a rumour" ... he's printing it as fact !!

Put the champers on ice and stock up on supplies .... interesting times ahead with laugh galore !!

Probably 50% truth and 50% what Old Phil wants to be the truth.

That said, it's probably another sad indictment on the MSM who clearly can't be arsed to dig a bit deeper and find out what's really going on.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

The world would be a better place if we did away with currants and tiims

The Final Solution, eh?

Seems a tad drastic over a bit of sectarian singing..........

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

It's a shame he turned it down in all honesty. He would have fitted in well as he's a total c**t.

Unfortunately, it looks like we're stuck with fucking Gardiner now.

I do hope that he's only turned it down because he thinks the current Rangers board will be out on their arses after the AGM, and he's trying to look like some sort of morally upstanding human being (not my opinion) so that he gains some traction with the incoming board and they come calling again.

There's no shortage of Dundee supporters willing to personally drive him to Govan. Mind you, I can't guarantee that any of us would be doing less than 90 MPH as we encourage him to exit the vehicle.