HibeeJibee Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Now now !!! The point I was making was that Dundee and Livingston didn't receive the same attention from Hollyrood. Never once did I hear Salmond say that it was vital for Scotland that Dundee FC survive !!! Sure they are possibly higher profile , but at the end of the day they are just another football club and should be treated accordingly. No favours were handed out to Dundee or Livi , so it should be likewise with Rangers In fairness, I haven't seen any politician saying that Rangers should get special favours, just that they're "encouraging" all parties to reach a settlement best for the club and the public purse. It's a fairly uncontroversial stance. Shona Robinson said the same for Dundee. And not much different to politicians making pronouncements over the Johnnie Walker plant in Kilmarnock for example, but not my local off-license. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 But if the plan of HMRC is to make an example of Rangers for the bigger fish down south, the spineless SPL doesn't apply in their equation. If Arsenal or Chelsea went bust (as an example), the EPL wouldn't let AFC2012 or CFC2012 in right away. If the object of their game is to kill RFC to make some rogue English teams wet their pants then it'll work. At the end of the day, HMRC can't tell the SPL what to do, and frankly they probably won't care what happens to RFC 2012 as long as it gets the point across. Thats as far as the big tax bill goes. Rangers the business as we know it now wont even be there to be set an example of I'm quite sure. Whyte obviously had zero intention of paying any VAT or PAYE/NI to get the ball rolling with administration. Its a bit of a pisser to the rest of us that have to pay tax on threat of being jailed if we refuse to cough up but thats they way things go. HMRC will get their pound of flesh from whatever phoenix company turns up and the game will continue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) Yep. Hopefully they will, as Rangers need to be punished. As you say, they will be back as large as life in due course anyway, Whyte is doing what he does, which is how he made his money by the look of things. He will set up a new Rangers business, flog it and move on. Probably hoping for a return on his one pound investment. HMRC wont punish them. The law won't punish them and it remains to be seen if the other member clubs do anything about it. I suspect not. Andrew Smith in the Scotsman said it was hinted to him that what we may call a continuation Rangers (Leeds Utd scenario; versus a reformed Rangers) may be fined 15pts per season for 3 seasons, as punishment, plus the 3-year European ban would also sting. Edited February 15, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Err, no. It's exactly the point of the matter. A phoenix company, with none of the debt and almost all of the privileges of the previous entity is no lesson at all. Raners will come out of this stronger. Much stronger. The downside is that Whyte will profit from the whole deal, and you and I (via HMRC) will be utterly screwed over. The power to sanction lies with the other member clubs. Only they can punish the rogue entity. Well said. It's a shame there's no way the successor company can be forced to pay back a sum as a penalty for the tax owed as that would be fair and a new rangers that was hamstrung for say 10 years is probably right. The SPL won't have the baws to kick out a new Rangers due to the TV deal, which is mad. Rangers going to shit means that reform could be forced through on Voting Rights, Share of Income, relegation spots, play offs the whole shooting match. I'm not convinced the SFA have the baws either. This'll be a squirming shitfest that sees a team in blue based at Ibrox winning the Top flight league in Scotland within the next five seasons, probably within three years. No punishment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Indeed. I can't see them now getting a brass cent out of Rangers. They fucked it yesterday by not getting a court appointed administrator. They didn't f**k it up. They tried to get a court appointed administrator. Duncan Menzies fucked it up - not HMRC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) Andrew Smith in the Scotsman said it was hinted to him that what we may call a continuation Rangers (Leeds Utd scenario; versus a reformed Rangers) may be fined 15pts per season for 3 seasons, as punishment, plus the 3-year European ban would also sting. To make your club debt free, that is a very small price to pay. Rangers in 10 years time will be in great shape by the looks of things. Only because Scottish football will allow them to be. They should not be permitted to return. Edited February 15, 2012 by H_B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mik Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I agree. Too many Tory c***s looking out for the interests of Tory c***s. I can see why non productive public sector dross like you need Rangers to pay their tax all the same. No vested interest from you either then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Yep. Hopefully they will, as Rangers need to be punished. As you say, they will be back as large as life in due course anyway, Whyte is doing what he does, which is how he made his money by the look of things. He will set up a new Rangers business, flog it and move on. Probably hoping for a return on his one pound investment. HMRC wont punish them. The law won't punish them and it remains to be seen if the other member clubs do anything about it. I suspect not. No, no, no, NO !.......... "He" won't set up OR sell fcucking anything ! He is a secured creditor of RFC !!!!! His money comes to him via the sale of the ASSETS by the ADMINISTRATOR - either from the state of administration (unlikely due to CVA not being agreed by HMRC) or from LIQUIDATION - ie the closure of RFC (Highly probable as I believe this is what they WANT TO HAPPEN. I know its a bit of work but please read through the threads..... its all there, honestly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserNine Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 http://wingsland.podgamer.com/why-scotland-doesnt-need-rangers/ I haven't trawled through the various threads so if it's been posted/linked to already,apologies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 They didn't f**k it up. They tried to get a court appointed administrator. Duncan Menzies fucked it up - not HMRC. Nah. HMRC needed to force the argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 No, no, no, NO !.......... "He" won't set up OR sell fcucking anything ! He is a secured creditor of RFC !!!!! His money comes to him via the sale of the ASSETS by the ADMINISTRATOR - either from the state of administration (unlikely due to CVA not being agreed by HMRC) or from LIQUIDATION - ie the closure of RFC (Highly probable as I believe this is what they WANT TO HAPPEN. I know its a bit of work but please read through the threads..... its all there, honestly. Whatever. He will sell and leave. He couldn't give a f**k about Rangers/football/HMRC/Scotland. He will profit and leave however its wrapped up technically (I wouldn't know and have no real interest) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibby82 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 In fairness, I haven't seen any politician saying that Rangers should get special favours, just that they're "encouraging" all parties to reach a settlement best for the club and the public purse. It's a fairly uncontroversial stance. Shona Robinson said the same for Dundee. And not much different to politicians making pronouncements over the Johnnie Walker plant in Kilmarnock for example, but not my local off-license. Exactly. Dundee were publicly backed by various elected politicians, rightly or wrongly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibby82 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) I'd forgotten all about Gordon Smith's glorious prodigal return to Ibrox. Is he still there? If so, he'll surely be one of the first to be punted by the administrators. BBC Scotland better not take him back again, particularly in light of Rangers' refusal to talk to them over the last few months. Edited February 15, 2012 by shedboy82 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Whatever. He will sell and leave. He couldn't give a f**k about Rangers/football/HMRC/Scotland. He will profit and leave however its wrapped up technically (I wouldn't know and have no real interest) Oh yes... that much is clear 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 To make your club debt free, that is a very small price to pay. Rangers in 10 years time will be in great shape by the looks of things. Only because Scottish football will allow them to be. They should not be permitted to return. Worth saying that in the transfer-of-share scenario they aren't "returning" of course. I would doubt any clubs in SPL and few if any in SFL are in the same legal form and owned by the same companies today, as they were when established in the 1800s (typically). I appreciate it's not been used as a debt-dodge before, but membership and ownership have changed before and will again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Worth saying that in the transfer-of-share scenario they aren't "returning" of course. I would doubt any clubs in SPL and few if any in SFL are in the same legal form and owned by the same companies today, as they were when established in the 1800s (typically). I appreciate it's not been used as a debt-dodge before, but membership and ownership have changed before and will again. Okay, so Rangers get liquidated. New Rangers don't get allowed in, so New New Rangers buy out a worthless club and rename and relocate and off they go again. It's like an unkillable Zombie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Okay, so Rangers get liquidated. New Rangers don't get allowed in, so New New Rangers buy out a worthless club and rename and relocate and off they go again. It's like an unkillable Zombie. Unflushable turd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Worth saying that in the transfer-of-share scenario they aren't "returning" of course. Only on the most technical of technicalities. Unless you consider "Airdrie United" to be in no way related to "Airdrieonians". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 In fairness, I haven't seen any politician saying that Rangers should get special favours, just that they're "encouraging" all parties to reach a settlement best for the club and the public purse. It's a fairly uncontroversial stance. Shona Robinson said the same for Dundee. And not much different to politicians making pronouncements over the Johnnie Walker plant in Kilmarnock for example, but not my local off-license. In the context of a possible fraud case over PAYE , I think it might be a bit premature for the First Minister to publicly support such practice !!! ( I see you conveniently deleted my last statement !!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.