JamboRobbo Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Mandaric has confirmed in a statement he has no interest in becoming involved with Rangers! It's one thing being up in court for Tax Evasion - he can handle that. But he'll not accept slandering his name by associating him with a bid for Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 You know you're really in the shit if Cowboys like Mandaric want nothing to do with you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Whyte is welcome for a pint roon Firhill anytime. Is he going to make Aluko pay for it? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 In my last post, I didn't mean that Salmond and Cameron were fallng over themselves to initiate discussion about Rangers. I appreciate they were asked by a reporter and therefore responded. My point though, while perhaps badly worded initially, is that their responses (most notably Salmond) were not simply the bog standard soundbite of support you would expect. Both of them were most definitely sounding off about something needing done because of the history and tradition of this particular Glasgow giant. Salmond really should have kept his response short and sweet. He brought Celtic and the rest of Scottish football into, and added fuel to the 'everyone needs Rangers, we're nothing without them' line. I'm no Peter Lawell fan, but he was bang on to come out strongly and distance his club from this growing (in some quarters) view that this is a special circumstance.... because it's Rangers. Some may agree that Rangers must be saved simply because they are, well, Rangers, but I don't buy it. I have no problem if Rangers do survive, but if it is achieved or aided by the politicians and football authorities bending or breaking the rules that they would never, ever bend or break for 10 other SPL clubs for sure, then the whole lot of them can go fcuk themselves, whatever crumb of respectabilty Scottish football had in my eyes would just have been flushed right down the pan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Is he going to make Aluko pay for it? :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Yeah you're right I meant liquidation. The fact is a as administartors they are acting as officers of the court. In that capacity I would have thought they would be obliged to be more honest (even if it meant saying "we really do'nt know what will happen") rather than trying to be glorified PR men. "Im an admin startor ... twisted admin startor" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Mr Whyte's versatile legal advisor.. Craig Whyte's advisor is a porn star P.S. If anyone is bored at work, this is worth a scan.. My link (very SFW!) Great to see the papers picking up on an old story: http://rangerstaxcase.com/2011/04/04/rangers-expert-advice/ Admittedly that version is rather short of pics. Shame Mandaric doesn't want involved - wold be great to have a trigger happy chairman in charge of one of the Old Firm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Read a tweet saying HMRC are going to court to remove the administrators as there's a link On their website to the save rangers e-petition. I hope that's true, be a fantastic twist in the story. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alimci Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Read a tweet saying HMRC are going to court to remove the administrators as there's a link On their website to the save rangers e-petition. I hope that's true, be a fantastic twist in the story. That would be superb. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Some mistake surely . He plays Bass for Rush you're both wrong - it's the other guy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 you're both wrong - it's the other guy John Rutsey? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 That'll definitely be a no, then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guns Show Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Even Mandric, who is a bit of an expert with tax issues wouldn't touch them. Edited February 17, 2012 by Guns Show 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreenMonster Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Ticketus' parent company statement Octopus Investments would like to clarify the position of Ticketus with regard to the current Glasgow Rangers coverage.Ticketus is one of the many entities into which Octopus Protected EIS invests. Ticketus has purchased tickets for Glasgow Rangers games for a number of seasons in advance, as it has done for a number of years previously with the club. Ticketus does not lend money; Ticketus is the owner of assets - the tickets. Octopus is continuing to work with the administrators and Glasgow Rangers on this matter. Edited February 17, 2012 by TheGreenMonster 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Ticketus' parent company statement Octopus Investments would like to clarify the position of Ticketus with regard to the current Glasgow Rangers coverage.Ticketus is one of the many entities into which Octopus Protected EIS invests. Ticketus has purchased tickets for Glasgow Rangers games for a number of seasons in advance, as it has done for a number of years previously with the club. Ticketus does not lend money; Ticketus is the owner of assets - the tickets. Octopus is continuing to work with the administrators and Glasgow Rangers on this matter. Nope I'm no clearer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piehutt Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Why didn't Celtic make a statement about almost every journalist who has said the same thing as Salmond. Seems that Celtic are a bit paranoid and are falling over themselves to say 'we don't need Rangers, let them die for all we care'. In fact most journalists have simply said 'Celtic would be worse off without Rangers' - many in direct response to Lawwell's comments on Monday. Do Celtic really believe that? Do they hate the idea of Rangers winning the title ever again, that they would rather they ceased to exist rather than have a credible opponent to drive competition in the league? If Rangers did die, Celtic would get bored sh1tless winning the league every February. Interest in their club would drop and they would end up staying just a bit better than Hearts, Motherwell, Dunde Utd etc. Assuming they couldn't get a move to England (which would be much more likely without Rangers, than it would with them) they'd end up playing in front of 20,000 or 30,000 fans, or less, within a decade. Celtic have far more to lose than any other club if Rangers went tits up. In fact, it would actully be funny to watch. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreenMonster Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Nope I'm no clearer. Think are just making it clear they have not loaned Rangers or Craig Whyte anything which is what is being reported, they have bought a portion of the Rangers season tickets for the next few years and whatever happens they still owns these and get the money from the sale of season books. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Why didn't Celtic make a statement about almost every journalist who has said the same thing as Salmond. Seems that Celtic are a bit paranoid and are falling over themselves to say 'we don't need Rangers, let them die for all we care'. In fact most journalists have simply said 'Celtic would be worse off without Rangers' - many in direct response to Lawwell's comments on Monday. Do Celtic really believe that? Do they hate the idea of Rangers winning the title ever again, that they would rather they ceased to exist rather than have a credible opponent to drive competition in the league? If Rangers did die, Celtic would get bored sh1tless winning the league every February. Interest in their club would drop and they would end up staying just a bit better than Hearts, Motherwell, Dunde Utd etc. Assuming they couldn't get a move to England (which would be much more likely without Rangers, than it would with them) they'd end up playing in front of 20,000 or 30,000 fans, or less, within a decade. Celtic have far more to lose than any other club if Rangers went tits up. In fact, it would actully be funny to watch. Erm, didn't Celtic feel the need to only respond to Alex Salmond and not the journalists because Alex Salmond is Scotland's First Minister and was making statements to the world at large. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placidcasual Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Think are just making it clear they have not loaned Rangers or Craig Whyte anything which is what is being reported, they have bought a portion of the Rangers season tickets for the next few years and whatever happens they still owns these and get the money from the sale of season books. Unless they go out the game and are reformed, in which case I'd imagine the same rules would apply to them as apply to every one else. They're fucked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Why didn't Celtic make a statement about almost every journalist who has said the same thing as Salmond. Seems that Celtic are a bit paranoid and are falling over themselves to say 'we don't need Rangers, let them die for all we care'. In fact most journalists have simply said 'Celtic would be worse off without Rangers' - many in direct response to Lawwell's comments on Monday. Do Celtic really believe that? Do they hate the idea of Rangers winning the title ever again, that they would rather they ceased to exist rather than have a credible opponent to drive competition in the league? If Rangers did die, Celtic would get bored sh1tless winning the league every February. Interest in their club would drop and they would end up staying just a bit better than Hearts, Motherwell, Dunde Utd etc. Assuming they couldn't get a move to England (which would be much more likely without Rangers, than it would with them) they'd end up playing in front of 20,000 or 30,000 fans, or less, within a decade. Celtic have far more to lose than any other club if Rangers went tits up. In fact, it would actully be funny to watch. Journalists can spout opinion - as it happens both Celtic's CEO and manager had previously stated their position that they "don't need Rangers" really in response to that opinion. I think where the First Minister of the country is making reference to it in the way he did, Celtic are quite right to issue a statement. In fact I'd like all SPL chairmen to make similar statements. (Obviously some of them may well believe we do "need" Rangers, or at least want to retain them). Celtic didn't say they would rather Rangers ceased to exist either. You might be right that potentially Celtic have a lot to lose without Rangers - but personally I'm quite pleased at what Celtic have said. I think they are making a stand that unfortunately other people involved with football are (perhaps understandably) not prepared to - I think Celtic know their fans would be up in arms if a "New Rangers" was permitted to jump through the league structure straight back into the SPL. I hope that as well as distancing themselves from this possibility in public, that they would also reject it when it matters in private. I want St Mirren and all other clubs to be involved in dealing with the football side of this saga to deal with it fairly rather than just considering the commercial implications. To say "we need Rangers" is like saying "we are happy for clubs to cheat so long as it brings in the dough". It might be true - it should never be said! 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.