dave.j Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Or this... There isn't a simplistic view in any respect. I assume in this instance as regards a figurehead you mean Murray with the EBTs and any alleged double contracts. As a chairman he was very autocratic in his chairmanship of the club,that's borne out by Adam in interviews he has given to various media outlets. If Rangers have to answer for Murrays dealings with contracts then so be it,that's what the club will have to contend with. Murray was the owner,therefore he made the decisions in Rangers name,we as a support accept that,or have to accept that,we may not like it but that's the way it is,the club may suffer from the actions of the majority shareholder. We are suffering at the moment because of the actions of the current majority shareholder,nothing the club or support can do to affect this suffering until we find the way forward with a new regime,hopefully transparency from whoever takes over will be shown. The actions of certain individuals will reflect badly on the club but that is something the support have to accept will happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Who wrote this gem back in april? Count the times the word company is used... Lets start with the EBTs. First of all the club have not been accused of breaking UK Tax law with the EBTs,that would have constituted Tax evasion,a criminal act which would most likely have seen prosecutions against individuals. This hasn't happened. HMRC has put forward a case for payment of unpaid tax on the EBTs on the way Rangers operated them as regards a tax avoidance scheme. Rangers have disputed this by stating the advice they received was that the club operated them correctly. That is the clubs stance on the issue,further to that the EBTs over the period they were operated,2001-2010,are being assessed on a yearly basis,in that way the findings could go Rangers way for all years looked at,HMRC for all years looked at or part Rangers,part HMRC,something that many people fail to recognise. If the club are found to have a tax deficit on the EBTs,either for the full term or part term of them,then of course they are duty bound to rectify this in agreement with HMRC. As for the SFA investigation on double contracts,this has all came about because of former director Hugh Adams' allegations that such a thing happened during his time at the club,he may be correct on them but why then did Adam not oppose this practice at the time by bringing it to the attention of the full board of directors or indeed to the shareholders as was his duty as a sitting board member at the time. I,like everyone else outwith the inner circle at Ibrox at the time,have no idea whether these contracts were in place to certain players or not but fair enough,if they were in place as Adam has intimated,and if they are found to be against SFA rulings then the club has to accept whichever penalties imposed upon them. As for Craig Whyte,at the moment, under administration, he is not regarded as the owner of the club,majority shareholder only,moot point but that is his position. His acts since he took over the club and up until the club went into administration have been reprehensible, to say the least,that have taken the club to the brink of liquidation,no argument from the vast majority of Rangers fans about him,certainly none from myself. Since he came into the club he has driven a sustainable debt of £18 million up to a figure in the region of £50 million since last May and as regards the £9-15 million Tax/N.I. that he has held back from paying,without a doubt he shoud be taken to task for that. Without Whyte doing the deeds he has done Rangers would not have been in administration today as the £18 million debt was being serviced before he took the club over,we were in financial trouble,no doubt about that but not to the extent he brought the club to. So anything negative happening to him is all good as far as i'm concerned. I was right! *claps hands in childish glee* As to who wrote it, I'm guessing not Tedi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Neither did I say he attacked Killie. Believing that someone would claim to support Killie if he followed a team with a trophy count like celtic and regular European football - THAT would be stupid. Like Kenny has said repeatedly - those whose buses travel from all over to those two big temples of bigotry every week are gloryhunters, pure and simple. A lesser species, in the eyes of those of us who choose to follow our local team. Where are you from again? You don't agree we deserve Team of The Year? Humping both Sisters in their own shitholes, and humping one of them in a cup final? With our resources? Fucking brilliant year. Your old club's embarrassing demise simply put the cherry on the icing of an already lovely cake. Who did the players in the Broom-cupboard and Riot Final play for? Club or company? Motherwell or Inverness Norm, i've not really been keeping much of an eye on the SPL but those two seem to have been getting the headlines. Sorry but Celtic just don't deserve it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 @andrewburns49: Shiels says Killie should have been the 'team of 2012', not Celtic. "They threw away two cups and underachieved. Best team? How? Get real." Shiels is obviously a bit of a tool who courts controversy for its own sake. I thought he was great on that Radio feature the other night though. He was spot on in his above comments about Celtic and he was also terrific when telling a Fife kid he should support Dunfermline because they're his local team. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Motherwell or Inverness Norm, i've not really been keeping much of an eye on the SPL but those two seem to have been getting the headlines. Sorry but Celtic just don't deserve it. Dennis this thread isn't about Celtic, it is about your dead club and the tribute club that has replaced it, you know, the old one that died last year and the new one under the control of your idol Chucky Green & Associates. It would be best for you and your m8s to get used to these facts, have a good cry regularly and get used to The Truth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 1359062748[/url]' post='7014200']I was right! *claps hands in childish glee* As to who wrote it, I'm guessing not Tedi. It wasn't mate no.... But read this post... From April 18th.... Who posted this? Rangers fc will still be Rangers fc no matter what happens, that is what timmy can't seem to grasp. If the worst happens it wont be Rangers football club that would be liquidated but the parent company, which was not formed till 20 years after the football club was. Case in point being Leeds utd they had their parent company liquidated a few years back but are still the same football club. http://www.leedsunit...,,10273,00.html Leeds utd,middlesbrough,Charlton athletic,Fiorentina have all gone done the pre-pack liquidation route and are still the same clubs. Rangers will still be called Rangers and will still play at Ibrox, still train at Murray park, still have the same players as they will be bought over by the new parent company and will still have the same fans, andyes they will still be formed in 1872 not 2012. The only thing it wont have is debt and the jjb,ticketus and catering deals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Rebel. Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 It wasn't mate no.... But read this post... From April 18th.... Who posted this? Rangers fc will still be Rangers fc no matter what happens, that is what timmy can't seem to grasp. If the worst happens it wont be Rangers football club that would be liquidated but the parent company, which was not formed till 20 years after the football club was. Case in point being Leeds utd they had their parent company liquidated a few years back but are still the same football club. http://www.leedsunit...,,10273,00.html Leeds utd,middlesbrough,Charlton athletic,Fiorentina have all gone done the pre-pack liquidation route and are still the same clubs. Rangers will still be called Rangers and will still play at Ibrox, still train at Murray park, still have the same players as they will be bought over by the new parent company and will still have the same fans, andyes they will still be formed in 1872 not 2012. The only thing it wont have is debt and the jjb,ticketus and catering deals. Jabbaaaaaa. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Motherwell or Inverness Norm, i've not really been keeping much of an eye on the SPL but those two seem to have been getting the headlines. Sorry but Celtic just don't deserve it. Not been keeping much of an eye on the calendar, either. Fuckwit. So, you agree with Kenny. Good. Club? Company? It must be hard for you - even Tedi and Bendarroch can make a 50/50 choice - usually the wrong one, but they do make it. An inability to answer a simple question about rangers' history might lead people to believe you're not a fan. Go on, try again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Rangers will still be called Rangers and will still play at Ibrox, still train at Murray park, still have the same players as they will be bought over by the new parent company and will still have the same fans, andyes they will still be formed in 1872 not 2012. The only thing it wont have is debt and the jjb,ticketus and catering deals. That is the sort of pish that Tedi and his amigo's would have believed back then. The past 12 months of laughing at them has been comedy gold. This will go on for many years to come! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 But SS you forget, Tedi wasn't here in April, he hadn't even heard of PnB back then. And yet.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Jabbaaaaaa. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Not been keeping much of an eye on the calendar, either. Fuckwit. So, you agree with Kenny. Good. Club? Company? It must be hard for you - even Tedi and Bendarroch can make a 50/50 choice - usually the wrong one, but they do make it. An inability to answer a simple question about rangers' history might lead people to believe you're not a fan. Go on, try again. Fans support a club Norman, the company deals with the business side. Thats my laymans view of it all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 But SS you forget, Tedi wasn't here in April, he hadn't even heard of PnB back then. And yet.... Nice company you're keeping, says a lot about you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Fans support a club Norman, the company deals with the business side. Thats my laymans view of it all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Fans support a club Norman, the company deals with the business side. Thats my laymans view of it all. Wasn't the question though, was it, stupid? Who were the players in the Broom-cupboard final playing for? Club or company? Either/or, 50/50, one or the other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Nice company you're keeping, says a lot about you. Yes, it says he'll deal with people as he sees fit, without running their credentials through P&B's Moral Defender's Database first. I don't rate the rocket (and I think he knows that), but at the same time he's done me no harm. I assume the same applies to Dave J. For f**k's sake, I even reply to you and the other Amigos civilly once in a while. Doesn't mean I wouldn't set the three of you on fire just so I can not piss on you. Edited January 24, 2013 by WhiteRoseKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 1359064664[/url]' post='7014311']Nice company you're keeping, says a lot about you. Did you raise a red card to liquidation at the st mirren match? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 What are you trying to say Dave? Don't worry, Tedi, it was before your time. Or your club's time, for that matter.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 How about you Tedi, did you raise a red card to liquidation at the st mirren game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) How about you Tedi, did you raise a red card to liquidation at the st mirren game? I'm waiting for the new, Jabba-approved version of that day, when the whole crowd were checking their programmes for the team lists. Strangely, the other side was an advert for Virgin Active..... Edited January 24, 2013 by WhiteRoseKillie 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.