hellbhoy Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Most non-Bears have, indeed, been consistent with their views but utterly inconsistent when applying those views to their own club. Most diddies hold the party line that Rangers died when the PLC died but very few fans will link the existence of their club to the existence of their associated PLC. I've heard more than one say something like, "The club can exist BEFORE the PLC but not after". And this is the sort of consistency of views that you want me to take seriously? If the club existed before the SFA came into being ?, then what is all the fuss about your club had to obtain a scrap of paper from a organisation after the clubs inception to be able to claim to be the same club ?. Incidentally by the way the very same year Rangers football club joined into the association in 1873 to become a full member it also had to do one other thing to be a part of the association ?. Rangers FC had to apply to companies house for a registration form to become a legalised entity within the law out with the SFA, the club did not apply for a Ltd status at that time but IN FACT had sole trader status. The four founders took responsibility for the clubs liabilities should they be legally taken to court for unpaid debts etc etc etc. When joining the SFA the club had to be able to meet association criteria to become a senior club and that meant legal recognition from the government to pay their taxes from the gate money and pay players social taxes because the club now dealt with money and tax liabilities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulliamwallace Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 If they are the same club why didn't they pay all the taxes they cheated the tax payers out of ?Who owns the title deeds, has that ever been made public ?One of my favourite episodes was at xmas when i visited my sevco daft mate, his wee boy about 10 walked into the room wearing a partick thistle top, i said jokingly why didn't you get a celtic top when his wife blurted out, Peter wouldn't let him, i nearly choked on my tea. Turns out the kid has turned his back on them as he finds supporting them embarrassing True story bro 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 If the club existed before the SFA came into being ?, then what is all the fuss about your club had to obtain a scrap of paper from a organisation after the clubs inception to be able to claim to be the same club ?. Incidentally by the way the very same year Rangers football club joined into the association in 1873 to become a full member it also had to do one other thing to be a part of the association ?. Rangers FC had to apply to companies house for a registration form to become a legalised entity within the law out with the SFA, the club did not apply for a Ltd status at that time but IN FACT had sole trader status. The four founders took responsibility for the clubs liabilities should they be legally taken to court for unpaid debts etc etc etc. When joining the SFA the club had to be able to meet association criteria to become a senior club and that meant legal recognition from the government to pay their taxes from the gate money and pay players social taxes because the club now dealt with money and tax liabilities. Waffle, waffle and more bollocks, QC. Just say the words, "A club's existence is not coterminous with its associated PLC". You will feel better and it'll take a huge burden from you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 what is all the fuss about your club had to obtain a scrap of paper from a organisation after the clubs inception to be able to claim to be the same club ? Whit the f**k? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Side step again ... well done. Trying responding to my original response. Sorry, pet lamb, I didn't mean to overlook you. Ask again or make the statement again and I'll surely give you some attention. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Oh Christ, not 2 of them! Are you trying to join HBQC in taking silk? It's very simple: A club's existence is not coterminous with its associated PLC. Give me a straight Yes or No response. Yes that does come from the the deranged minds at the SFA itself you moron, and no it does not exist outside the clubs company status in the law ffs. What you in fact have quoted above is in fact associations rules & regulations on what nowadays to the association what constitutes to them is a club, and feck all to do with anything remotely legal or lawful in a court of law. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 What you in fact have quoted above is in fact associations rules & regulations Away tae f**k. I did not quote anyone. This is the big difference between you google-obsessed, Rangers-focussed ignorami and we handsome currants. I can use a sentence like, "A club's existence is not coterminous with its associated PLC." and you can't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Bendy and The Bridge are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome after 2 years of pish from the spivs :D linky for the 6.05 sportsound//////who knows if they have the balls to run with it though.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/21267690 My several 33/1 vouchers on Div 1 ''the Field'' for this season are starting to look like they will be worth more than the burnt out shell that will be left 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Celtic changed their name in 1994, when we became a PLC, never been liquidated or in administration. Still trading as the same club since 1897. Clonster, fair shout. I hope you get the 1888 wallopers telt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Why waste the money when we had a variety of desperate tools trying to strip titles, have CAB say naw, have the ASA say naw, the SFA, etc. Every time the same answer comes back. Brother Lord Nimmo and chums in a variety of high places can see right through you. Didn't read the last five days on here did you ?. You can't use Lord Nimmo as a legal fact that can be used in a court of law. Firstly the SPL commission wasn't a law court ruling, the SPL had paid money to Lord Nimmo to say the SPL had acted accordingly within their own rules & regulations on the old clubs transgressions . There was fcuk all legal or lawful about the SPL commission other than the SPL paid a monkey to parrot out what they the SPL & SFA had written into their rules that what to them constitutes to be a club and how they could bypass the law of the land to con the fans. Admit it Bendy , you thought because the SPL paid a Law Lord some money to say the association was working within it's own guidelines that somehow it was all legal and above board didn't you ? . You have to admit the SPL pull a fucking blinder over the orcs into believing this sham was somehow legal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 So let's get this correct. Rangers PLC went onto admin then liquidation and as such the club was punished unfairly. So if these companies were paying the bills for the club that means they were connected. If not then could the club run without these companies. As a hearts fan we had a similar thing where the companies running the club went into admin but the club was punished. And for several months the companies were not involved in the running of our club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Clonster, fair shout. I hope you get the 1888 wallopers telt. no debt collecteors battering down the doors at Celtic Park crying ''Phoenix''..... Accept it TK, it happened to Hearts in 1905, it happened at Ibrox 2 years ago. Players could not play on with their contracts and moved (or not) to a new legal entity as Tedi called TRIFC. Youz fans tuped over as well. Its glorious 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 And we survived till the end of season. Mind you we weren't paying stupid wages 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Shite It is true CB, when Rangers started to take in gate money when it joined the league it had to pay tax from the gate receipts and how do you pay tax to the government to pay taxes ?. The club needs to be recognised by the law and has to apply to companies house for a legal status to be recognised "sole trader" is the lowest form of recognition within the law as a legal entity and the club was in fact owned by the founders themselves and they were liable for the clubs debts should it come into financial soapy. Being a Ltd company in 1899 meant they reduced their liabilities as the club grew. You make money, you pay taxes, you become a legal entity by law to say you have paid your taxes or how would the HMRC recognise that you have paid them ?. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 September 28, 2013 · 12:00 pm ↓ Jump to Comments A Story about Craig Whyte, Rangers, Charlotte, and the Last 2 Years – Guest Post by GoldsteinI don’t have any quotes, or smoking guns, or links to official documents, tape recordings, or any credentials whatsoever. All I have is a story, a story that you will hopefully agree has a ring to it. In a way, everything that has happened over the last 24 months is evidence. You are all familiar with the facts, so hopefully my story will help you process them. Let me start by suggesting this story makes much more sense if you look at it from the perspective of Craig Whyte, before, during, and after RFC went into administration. Very little of that which follows is in the least bit controversial. Most of the key events and facts are already known and in the public domain. How those facts and events are explained here in my story might be a surprise to some but I think deep down inside everyone who reads it will appreciate its simplicity and wonder how they didn’t see through all this before. 1) Craig Whyte took over at Rangers with the intention of doing what he does best; taking the business into administration, keeping the assets under his control, ridding the company of debt and potential liabilities. The BBC documentary exposed Whyte as an expert with a lot of history in doing this; the word switcheroo entered common parlance. 2) As planned, Rangers went into administration in Feb 2012. Craig Whyte got to choose the administrators; D&P were people he had had intimate dealings with in the past, indeed key personnel at D&P had helped him buy RFC in the first place and secure Ticketus loans. 3) The assumption at this stage was that RFC would come out of administration, one way or another, debt free. But there was a problem. Craig Whyte was demonised in the newspapers, it wasn’t going to be easy treating this like any other switcheroo, not with all the attention on this, everyone watching the magician’s hands, he had to deviate from the usual switcheroo blueprint. 4) Charles Green was brought in ostensibly as a leader of a consortium that had no connections with Craig Whyte whatsoever. His real role, however, was to secretly represent Craig Whyte, hide the switcheroo, with Whyte in the background until his reputation was recovered. On paper this was a good plan; the chosen one (Green) would do what needed to be done, D&P knew the script, they’d come out the other side just in time for the new season. But problems appeared again, and time was ticking away. RFC was also perilously close to running out of cash. 5) The big problem with Green was that he was obviously just a front man. Even John brown worked that out. Rangers’ fans generally in the beginning assumed he was representing Whyte – he was. This isn’t even disputed now by Green. So how do we fix that problem, from Whyte’s perspective, with time ticking away and money running out? 6) Easy: put on a Punch and Judy type fight with Green & Whyte. Project the idea that Craig Whyte isn’t happy, he is at war with Charles Green who has popped up from nowhere and stolen the assets. If you believe they are genuinely fighting each other over the ownership of Sevco and the assets, by implication you believe that Whyte has no involvement in the New Co and that they are not in cahoots. That means the fans can trust Green and buy season tickets. They believed it. It worked. They bought season tickets. 7) The plan solved a few other problems. It gave the clear impression that Whyte wasn’t involved and that was important in the eyes of the SFA. There was a general sense that it would be best in a lot of respects if Whyte wasn’t involved (HMRC, the Law, The Media). Charlotte Fakes was invented for the specific purpose of giving people the impression that Green and Whyte were at odds with one another, that Whyte had been robbed and had no role in the new co. It’s pure theatre. Everybody who matters knows this – it’s the big secret at the heart of the debate. That’s why nobody will publish a thing Charlotte comes up with. It’s also why people like Alex Thomson have disappeared. 9) Key to this whole story is the issue of Whyte’s security on Ibrox; it was water-tight, designed and expected to survive any liquidation event. It would have been impossible for Green to do what he appeared to be doing without Whyte’s consent and cooperation whilst that security was in place. He didn’t need to. The real story is that he has been working with and for Whyte all along. 10) The ultimate goal for Whyte was to cleanse the company of debt and float it on the stock-market. That’s what they succeeded in doing. Even if he walked away now he would be walking away several millions pounds better off. He’s there in the background now with a pile of shares – he can’t and won’t lose. The whole Sevco 5088 court case story is a smoke screen and nothing will come of it. Whyte and his gang basically drove up and took over a company that had around £40 to 50 million of assets for nothing. The problem was the company also had liabilities and debts of up to £150 million. Whyte had done this before, liquidate and come out the other side with the good stuff, leaving the bad stuff behind. In essence this was the simple plan. With liquidation he had to make sure his front man bought the assets, at a huge discount, it has to be said – that’s where the profit lies, in selling £50 million of assets to yourself for a fraction of their true value. D&P were key, of course. Politics and public or fan opinion got in the way. This wasn’t some unheard of textiles company in Wolverhampton – attention and interest levels were sky high. So he had to add a few illusions to the usual switcheroo formula. After liquidation the plan would always have been to sell the newly constituted company on the stock market. That process in essence is how you turn the assets into cash. Once they sell the shares they are away with it, and it looks like they probably have sold most of the shares already. If you process everything through the filter set out above, hopefully things might make more sense. Any time you find it hard to explain any aspect of the process, just come back to this simple story and look at things from the perspective of Craig Whyte. Most people so far have contested the story on the basis of things Charlotte Fakes has released. What they, we, and everybody need to bear in mind is that this was the very purpose of Charlotte Fakes – to hide the true nature of the process and give the impression that Whyte and Green could not possibly be acting together. It has been very effective for them; we all got caught up in the drama of it, gloating over the latest revelations, etc. We all fell for it. It was very clever. Posted by Goldstein 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Away tae f**k. I did not quote anyone. This is the big difference between you google-obsessed, Rangers-focussed ignorami and we handsome currants. I can use a sentence like, "A club's existence is not coterminous with its associated PLC." and you can't. Do enlighten us all with your knowledge Kinky !, Where does that wee phrase you keep posting actually come from ?, it was used in the SPL commission or was it a law court ruling ?. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Do enlighten us all with your knowledge Kinky !, Where does that wee phrase you keep posting actually come from ?, it was used in the SPL commission or was it a law court ruling ?. It was from my drink-addled Currant brain and why is this a surprise to you? The Dhense-bhoy already admitted that clubs existed before they became PLCs. Why would anyone gainsay him? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 September 28, 2013 · 12:00 pm 5) The big problem with Green was that he was obviously just a front man. Even John brown worked that out. Posted by Goldstein Which say a lot for our resident pets :D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 It was from my drink-addled Currant brain and why is this a surprise to you? The Dhense-bhoy already admitted that clubs existed before they became PLCs. Why would anyone gainsay him? A currant is the reduced form of the green grape.........you'll be popular 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edi1011 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 And we survived till the end of season. Mind you we weren't paying stupid wages You weren't paying any debts !!!.....then lied to the SPL saying you were self-sufficient and were not getting any financial help from UBIG. Even bumped your own Big Hearts Charity for £34k - bit like RFFF bumping the AC Milan charity monies. 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.