Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[SS-18 ICBM]

It says the History, not part of the history or anything else, so yes all of it

Including tax-dodging, failing to pay creditors and fielding ineligible players for over a decade before liquidation.

[killingfloorman]

would that not go straight to Ticketus?

as wunfellaff said it´s a win/win

[youngsy]

Including tax-dodging, failing to pay creditors and fielding ineligible players for over a decade before liquidation.

If that's part of the clubs' history then yes but that history will also show that the EBT tribunal found in favour of the plc,that's part of the history as well just as Celtic and every other club have their history,the good and the bad,no sense in denying history is there.

[Monkey Tennis]

Aye,Rangers 2- The Haters 0.

That's a bloody strange take on events of the last year.

Even if we concede these latest 'victories' I still make it :

Rangers 2 - The haters 27 (or thereabouts).

I have to say that acceptance by this despicable, self-serving clique of big boys called ECA is as meaningless as it's predictable, but if it gives you pleasure, fill your boots.

FWIW, I actually sort of accept continuation. For me, it's about fans primarily, and sadly they seem to have transferred over more seamlessly than any decent players did. That the old club died made it appropriate that the new version had to come in at the bottom. I can accept however that it's a new version of the same thing. It's that belief that makes me care so much about title stripping.

For me - and I know this isn't the prevalent diddy view on here - Rangers still exist, but their shameful behaviour has left them diminished, vulnerable to loss of honours and at the mercy of a new owner about whom significant questions arise.

[thenolly]

must be a lot of head scratching going on m8

to nolly

Seems to be, a couple of hours and several posts from ra berz but surprisingly no adult reply as of yet, lets try again lads, stop your deflecting and petty school yard taunts, its friday night time for a grown up discussion, surprise us with your intellegent and well thought out answers to the questions,

Come on lets here from yous'

1) Where's the accounts, whats the REAL picture off the field

2) Where's the title deeds? Who actually owns the assets.

3)Where's the ticketus debt gone? Who's really going to make money out the share campaign.

4)Where's the truth? Greene stated they were debt free-Lie, Greene stated he wasn't involved with Ticketus/Octopus - Yet the company is all over the prospectus, Greene ststed TUPEing weas illegal _ Players legally left, Greene stated he had never met or dealt with Whyte - Yet Whyte seems to dispute this and seems to have evidence to back this, Greene stated he had a consortium - Yet hasn't been able to name them.

5) Probably most importantly who is Greene actually working for? Ticketus, Whyte, Murray, some other dodgy guy that hasn't been named as anyone who thinks he's here himself is deluded

Or can we all assume its head in the sand time and if it does go tits up and greene/ticketus/whyte/santa run off with yer money it will be another catholic conspiracy and the diddies and plastics caused your undoing again.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Serious questions time again, for all rangers fans - Can you answer these questions as you see the situation, because I am struggling to see how so many people are being either duped or wilfully ignorant over these issues:

1.When Charlie Boy bought "the assets" of rangers, what did he actually buy? We hear talk of "history", "goodwill" and the rest, but what did the sale actually entail? There even appear to be doubts over the ownership of some of the physical assets, e.g. the Albion car park. As the last man to address a cheering crowd outside ibrox might slur, "show us the deeds!"

2. Was the money used to buy rangers' assets actually charged to the new club as a "loan" of some sort? It appears from some descriptions that Charlie has actually bought the old clubs' bricks and mortar with the new club's money.

3. What exactly are the shares being offered? Shares of what, with what rights? As far as I can see, this is simply a way to pay Charlie loads of money, which he can do with what he wants. Happy to be corrected, but the whole business stinks like a dead skunk.

ETA: The Nolly continues to wait for reasoned responses to his questions, so as there's a lot of overlap, just concentrate on his for the moment.

Edited December 14, 2012 by WhiteRoseKillie

[Mason Boyne]

Serious questions time again, for all rangers fans - Can you answer these questions as you see the situation, because I am struggling to see how so many people are being either duped or wilfully ignorant over these issues:

1.When Charlie Boy bought "the assets" of rangers, what did he actually buy? We hear talk of "history", "goodwill" and the rest, but what did the sale actually entail? There even appear to be doubts over the ownership of some of the physical assets, e.g. the Albion car park. As the last man to address a cheering crowd outside ibrox might slur, "show us the deeds!"

2. Was the money used to buy rangers' assets actually charged to the new club as a "loan" of some sort? It appears from some descriptions that Charlie has actually bought the old clubs' bricks and mortar with the new club's money.

3. What exactly are the shares being offered? Shares of what, with what rights? As far as I can see, this is simply a way to pay Charlie loads of money, which he can do with what he wants. Happy to be corrected, but the whole business stinks like a dead skunk.

ETA: The Nolly continues to wait for reasoned responses to his questions, so as there's a lot of overlap, just concentrate on his for the moment.

what a fucking twat you are

[thenolly]

what a fucking twat you are

How for asking you's a sensible question, come on Mason try giving the questions myself and Whiterose a reasoned answer

[killingfloorman]

what a fucking twat you are

Thank you for that detailed, articulate and reasoned reply

[WhiteRoseKillie]

WARNING - TOTALLY OFF-TOPIC.

Just been thinking - as most regular posters will know, the rapier wit that is Bennett thinks it mightily amusing to refer to me as "Norman", alluding to the character in the film "Psycho" (I'm assuming the film, as if he reads like he writes, Harry Potter would be a stretch). Let's have a look at that character, shall we?

Norman was brought up by his mother to despise all women except her. After he murdered her, he preserved her corpse and, refusing to believe she was no more, preserved her and even dressed as her, eventually "becoming" her as his MPD took hold. Another of his personalities was "Normal", a just-about-functional adult who carried out the basic tasks and activities of everyday life.

Whenever Norman seemed on the verge of attraction to others, "Norma" assumes control and attacks them. Nothing is allowed to come between a boy and his mother.

So, Norman Bates:

1. Very close to his mother and distrusts all other women

2. Cannot admit the death of that which is closest to him.

3. Will attack any threat to his "status quo" relationship with his dead love, even in a manner which all sane people would see as irrational and extreme.

And Bennett refers to me as Norman.....

[Burma]

what a fucking twat you are

^^^^^^^Full on raging meltdown

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Thank you for that detailed, articulate and reasoned reply

To be fair, it's spelt right, and with a wee bit of punctuation it would even be a grammatically correct insult. Still only an insult, but hey, baby steps, eh?

[Monkey Tennis]

WARNING - TOTALLY OFF-TOPIC.

Just been thinking - as most regular posters will know, the rapier wit that is Bennett thinks it mightily amusing to refer to me as "Norman", alluding to the character in the film "Psycho" (I'm assuming the film, as if he reads like he writes, Harry Potter would be a stretch). Let's have a look at that character, shall we?

Norman was brought up by his mother to despise all women except her. After he murdered her, he preserved her corpse and, refusing to believe she was no more, preserved her and even dressed as her, eventually "becoming" her as his MPD took hold. Another of his personalities was "Normal", a just-about-functional adult who carried out the basic tasks and activities of everyday life.

Whenever Norman seemed on the verge of attraction to others, "Norma" assumes control and attacks them. Nothing is allowed to come between a boy and his mother.

So, Norman Bates:

1. Very close to his mother and distrusts all other women

2. Cannot admit the death of that which is closest to him.

3. Will attack any threat to his "status quo" relationship with his dead love, even in a manner which all sane people would see as irrational and extreme.

And Bennett refers to me as Norman.....

That's actually pretty good.

[Burma]

WARNING - TOTALLY OFF-TOPIC.

Just been thinking - as most regular posters will know, the rapier wit that is Bennett thinks it mightily amusing to refer to me as "Norman", alluding to the character in the film "Psycho" (I'm assuming the film, as if he reads like he writes, Harry Potter would be a stretch). Let's have a look at that character, shall we?

Norman was brought up by his mother to despise all women except her. After he murdered her, he preserved her corpse and, refusing to believe she was no more, preserved her and even dressed as her, eventually "becoming" her as his MPD took hold. Another of his personalities was "Normal", a just-about-functional adult who carried out the basic tasks and activities of everyday life.

Whenever Norman seemed on the verge of attraction to others, "Norma" assumes control and attacks them. Nothing is allowed to come between a boy and his mother.

So, Norman Bates:

1. Very close to his mother and distrusts all other women

2. Cannot admit the death of that which is closest to him.

3. Will attack any threat to his "status quo" relationship with his dead love, even in a manner which all sane people would see as irrational and extreme.

And Bennett refers to me as Norman.....

Insightful look at the mindset of this particular orc.......your saying he has developed an fixation on you and it transferring his persona (and real name?) onto you in an attempt to nullify his deep attraction towards you....inevitably this fails and he is left with the only method at his disposal which is to attack. His MPD is obvious when you take into account his two p&B accounts (bendarroch being his other one). It certainly goes some way to explaining his obsession with you.

Will the real Norman please stand up.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Burma

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Nolly continues to make stuff up, perhaps if he stopped he might get some answers

1. Charlie bought the club, the assets and various bit of property including Ibrox and Murray Park, this is confirmed in the prospectus if you read it, I have never ever known of a business publishing deeds on the interernet just to keep a bunch of rabid p & bers happy

2. Mainly investors money, again clear if you read the prospectus, the company also has a loan for £1.7M

3 The company (PLC) which owns the club, yes he will make a lot of money however he cannot sell his shares within the 1st 12 months, nor does he realise his huge bonus until they make it back to the SPL (or whatever it is called)

The problem is with your questions and even more so Nollys is the way you ask them, the post is literally covered in jizz staines, examples in bold

1. Again, what exactly are "the assets"?

2. Read my post again, then answer the question I asked, if you're going to answer.

3. Which company is that? How many clubs called "rangers" in one form or another does this man have an interest in? And why the emphasis on the "club" in the prospectus and sales patter?

[WhiteRoseKillie]

That's actually pretty good.

Why Thank You, kind Sir.

[killingfloorman]

To be fair, it's spelt right, and with a wee bit of punctuation it would even be a grammatically correct insult. Still only an insult, but hey, baby steps, eh?

Spelt correctly

[thenolly]

Nolly continues to make stuff up, perhaps if he stopped he might get some answers

1. Charlie bought the club, the assets and various bit of property including Ibrox and Murray Park, this is confirmed in the prospectus if you read it, I have never ever known of a business publishing deeds on the interernet just to keep a bunch of rabid p & bers happy

2. Mainly investors money, again clear if you read the prospectus, the company also has a loan for £1.7M

3 The company (PLC) which owns the club, yes he will make a lot of money however he cannot sell his shares within the 1st 12 months, nor does he realise his huge bonus until they make it back to the SPL (or whatever it is called)

The problem is with your questions and even more so Nollys is the way you ask them, the post is literally covered in jizz staines, examples in bold

Come on Tedi, please inform me as to what part of the questions I'm making up, answer my ones and we can have a wee debate (could be fun), I'll go put the kettle on whilst I wait for your reply

[Sting777]

Seemingly Sevco 5088 fans going radio rental on twitter over Gerard Butlers comments on the One Show tonight :lol:

http://www.heatworld.com/Entertainment/TV/2012/12/Gerard-Butler-jokes-about-zombies-in-Glasgow-and-makes-Alex-Jones-blush-during-hilarious-appearance-on-the-One-Show/

[bennett]

My clubs trading at a profit, top of the league (20 places above your mob) and in a cup final, hee haw to be raging about, but asked a sensible question and as usual can't get anything that resembles an answer let alone sensible, lets try again Amigos out of the 5 questions below please try to give me and our fellow P&Bers something to discuss in an adult and inteligent manner.

Just to refresh the audiences memory here's the questions again

1) Where's the accounts, whats the REAL picture off the field

2) Where's the title deeds? Who actually owns the assets.

3)Where's the ticketus debt gone? Who's really going to make money out the share campaign.

4)Where's the truth? Greene stated they were debt free-Lie, Greene stated he wasn't involved with Ticketus/Octopus - Yet the company is all over the prospectus, Greene ststed TUPEing weas illegal _ Players legally left, Greene stated he had never met or dealt with Whyte - Yet Whyte seems to dispute this and seems to have evidence to back this, Greene stated he had a consortium - Yet hasn't been able to name them.

5) Probably most importantly who is Greene actually working for? Ticketus, Whyte, Murray, some other dodgy guy that hasn't been named as anyone who thinks he's here himself is deluded

I'm not an accountant nor a member of the board.

See above answer

Liquidation of the oldco, you must have read about it.

Tupping, eh? Probably best asking one of the Aberdeen lads about that.

The consortium i belive, anymore info would have to come from someone in the know. Best tweet Paul McConville.

Glad i could help.