Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Ken Fitlike]

i scanned it looking for an argument about res 12, I should have realised we were heading for another turgid, unprovable and pointless new club bullshitefest, as for an explanation of why club is used, i'd imagine its there as the company is the legal persona of the club so club/ company can be used interchangably while not being the same thing as they are closely associated with each other.

 

 

 

nacho admitting he can't disprove he supports a new club.

 

and he led us to believe he had evidence.....

 

one small step...........

 

Rangers 1872 died. We watched them die in the early months of BRALT. 

[williemillersmoustache]

Can't see anywhere in the voluminous diatribe that proves Campbell Ogilvie knew nothing about the EBTs (of which he was a beneficiary) which I took as the thrust of the TOG article.

 

I like how the blog says "he's not a rangers hater and therefore is alright" or words to that effect. IMHO not being a rangers hater is simply acceptance of cheating, theft and sectarian hatred and being a Rangers-Condoner^TM  is on a par with holocaust denier or rapist apologist.

[BinoBalls]

A new blog entry!! Bennett is going to have a multiple orgasm.

[dave.j]

Oh that's a sore one to take for our wee Nacho. But you can almost predict Bennett's response before he even bothers.

I'm going to suggest some playing the man rather than the ball will follow.

[bennett]

You really do hate reading stuff, don't you?

If you want to waste your time then fire right in.

Resolution twelve is the result of 'laymen' with too much time on their hands who lack the experience and skills to properly understand the complex legalities.

[Ken Fitlike]

I liked the snippet where HMRC were sort of going through a tentative negotiation interlude, giving Rangers a slight breathing space - only for Rangers to buy Lee Wallace.

Offer off the table.

[Monkey Tennis]

it is a long standing claim on this board that club and company are the same thing which can easily be disproved by pointling out that plenty of clubs before rangers newcoed while remaining the same club, hearts in 1905, leeds, luton etc you all considered them the same club and then changed your mind in 2012, something which none of you have ever acknowledged

 

I've failed to acknowledge nothing in relation to those other clubs.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that other clubs have been liquidated, meaning that any sense of continuation is murky and indistinct.

So it was with Middlesbrough, who sported a badge with '1986' on it for a few years.

I've been more animated on the subject of Rangers though, on account of being Scottish.

If it makes you happier however, to have me say Luton are kinda old/kinda new too, then I'll say it. Not a problem.

[Monkey Tennis]

If you want to waste your time then fire right in.

Resolution twelve is the result of 'laymen' with too much time on their hands who lack the experience and skills to properly understand the complex legalities.

I'm not particularly interested in Resolution 12 myself. It just amuses me that you're instinctively so dismissive of certain things and you therefore refuse to engage with them altogether.

It's not been that successful a strategy for Rangers fans, has it?

[kiddy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36267891

I see the spending continues unabated, pre-season trips to America now!

[Border Reiver]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36267891

I see the spending continues unabated, pre-season trips to America now!

Could this be at last the fabled tie in... The Govan Cowboys versus the Dallas Cowboys !

[bennett]

I'm not particularly interested in Resolution 12 myself. It just amuses me that you're instinctively so dismissive of certain things and you therefore refuse to engage with them altogether.

It's not been that successful a strategy for Rangers fans, has it?

Engage with the resolution twelve mob?

And folk say that you don't have a sense of humour.

[dave.j]

So much for the Orcs not breaking ranks. Good on you Bennett.

So wee Nacho, the ball in your court. Mob, he says! You going to take that?

[BinoBalls]

I've failed to acknowledge nothing in relation to those other clubs.I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that other clubs have been liquidated, meaning that any sense of continuation is murky and indistinct.So it was with Middlesbrough, who sported a badge with '1986' on it for a few years.I've been more animated on the subject of Rangers though, on account of being Scottish.If it makes you happier however, to have me say Luton are kinda old/kinda new too, then I'll say it. Not a problem.

And I'll say the same if it helps the healing process. Damn Luton Town, Middlesbrough, Hearts and whoever else I need to kind-of condemn.

If Rangers win the title next season I will regard it as 54+1. But Celtic are soon going to overtake Rangers for the number of consecutive titles gained without being liquidated (against their will) along the way.

Edited May 11, 2016 by BinoBalls

[forever_blue]

Cheerybye to the diddies hero that is fat mike

Of course now the usual retort of how fat mike was actually a good thing for rangers will come to the fore

[dave.j]

Cheerybye to the diddies hero that is fat mike

Of course now the usual retort of how fat mike was actually a good thing for rangers will come to the fore

Which diddies gave Mike hero status?

[nacho]

nacho admitting he can't disprove he supports a new club.

 

and he led us to believe he had evidence.....

 

one small step...........

 

Rangers 1872 died. We watched them die in the early months of BRALT. 

 

learn to read, i state the new club case is unprovable as you have zero credible evidence to support it, hope that helps

 

[nacho]

Can't see anywhere in the voluminous diatribe that proves Campbell Ogilvie knew nothing about the EBTs (of which he was a beneficiary) which I took as the thrust of the TOG article.

 

I like how the blog says "he's not a rangers hater and therefore is alright" or words to that effect. IMHO not being a rangers hater is simply acceptance of cheating, theft and sectarian hatred and being a Rangers-Condoner^TM  is on a par with holocaust denier or rapist apologist.

 

? not sure what you are responding too, the res 12 stuff is nothing to do with ebts

[nacho]

Link

I see John James has issued a rebuttal which will be lapped up by his disciples with no right of reply on his site so hopefully Bill McMurdo will read this and send on my behalf. 

I have put JJ comments in Bold underlined italics along with my reply.

JJ "He states that the authors of the report were fed information by the Resolution 12 requisitioners, yet offers no proof to support his speculation. "

I did not state that as fact.  I said it was my belief.  Not sure why that would be so far reaching given the amount of people this info has been sent to elsewhere.

"In 2.5 he states that HMRC did not respond to David Grier’s letter. He should take another look at the annexes of the report as they most certainly did respond"

That's a lie.  In my timeline between 6th June and 30th June I stated: 

"There is then no evidence of any replies from HMRC which is quite surprising given that other documents from HMRC which paint a "bad picture" seem readily available yet the 1 document which can prove beyond any doubt the situation at 30th June is missing"

"No evidence of any replies" does not mean "HMRC did not respond"

In fact, I believe they did respond or at least correspond, but that letter/report will not make the public domain due to its contents not suiting the agenda at play.

" in 1.2 he refers to a hand written note by HMRC. It was not written by HMRC, it was written by a Rangers executive. For an individuial with such a high regard for himself he is betrayed by his poor grasp of the salient details ."

Thats another lie.  I say nothing of the sort  .  The report confirms it was written by a Rangers director. "A hand written note states that HMRC have agreed "IN PRINCIPLE" does not mean "A hand written note BY HMRC."

 "The key element is the bill presented on 20th May. To not have been an overdue payable there had to be at 30th June an agreement accepted in writing by HMRC to extend the deadline for payment."

This is correct. I've never said anything different.

"On the 14th July, after the deadline, what could have been misconstrued as an agreement was withdrawn one week later when HMRC were informed of the signing of Lee Wallace on 21st July."

Wait. What's this? New information that there might have been an agreement with HMRC after all.  So potentially no disclosure at all required by Rangers.  Thanks JJ for that new info.  That helps the licence cause.

"HMRC  were not contemplating anything but full settlement of the tax debt. David Grier’s offer of £200k towards the bill was rebuffed.It was no more than a tactic to give the impression of ongoing discussions with HMRC."

Means nothing to the licence as long as the amount is disclosed as per article 66 paragraph 4.

" The author of the Rangers Media comment is keen to quote UEFA annexes (I excised them when condensing his argument) however he seems to have overlooked

Annex VIII. An overdue payable will not preclude the granting of a UEFA licence if one of four conditions has been satisfied:

a) The relevant amount has been paid.

b) The creditor has accepted, in writing, an agreement to extend the payment terms.

c) The debtor has brought a legal claim disputing liability.

d) It is able to demonstrate that the claim against it is manifestly unfounded."

WAIT. What??? The opening paragraph is COMPLETELY MADE UP.  This is by far the biggest lie in the entire rebuttal.  One which by the way had me a little concerned as i thought i had slipped up and missed it somewhere.

The 4 conditions set out allow you to NOT disclose a penny of overdue tax.  They are nothing to do with "precluding the granting of a licence" It's simple.  If your tax bill meets one of the 4 above you DO NOT NEED to disclose it.  If your tax bill doesn't meet it, as was the case with us at June 30th, then you DO NEED to disclose it, which we done. 

"If any of these conditions had been satisfied, it would behove the SFA to construct a well-founded written case to apply for an exemption. In a,c and d above, there is no case. The £2.83m has not been paid. There was no redress to legal action and no appeal in the 30 day HMRC window. Andrew Thornhill’s advice to settle puts paid to any attempt to invoke clause d."

This is pure fantasy.  You don't apply for exemption.  You disclose your overdue payable as per Article 66 paragraph 4 using the definition of Annex VIII. a,b,c and d allow you the option of keeping your mouth shut and the ink dry. What is so difficult about this that people just don't understand? It's schoolboy stuff.

"There is an attempt by the Rangers Media author to invoke clause b,"

More lies.  I go to great pains to explain there is no evidence to support b which is why WE NEEDED to disclose the bill.  Which we did.

"If the SFA had engaged in this procedure, they could have easily taken Resolution 12 to task. When we strip away the blue rhetoric, the ad hominem attacks, conjecture and specious claims of documents going missing, we are left with only one conclusion:"

When we strip away every lie and non point you have made in this rebuttal, you are right to say we are left with only one conclusion and that is that you cant read English and that you blatantly lie to apease your followers.  Your entire rebuttal is astounding.

I should point out at this stage that i have exchanged around 10 emails or so with the author who has been very cordial, has debated and discussed every point in an adult manner and at no juncture has he resorted to lies or misquoting me.  I have a full reply to review in the next hour or so but again, very coridal.  I stand by my notion that he is independent and not a Celtic fan, or Rangers hater who by their own actions, are very simple to spot. 

"As there was no schedule of payments from HMRC, and there never would be, Ken Olverman’s submission to the SFA on 30th June was predicated on a lie." 

Ken Olverman disclosed the £2.83m on the licence application in accordance with Article 66 paragraph 4.  There is no proof of any lie.  In fact a few points back, you admitted there may have been a percieved agreement.

"The SFA accepted this lie, stated that the £2.83m was a potential liability that had not crystallised, and they have been running with this rhetoric ever since. However, they don’t escape liability as they don’t have any written confirmation of a schedule of payments."

What part of the Article is it that you dont get.  If the club had a schedule of payments, there would be a "nil disclosure" so the SFA would never see a schedule of payments, nor ask for one, because there is none.

Let me finally remind you of the REAL ANNEX VIII

ANNEX VIII: Notion of ‘overdue payables’

1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms.

2. Payables are NOT CONSIDERED as overdue, within the meaning of these regulations, if the licence applicant/licensee (i.e. debtor club) is able to prove by 31 March (in respect of Articles 49 and 50) and by 30 June and 30 September (in respect of Articles 65 and 66) respectively that:

a) it has paid the relevant amount in full; or

b) it has concluded an agreement which has been accepted in writing by the creditor to extend the deadline for payment beyond the applicable deadline (note: the fact that a creditor may not have requested payment of an amount does not constitute an extension of the deadline); or

c) it has brought a legal claim which has been deemed admissible by the competent authority under national law or has opened proceedings with the national or international football authorities or relevant arbitration tribunal contesting liability in relation to the overdue payables; however, if the decision-making bodies (licensor and/or UEFA Club Financial Control Body) consider that such claim has been brought or such proceedings have been opened for the sole purpose of avoiding the applicable deadlines set out in these regulations (i.e. in order to buy time), the relevant amount will still be considered as an overdue payable; or

d) it has contested to the competent authority under national law, the national or international football authorities or the relevant arbitration tribunal, a claim which has been brought or proceedings which have been opened against it by a creditor in respect of overdue payables and is able to demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant decision-making bodies (licensor and/or UEFA Club Financial Control Body) that it has established reasons for contesting the claim or proceedings which have been opened; however, if the decision-making bodies (licensor and/or UEFA Club Financial Control Body) consider the reasons for contesting the claim or proceedings which have been opened as manifestly unfounded the amount will still be considered as an overdue payable.

OVERDUE PAYABLE = DISCLOSURE

NOT OVERDUE PAYABLE = NO DISCLOSURE

[nacho]

I'm not particularly interested in Resolution 12 myself. It just amuses me that you're instinctively so dismissive of certain things and you therefore refuse to engage with them altogether. It's not been that successful a strategy for Rangers fans, has it?

 

I think you will find its the other way around as things stand we are officially the same club, will be in europe next year, have all our titles, trophies etc, why would we not be dismissive when these daft wee campaigns are currently standing at 3-0 to us, added to that the resolution 12 stuff is a pile of pish that has already been given short shrift by the sfa so it looks like 4-0 and even if the celtic fans behind it were right (which they are not), there are a variety of sanctions available for breaching it of which not being eligble for europe is the most extreme, its absolute garbage dreamed up in the minds of timmy acountants and the way a guy in rangers media has been able to point out its massive flaws in a couple of posts points to the latest predictable laughable failure from celtic fans

 

[dave.j]

Someone please listen to our wee Nacho. He's putting in a real shift.

Ctrl C.

Ctrl V.

Another post done.

You keep the campaign going wee man. Cut n paste yer wee heart out. Don't worry if the guy on RM thinks you're a creepy b*****d.