Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[youngsy]

2-1 at home in the first leg............squeaky bum time in the return. Away goals count double.

We could go to penalties.

[bennett]

Nevermind what the FTTT ruled, some loonball of a 'Killie' fan thinks he knows better.

As it stands right now we won and that is that.

[youngsy]

You would think so, wouldn't you? The problem is, Youngsy, that the only cases in question were those with incomplete records available to the Tribunal. Where records existed, rangers either did not contest the findings, or were found to be liable. The verdict applied to a sizeable MINORITY of the cases in question. Sizeable, but still less than half, and mainly through lack of documentary evidence.

Kind of makes you wonder if they should have paid that shredder company, really. Best £444 (not) spent out of the whole scam, IMHO.

There is no problem about it whatsoever. The FTT found in favour of the PLC with a 2-1 majority. Doesn't matter how you try to spin it,it's a matter of public record.

[weirdcal]

We could go to penalties.

aye but could you pay them

[youngsy]

aye but could you pay them

I was waiting on that one.

[aofjays]

There is no problem about it whatsoever. The FTT found in favour of the PLC with a 2-1 majority. Doesn't matter how you try to spin it,it's a matter of public record.

Lol. That's some quality spin right there. Do you actually believe real Rangers pleading no contest to over half the charges was a win or are you just trying to wind up WRK? Either way thanks for the laugh.

[youngsy]

Lol. That's some quality spin right there. Do you actually believe real Rangers pleading no contest to over half the charges was a win or are you just trying to wind up WRK? Either way thanks for the laugh.

Oh right. So the FTT result is not a fact of public record then, is that what you're saying? Now correct me if i'm wrong but was it a 2-1 majority verdict in favour of the PLC?

[stonedsailor]

Lol. That's some quality spin right there. Do you actually believe real Rangers pleading no contest to over half the charges was a win or are you just trying to wind up WRK? Either way thanks for the laugh.

Oh right. So the FTT result is not a fact of public record then, is that what you're saying? Now correct me if i'm wrong but was it a 2-1 majority verdict in favour of the PLC?

Yes but only for some of the cases, others were found against Rangers, others went uncontested.

Sent from the European departure lounge, hoping we don't bottle it.

[Jacksgranda]

We could go to penalties.

I thought you had already had penalties. Oh no, that was "consequences". Carry on.

[AberdeenBud]

You would think so, wouldn't you? The problem is, Youngsy, that the only cases in question were those with incomplete records available to the Tribunal. Where records existed, rangers either did not contest the findings, or were found to be liable. The verdict applied to a sizeable MINORITY of the cases in question. Sizeable, but still less than half, and mainly through lack of documentary evidence.

Kind of makes you wonder if they should have paid that shredder company, really. Best £444 (not) spent out of the whole scam, IMHO.

Indeed WRK. Oldco's somewhat blase attitude to providing the authorities with the relevant documentation was the main reason the initial investigation proceeded at a funereal pace and probably played a large part in the death of RFC.

FFS, it took a City of London Police raid in 1997 to kick the whole thing off. No wonder they were so free and easy with the shredder after getting their fingers burnt then.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6901085.stm

[AberdeenBud]

Charity begins at home;

Now that that is clear and out of the way, let me also make clear that I work in the charity sector and have done so since leaving school. That is 40 years’ experience.

I love working to help my fellow human (you might say it is my vocation) and I have been very lucky to work with many good, honest charities and people. I have advised and worked with local and national governments and regulators both here in the UK and internationally. I have advised and worked with local, national and international charities throughout the world. I now advise major corporations, individuals and institutions across the world on corporate social responsibility, governance and philanthropy (which also affords me access to some of the top business people in the UK in particular, but that is another story). I think therefore that I am incredibly well-placed and well-qualified to pass comment on the Rangers Charity Foundation irrespective of which football club I support.

It is important that people remember this: a charity exists for public benefit. It does not exist for the benefit of one individual or the benefit of a corporation. Trustees hold the charity in trust for the benefit of the public. They have a public and legal duty to safeguard and advance that public trust.

People have “encouraged” me to look elsewhere than Rangers Charity Foundation and accused me of bias. Rest assured; wherever I see blatant abuse of charity, I do report it to the appropriate authorities and, more often than not, this is acted upon and appropriate remedy or action put in place.

This did not happen in the case of the Rangers Charity Foundation. Instead, the authorities have fudged, ignored and hidden from the reality simply because they are too terrified of threats which have been made by “supporters” of Rangers FC/Sevco. That is absolutely wrong and a failure of their public duty.

As I have made clear in previous blogs, there is a very, very strong prima facie case against Rangers Charity Foundation; a fact which is borne out by the (still) on-going OSCR investigation. By my estimations (based upon RFC/RCF figures), the administrators of Rangers FC stole – with the agreement and connivance of the Charity Foundation – at least £190,000 from the charity and gave it to the club which meant, in essence, themselves in the form of their fees. I also estimate (again based upon Sevco/RCF figures) that a further £275,000 charitable income is unaccounted for from the recent Manchester United Legends match.

That’s a grand total of £465,000 that should have been going towards charity that ended up in the hands of a commercial company (and it excludes any further income from sponsorship, dinners, raffles, catering, etc which may have also been diverted).

A Sevco spokesman refused to comment when asked by me except to say that I was “intent on stirring” and not considering “fees, running costs, etc”.

Except I did in the Milan game and was asking for clarification from Sevco in relation to the MUFC game.

You have to remember that, back in 2012, the AC Milan Glorie game became a fundraiser for RFC(IA). In other words, the aim was to raise more than the running costs of the game and, as far as I am aware those were £90,000; the original amount earmarked for the club.

So if it cost £90,000 to put on a game of football last year, why is it now £275,000? Given what we know of RFC(IA) and Sevco’s accounts, I am struggling to reconcile that larger figure to the operating costs of a single match with absolutely minimal security.

Please also bear in mind that there is only 1 trustee at the Rangers Charity Foundation and there has been since September 2012. She is a salaried employee of Sevco and therefore has a very clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, decisions can only be legally made by trustees if there is a quorum or if special dispensation has been given by the Charity Regulator (according to OSCR, no such dispensation has been given). In Rangers Charity Foundation’s case a quorum is 3 trustees. So I ask the question again; who made the decisions to proceed with these games on behalf of the charity and were they lawful?

Finally, a message to those who wish I would shut up or go away: I don’t do walking away! I am not the one in the wrong here. I have done no more than my public and civic duty which is to report prima facie abuse and maladministration of a charity to the relevant authorities and, because they have done nothing, sought to bring this to a wider audience. Criminals, spivs and chancers should never be allowed to get away with it and it really says something when people attack the whistleblower rather than ask questions of the accused.

If I am wrong, then let’s see some exoneration in the form of the OSCR report and an independently audited project account and I will be the first to apologise and admit my mistake.

[stonedsailor]

Nevermind what the FTTT ruled, some loonball of a 'Killie' fan thinks he knows better.

As it stands right now we won and that is that.

We? Is that you and the company? You and the club? or the P&B RSC?

[Ken Fitlike]

kudos to WillieMillersMoustache comments up page...

(sigh) it is just not in the Nature of the Beast to 'engage honourably and sensibly with the rest of scottish Football'

I'll wait patiently for that cold day in hell.......

[aofjays]

Oh right. So the FTT result is not a fact of public record then, is that what you're saying? Now correct me if i'm wrong but was it a 2-1 majority verdict in favour of the PLC?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Why would you think that? I said real Rangers plead "no contest" or were found guilty on over half the cases. Who cares if they "won" the cases they defended against? If I was up on 5 counts of robbery, admitted 4 of them and was found not guilty on the 5th would you try to claim I was innocent of the other 4? Real rangers still admitted to being tax dodging scumbags whether you like it or not.

[bennett]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Why would you think that? I said real Rangers plead "no contest" or were found guilty on over half the cases. Who cares if they "won" the cases they defended against? If I was up on 5 counts of robbery, admitted 4 of them and was found not guilty on the 5th would you try to claim I was innocent of the other 4? Real rangers still admitted to being tax dodging scumbags whether you like it or not.

20 posts and they are all about Rangers.

Says it all you.

[bennett]

kudos to WillieMillersMoustache comments up page...

(sigh) it is just not in the Nature of the Beast to 'engage honourably and sensibly with the rest of scottish Football'

I'll wait patiently for that cold day in hell.......

Aiberdeen stabbing the SPL teams in the back and siding with Celtic? That was a dastardly deed by you sheep, right enough.

May Milnes next shlte be a hedgehog.

[Ken Fitlike]

<p></p>

[bennett]

Nice quoting Ken, keep on practising, you'll get there in the end.

[thelegendthatis]

From the BBC website today.

Sandy Easdale also spoke of the situation affecting Rangers chairman Malcolm Murray, who has been asked to stand down by the board.

"Personally, I have nothing against him, I don't know him that well, but if you are asked to leave twice there must be something amiss," he said.

Now we know where the vote against Murray was instigated. So they obviously have someone on the board whose stings they are pulling.

Edited May 9, 2013 by thelegendthatis

[Ken Fitlike]

yeah, quite frustrated at clapped out work PC / comms link not interfacing too well with P+B.

also a cracking bit of quoting by Ian Archer in my signature