lithgierose Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 TheLawMan, on 10 March 2014 - 08:44 AM, said: No. He has a rolling one year. "Rolling" being the crucial word. If we went to change that to a straight one year then he would have grounds to leave and get paid his year anyway. I would try to play him using the guilt trip of his legacy and not taking more money out of the club if I was in the boards shoes. "Leave with your head held high on good terms with no cash and portrayed as a hero or taken another million out of the club and let the public decide on your legendary status ala Charles green and Stockbridge style who took less than half that Ally. " seems they want ally gone.poorer but gone anyway 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Admin after June though..... Wasn't it meant to be last monday .. wednesday? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookies Love Me Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Wasn't it meant to be last monday .. wednesday? Don't care when it happens, as long as it happens (which it probably will in some form). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Wasn't it meant to be last monday .. wednesday? Only according to PMG, didn't see you as the type to take his word as gospel benny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 http://www.tsfm.net/scottish-football-an-honest-game-honestly-governed/comment-page-17/#comment-14126 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Only according to PMG, didn't see you as the type to take his word as gospel benny. I'm sure it was Ch 4's official Rangers correspondent ... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I'm sure it was Ch 4's official Rangers correspondent ... You are quite right, again though, not someone whose opinion you value I would guess? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Quote - "When I walked into the hall there was a guy in a balaclava with the eyes cut out." Usually the best option imo, unless he had it on back to front. Ski Masks have eye holes. A Balaclava doesn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 In the know I thought a Feegie lad like you would know the difference as well. After reading that article i think a certain young lad will have some serious people asking some serious questions about who he was claiming to be associated with. Nope i am not in the know regarding this and i just know using that associations name will land the boy in trouble. IMO he deserves all that is coming to him from the courts and from others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Would there not be other penalties? If they went into administration knowing it won't affect next season. If administration was in the next week or two, they would need to get shot of a number of their top earners, there is no way Wallace, Templeton, McCulloch, Daly and a number of other could stay on the wage bill, this would mean they would not be guaranteed promotion, leave it a few more weeks and the points reduction would not make any difference. Just sit for a moment and ask yourself that question. I'm sure you will come to the correct answer. Of course, if the first word of the question was 'Should', then it would be a different answer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookies Love Me Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 If they declare administration now it's clear that they have taken a 'loan' to ensure the club reaches a point where they are 'safe' points wise and then manipulate the situation. The fact that they now have an alternative source of funding to get them to season ticket time may prove to be a headache they had not counted on. If they limp on to ST sales ... it could well be next season before they can implement the plan. On what date does the 120 day review end? Put your money on that being Administration Day 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) If they declare administration now it's clear that they have taken a 'loan' to ensure the club reaches a point where they are 'safe' points wise and then manipulate the situation. The fact that they now have an alternative source of funding to get them to season ticket time may prove to be a headache they had not counted on. If they limp on to ST sales ... it could well be next season before they can implement the plan. On what date does the 120 day review end? What's this? Are you saying they are taking the Laxey/Easdale loan and the offer from the daft rich fan? Edit. too many ands. Edited March 10, 2014 by Apache Don 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) Put your money on that being Administration Day That is a very prescient and perspicacious observation sir. Edited March 10, 2014 by Florentine_Pogen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 No, what I am saying is that if the announce administration now, it's clear that they were a) trading whilst they knew the company was insolvent. Honestly they don't need a 120 day review to discover that pearl. AIM should be coming down on them. b) They are simply using the loan to manipulate the date on which this event would occur. These could easily be two separate charges which would be punishable by points deductions .. giving the authorities the right to prevent promotion. If they had the stones for it. Not in our lifetime, I suspect. Not until Ogilvie, Regan and Cockwomble are exposed and their deeds punished. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) Roll up. 1872 x 500 = £936,000. Just enough to pay Alastair's wages for a year with enough left over to pay the Laxey interest on £1.5m loan. Cool. Edited March 10, 2014 by Florentine_Pogen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 No, what I am saying is that if the announce administration now, it's clear that they were a) trading whilst they knew the company was insolvent. Honestly they don't need a 120 day review to discover that pearl. AIM should be coming down on them. b) They are simply using the loan to manipulate the date on which this event would occur. These could easily be two separate charges which would be punishable by points deductions .. giving the authorities the right to prevent promotion. If they had the stones for it. Unless other sanctions are already clearly written into SPFL rulebook, there will be none. I agree and think it's clear to all that they are trying to manipulate the situation to that which works best for them. This of course is quite natural and given the type of characters they seem to be, wholly expected. I did rather like the idea, that the club's own support, through their willingness to help stave off admin by offering finance, could actually fk up the whole plan by keeping them afloat 'too long'. Like I've said, admin next season for the best laughs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Dodd Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Roll up. 1872 x 500 = £936,000. Just enough to pay Alastair's wages for a year with enough left over to pay the Laxey interest on £1.5m loan. Cool. Or. Enough to keep them afloat for another whole month. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyWellFan Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Roll up. 1872 x 500 = £936,000. Just enough to pay Alastair's wages for a year with enough left over to pay the Laxey interest on £1.5m loan. Cool. The really missed a trick by not including a 'The Loyalist' option at £16.90 a month. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Ski Masks have eye holes. A Balaclava doesn't. Which one was yesterday's ref wearing? (back to front, obviously). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) Roll up. 1872 x 500 = £936,000. Just enough to pay Alastair's wages for a year with enough left over to pay the Laxey interest on £1.5m loan. Cool. Where are these people shopping? £5 for a Big Mac? And £10 for two pairs of socks? I refuse to believe the cost of white socks down the barras has gone up that much. ETA - and £18.72 for a cinema ticket + popcorn?? How much popcorn exactly? Edited March 10, 2014 by Mr X 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.