aofjays

Takes scum to know scum. Seriously though, discounting facts (which is what this particular blog was) because you dislike the person informing you is not the act of a smart person.

No astoundingly enough in a blog about Rangers he doesn't mention any miners. How weird is that? All he does is point out how the terms and conditions of Sevco season tickets state that the Club is the Company. But don't let it worry you, because the person that spotted this has a shady past you can safely dismiss a legally binding contract published by Rangers as a tic wet dream.

Wolf!!! Wolf!!! Wolf!!!

Ages and ages ago someone asked if there was a way to set the latest page in this thread as a favorite/bookmark. Mild boredom made me try the following: http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/167655-big-rangers-administrationliquidation-thread-all-chat-here/page-5000 because we're currently on page 4051 and 5000 doesn't exist (yet) it redirects to latest.

He didn't seem that desperate in the article, "... if not then we go into next season with the status quo and I’m sure there will be a bit more work done over the next year.” Just if change is to be done it needs to be done now. I assume he's so invested in change as I heard a rumour a sponsor was secured but only if reconstruction passed - something to do with the brand wanting to be associated with a new dynamic (insert more advertising buzzwords here) league. What benefits would we get from changing a 12 team top tier league to a 12 team top tier league? Domination of a league is much easier to achieve in a small set up than a large one, that's the benefit to Celtic(/Rangers if they survive) f**k knows why the other 9 voted for it. What benefits ............... changing a 10 team 2nd tier to a 12 team league? It makes the numbers work out for he stupid 8-8-8 split. He's forgetting that 2 SPL teams have voted against this, under their rules it's kyboshed, unless Pedro plans to make it up as he goes along... Wouldn't be surprised at all if he did but the impression I got was he's hoping the SFL will come up with and vote on a proposal that is different enough (but still the same) to allow it to be submitted to the SPL for a new different vote on this new different reconstruction plan.

Celtic blowhard Peter Lawwell claims that we have five days to save Scottish Football REVAMP - FTFY Wouldn't want people thinking you are a lying scumbag intentionally misquoting someone now would we?

Plastics and Diddies I assume. It's Tedi though so the words in question may not even start with a P or a D.

Even if I was WRK (wtf do you call him Norman anyway?) the question still stands, why do think pretending I'm someone else changes anything? Are you 7 or something? Well I supose telling more lies is easier than answering. Shouldn't have expected anything else really. I'll refrain from asking you any further questions that require a reading comprehension level greater than someone in primary 3 since it now appears to be dreadfully unsporting.

I don't know if what you say is true and I can't be bothered checking, but since Killie neither voted in favour of Rangers nor to "kick Rangers out of the league" how are the first two statements in any way relevant? Helluva funny you claiming things "Cannot be denied." though, if there is one thing this thread (and your posts in particular) has shown it is that anything can be denied.

What precedent? Rangers were punished for deliberate refusal to pay 13 million in tax and thus bringing the game into disrepute. This is patently not the same thing. Rangers could pay but didn't want to, Dunfermline want to pay but can't.

He's got a point actually. The fighting came afterwards when the police decided the best way to deal with happy people having a party was to charge them. Any Spaniard I've asked about it remembers it as the day the Spannish cops got a well deserved kicking.

Rapid's accounts team should be sacked. The Rangers agreed to pay all of Rangers footballing debts but instead Rapid are going to chase a liquidated club for the money? Nutters.

No it did not. That doesn't mean the rule is flawed, it means it was broken. Not a tough concept really.

So any rule, law or guideline that has ever been broken by anyone must therefore be flawed? Now you're just being silly.

How can you say a rule is flawed just because your ex-chairman didn't actually follow it? That's like saying speed limits are flawed because a minority break them. This sounds more like you're just trying to deflect the blame from those actually responsible (David Murray and probably the rest of the board at the time) to anyone else. Next you'll tell us a big boy did it and ran away.

Are you claiming your ex-chairman didn't do his job properly because the rules let him get away with doing a half assed job? That in fact the rules need to be far far more stringent to prevent your club from screwing itself? You really think the people running your club are that sleekit? I'm stunned, all these people claiming you're blinkered will be eating their words now.

I'm not an accountant so I'm no doubt interpreting the following incorrectly but from the Wikipedia article on liabilities "Liabilities are debts and obligations of the business, they represent creditors claim on business assets." From investopedia: "{Liabilities are} A company's legal debts or obligations that arise during the course of business operations." From investorwords.com "{Liabilities are} An obligation that legally binds an individual or company to settle a debt." From accountingcoach.com "{Liabilities are} Obligations of a company or organization. Amounts owed to lenders and suppliers."