Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[bennett]

I thought you'd said that your bank account got dipped after your IP address was published on P&B to prove you were using an alias, and that you suspected somebody here was responsible.

Apologies if I've got that wrong, of course.

n.b. A "lie" is where somebody intentionally misrepresents something. When a person says something incorrect that they believe to be true, that's called an "error".

No i never mentioned my bank account, i did wonder if it was connected ofcourse but i made no direct accusations.

Oh can you the word with Mrs rodent about the situation if the two are connected?

[flyingrodent]

No i never mentioned my bank account, i did wonder if it was connected ofcourse but i made no direct accusations.

Oh can you the word with Mrs rodent about the situation if the two are connected?

Sounds like you would need the coppers rather than a lawyer, there.

[Equalizer]

never read it, i don't need Gibbons to tell me that we're up shit creek.

Not toeing the party line Benny .. you'll upset your comrades.

[mjw]

never read it, i don't need Gibbons to tell me that we're up shit creek.

Never reads but always knows it is wrong!

[kiddy]

​
Should he manage to sell out for the £14M. I await Chuck vanishing with that, & the £20M share issue cash, handing the club back saying:-

'Here's your club, here's the debt I've run up operating it for the last year. I'm off with the cash, & by the way, you owe me rent on the stadium & training facilities, along with the repayments on the £5.5M loan I bailed you out with. Cheerio'.

[Equalizer]

​

Should he manage to sell out for the £14M. I await Chuck vanishing with that, & the £20M share issue cash, handing the club back saying:-

'Here's your club, here's the debt I've run up operating it for the last year. I'm off with the cash, & by the way, you owe me rent on the stadium & training facilities, along with the repayments on the £5.5M loan I bailed you out with. Cheerio'.

So many clubs companies ,,,

[Ned Nederlander]

I'll happily admit this - what we'll get, inevitably, is a rise back to the very top of Scottish fitba. Once there - we'll be horsing your debt-ridden bunch of diddies all over again, time after time.

You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

What kind of supporter wants their club to face going down the fucking tubes, WKR?

Well - it kinda sounds like you would !?

The club you supported jettison a serious amount of debt - is the future of 'Rangers' a better future than Rangers would have had had they'd managed to cling on to life ?

(Rather than bicker about "old club/new club" I'll acknowledge ahead of time that you will consider the current incarnation as the same club - so the question remains - 'new' future vs 'old' future ?)

[Bendarroch]

Well - it kinda sounds like you would !?

The club you supported jettison a serious amount of debt - is the future of 'Rangers' a better future than Rangers would have had had they'd managed to cling on to life ?

(Rather than bicker about "old club/new club" I'll acknowledge ahead of time that you will consider the current incarnation as the same club - so the question remains - 'new' future vs 'old' future ?)

We were running our debt down when that utter c**t Whyte came in and destroyed everything he possibly could. If we had struggled as a result of the debt we had at the time, I'd still have taken that path over the consequences following Whyte's actions.

Murray, of course, is the biggest c**t of them all for handing the keys to Whyte when he knew full well what he was doing, and what was likely to follow. I hope that BDO and the police can find material which allows both of them to be prosecuted for what I see as criminal acts.

So I wouldn't have chosen this path - the WKR would. But, in fairness, he is the only 'killie supporter' I know who's openly claimed he wants to see 'his' club fucked over.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Bendarroch

[Taxi for Ben]

​

Should he manage to sell out for the £14M. I await Chuck vanishing with that, & the £20M share issue cash, handing the club back saying:-

'Here's your club, here's the debt I've run up operating it for the last year. I'm off with the cash, & by the way, you owe me rent on the stadium & training facilities, along with the repayments on the £5.5M loan I bailed you out with. Cheerio'.

Chucky Green has rangersitis and will not leave until he hears the Champions League tune being played at the sports direct stadium in ibrox, he is on record as saying that, among other things. Didn't you hear him?

[Umbungo1874]

We were running our debt down when that utter c**t Whyte came in and destroyed everything he possibly could. If we had struggled as a result of the debt we had at the time, I'd still have taken that path over the consequences following Whyte's actions.

Murray, of course, is the biggest c**t of them all for handing the keys to Whyte when he knew full well what he was doing, and what was likely to follow. I hope that BDO and the police can find material which allows both of them to be prosecuted for what I see as criminal acts.

So I wouldn't have chosen this path - the WKR would. But, in fairness, he is the only 'killie supporter' I know who's openly claimed he wants to see 'his' club fucked over.

Craigy was the only Rangers man to step up to the plate in Rangers hour of need,

[WhiteRoseKillie]

But, WKR, it is what you meant. I can only guess it's another piss-poor attempt to hide your faked Killie credentials - you do know what you said, and that's why your hoping to disguise your latest shame.

You said: "It is beginning to look more and more as if admin is the only way that we'll get rid of the slimy currantophile. A price well worth paying."

I never thought I'd see the day when I had a hope shared with WKR - but there you have it, we both want the very worst for Killie. And I think that surely removes the very last doubt about your absolutely faked support for Killie.

What kind of supporter wants their club to face going down the fucking tubes, WKR?

So, from now on would you like me to PM you every post for proof-reading and an explanation of what I mean? Fuckwit.

Ah, we've got a (part) quote to support your nonsensical abuse. Obviously, as normal, you've taken out the bit which you don't think will support your "exposure" of my failings. I can't be arsed going back to find the full post, so, as a wee handicap on me, I'll just deal with those words of mine which you think justify your lie-ridden rant.

As I see it, and I'm not alone in our fanbase, unless Johnston were to drastically alter his methods of stewardship, and remained in control at RP, Killie will not only enter administration in the future, but would more than likely be liquidated. That would mean the club was dead.

Were the club to enter administration and a second party (or parties) were to assume control, we would quite possibly be in for years of reduced circumstances, but the club would have survived. I know which option I favour. It's not about trophies for some of us - it's about having a representative team who infuriate us, frustrate us, and occasionally make our hearts burst with pride. I've followed Killie in the bottom division before - there's every possibility I will have to again.

No supporter wants their club to go down the tubes. The differences at a lot of clubs are:

1. The fans organise and try to change the club, not blame everybody and his dug except the club for the situation, and

2. In the catastrophic endgame of liquidation, they would (eventually) accept that their club was dead.

Now off you go and support Bennecky in his latest weaselly wee backtracking game. Know your place.

Edited August 10, 2013 by WhiteRoseKillie

[WhiteRoseKillie]

We were running our debt down when that utter c**t Whyte came in and destroyed everything he possibly could. If we had struggled as a result of the debt we had at the time, I'd still have taken that path over the consequences following Whyte's actions.

Murray, of course, is the biggest c**t of them all for handing the keys to Whyte when he knew full well what he was doing, and what was likely to follow. I hope that BDO and the police can find material which allows both of them to be prosecuted for what I see as criminal acts.

So I wouldn't have chosen this path - the WKR would. But, in fairness, he is the only 'killie supporter' I know who's openly claimed he wants to see 'his' club fucked over.

You really want to get past the "Janet and John" level of reading before making such ridiculous, and false, statements.

[HTG]

Murray, of course, is the biggest c**t of them all for handing the keys to Whyte when he knew full well what he was doing, and what was likely to follow.

Strange that when the BBC started to enlighten the masses on what Whyte was doing the supporters chose to get very upset with them rather than do something sensible about the allegations.

I daresay a quick trawl through here would uncover any number of "Charles this and Charles that" stuff from you lot - especially when he was sticking it to the SFA and others.

You're a bunch of "feed me grapes" wallopers and all these platitudes towards your support are a pile of crap. You deserve what comes because you've embraced every one of these c***s as your next saviour. Everything is built around some other c**t's money being piled in at a level that allows wages which dwarf anyone else apart from your sister club. Anything less is not acceptable to the supporters.

You've reaped what you've sown.

[Taxi for Ben]

We were running our debt down when that utter c**t Whyte came in and destroyed everything he possibly could. If we had struggled as a result of the debt we had at the time, I'd still have taken that path over the consequences following Whyte's actions.

Murray, of course, is the biggest c**t of them all for handing the keys to Whyte when he knew full well what he was doing, and what was likely to follow. I hope that BDO and the police can find material which allows both of them to be prosecuted for what I see as criminal acts.

That was bollocks. If Whyte had installed the austerity measures that were required and they inevitably led to your old club failing on the pitch for several years, you would still be calling him every derogatory name under the sun. His fake "billionaire" status and promise of a £30million "warchest" were the only reasons that you and a couple of hundred other bawbags protested when the BBC told you the truth about him.

[Bendarroch]

You really want to get past the "Janet and John" level of reading before making such ridiculous, and false, statements.

I've already posted your 'a price well worth paying' shame - the final nail in any pretence that killie is your club.

Everyone knows it's your beloved green n grey oops.

[~~~]

Just going to post this in here. this is for clubs / companies making "established since" claims

http://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-Database/Types-of-claims-Established-since.aspx

Marketers claiming that their business has been established for a specific number of years or implying that their business has been established for a long time should hold documentary evidence (Rules 3.1 and 3.7).

Consumers might be persuaded by claims that a company is well-established or has a long history, especially in industries that might have a high level of failed or bankrupted companies. Consumers buying products that are backed by guarantee,

especially those that claim to be valid for a long time (for example double glazing), want reassurance that that company will still be around should they need to invoke that guarantee.

A company (X) might have bought an existing or liquidated company (Y). It is likely that X wants to adopt Y’s brand heritage by continuing to advertise Y’s business name as a trading style and referring to Y’s trading history. That approach is likely to be acceptable provided the purchasing business (X) can demonstrate that it has assumed the liabilities of Y, by paying Y’s debts, for example, and honouring Y’s guarantees. In 2008, two complainants questioned the claim “10,000 satisfied customers can't be wrong” because they believed the company had been trading only for a year or so. The ASA adjudicated that, because it was unable to show it had taken on the debts and liabilities of the previous company, the advertiser was unfairly trading on the reputation and trading history of an earlier incarnation of the same company (Minster Windows Ltd, 16 January 2008).

If the marketer can demonstrate a period of continuing trade, it should be acceptable for a business to refer to that heritage even if its trading name has changed or the business has moved premises during that period (Radford (Bavarian) Ltd, 16 March 2005). The ASA has ruled against an advertiser that could not demonstrate an uninterrupted and stable trading history (Barry Allsuch and Co LLP, 21 May 2008).

In certain circumstances, the law regulates what claims are permitted, especially if a purchased business run by the same people had gone into insolvent liquidation or if competing claims to ownership of the goodwill and a likelihood of confusion exist.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Enrico Annoni

[WhiteRoseKillie]

I've already posted your 'a price well worth paying' shame - the final nail in any pretence that killie is your club.

Everyone knows it's your beloved green n grey oops.

Newsflash, bigot - you and your Amigos are not "everybody". Everybody in your poisonous wee life, maybe.

[Taxi for Ben]

Just going to post this in here. this is for clubs / companies making "established since" claims

http://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-Database/Types-of-claims-Established-since.aspx

Marketers claiming that their business has been established for a specific number of years or implying that their business has been established for a long time should hold documentary evidence (Rules 3.1 and 3.7).

Consumers might be persuaded by claims that a company is well-established or has a long history, especially in industries that might have a high level of failed or bankrupted companies. Consumers buying products that are backed by guarantee,

especially those that claim to be valid for a long time (for example double glazing), want reassurance that that company will still be around should they need to invoke that guarantee.

A company (X) might have bought an existing or liquidated company (Y). It is likely that X wants to adopt Y’s brand heritage by continuing to advertise Y’s business name as a trading style and referring to Y’s trading history. That approach is likely to be acceptable provided the purchasing business (X) can demonstrate that it has assumed the liabilities of Y, by paying Y’s debts, for example, and honouring Y’s guarantees. In 2008, two complainants questioned the claim “10,000 satisfied customers can't be wrong” because they believed the company had been trading only for a year or so. The ASA adjudicated that, because it was unable to show it had taken on the debts and liabilities of the previous company, the advertiser was unfairly trading on the reputation and trading history of an earlier incarnation of the same company (Minster Windows Ltd, 16 January 2008).

If the marketer can demonstrate a period of continuing trade, it should be acceptable for a business to refer to that heritage even if its trading name has changed or the business has moved premises during that period (Radford (Bavarian) Ltd, 16 March 2005). The ASA has ruled against an advertiser that could not demonstrate an uninterrupted and stable trading history (Barry Allsuch and Co LLP, 21 May 2008).

In certain circumstances, the law regulates what claims are permitted, especially if a purchased business run by the same people had gone into insolvent liquidation or if competing claims to ownership of the goodwill and a likelihood of confusion exist.

[AberdeenBud]

 

Just incase some folks missed it

Sent from my C5303 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

[hellbhoy]

it is remarkable the amount of 'made up pish' in the last 2 years that has turned out to be pretty much bang on the money.