mythstoliveby Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Celtic weren't liquidated and didn't default on their debt due to that. It's not even close to the same thing. Yes, Fergus McCann insisted that every debtor got their money back. The easy, and immoral, thing to have done was to dive into admin or liquidation and walk away from those debts. Turns out that maybe it is celtic who are the ones who "don't do walking away"! If only a Fergus McCann had come forward during rangers time of need. Instead they got Whyte, Green and King...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I've not followed this whole thing very closely. Has King done anything at all in terms of keeping his promises, investing in the club etc or is releasing seething, threatening press releases really all you need to do impress Rangers fans? Even after the last few years? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 :lol: This is utterly glorious. ETA: http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=289304 We'd all back our clubs(companies) to the hilt, and the 'Rangers' fans have certainly had a tough time of it, but it still totally baffles the f'ck out of me that they think the BBC, radio stations, SFA etc. jave been against them - how utterly deluded can you get? Seriously! ? They like the statement though, especially the last bit, although I have to admit I don't really understand it ... is he saying he'll issue another statement if folk don't just move on and pretend nothing has happened? Is he giving the nod to some windows getting panned in? Should I as a Falkirk supporter be scared or will our positive vote for them to start life in the First Division make us exempt? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marty_j Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Dave King 2012 ‘With regard to EBTs, I was on the board so I have to take some responsibility. ‘And I follow the logic of the argument that if we lose the tax case then we probably gained some competitive advantage. ‘I believe that, on behalf of myself and most of the board members who were with me and probably agree with me, that we should apologise for that." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2161850/Rangers-crisis-Dave-King-apologises.html#ixzz3rJdrUGU3 Apologies if this has already been linked from 2012 Edited November 12, 2015 by marty_j 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Can I assume that's a No then? Or maybe you just understand the implications of providing the appropriate answer. Your question is too vague and doesn't fit in with your post. If someone/company is found guilty of what some are calling 'tax evasion' then they would be arrested. No one ifs no buts... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggie_Murray7 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I'm lost and don't have time to read it all back. Someone summarise what has happened today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Your question is too vague and doesn't fit in with your post. If someone/company is found guilty of what some are calling 'tax evasion' then they would be arrested. No one ifs no buts... Really? No ifs no buts...every tax evader is arrested? HMRC received a list from which it identified more than 1,000 tax evaders. More than £135m was recovered in repayments, but only one person of the 1,000 prosecuted. - See more at: http://economia.icaew.com/news/february-2015/hmrc-criticised-over-handling-of-hsbc-avoidance#sthash.PVYIR5UZ.dpuf Now would you like to revise your position? Edited November 12, 2015 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 The large debts are one thing but being liquidated and returning wanting to keep your history and trophies is another thing entirely. It's not about Rangers being singled out and 'punished' as their scenario IS different. As I said in my initial post, I know other clubs ran up debts but none of them were liquidated which is THE major difference. Being liquidated, returning with zero debt (as well as being allowed straight back into the league structure despite Airdrieonians being denied a few years earlier to discourage liquidation and returning debt free) AND still trying to claim the history and titles is completely different to the scenarios you mentioned. Can't you see why that would annoy people? Celtic in the 90s is a completely different scenario to the Rangers one from 2012 onwards. Surely you can see that. It's apples and oranges. Celtic weren't liquidated and didn't default on their debt due to that. It's not even close to the same thing. The Club vs company thing (as I previously mentioned) is the perfect example of being happy to take the glory of the overspending but not wanting to take any of the responsibility. I'm not as bothered about this as many are but I just can't see why some Rangers fans seem to feel so persecuted and can't understand why fans would feel annoyed by it. It's fairly obvious to me. Edit to add - I'm genuinely looking to get your point of view and I'm not trolling or trying to 'bait' anyone. As I said earlier, I won't blame anyone for sticking up for their club but I just wonder how you see it, and if you try to be unblinkered. I try to be unblinkered with my team but I know it's a difficult thing to do... To keep it short and quick LNS hearing stated that SPL rules at the time did not allow title stripping. Sanctions were given to the club, pretty severe ones at that. Ebt's were legal, even if they weren't run perfectly. The Scottish authorities and Rangers both agreed that the LNS hearing would be the end of it (that was signed) Celtic fans and those of other clubs will try to dictate what happens, only this time we're more organised. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the 67 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I'm lost and don't have time to read it all back. Someone summarise what has happened today. Charlie chuckles= gallant pioneer/founding father. Lying king= throwing toys out pram with threats. Getalong gang= raging. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gastropod Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I've not followed this whole thing very closely. Has King done anything at all in terms of keeping his promises, investing in the club etc or is releasing seething, threatening press releases really all you need to do impress Rangers fans? Even after the last few years? He is a strange guy ,who should not be anywhere near a club/company which is embroiled in tax cases ,not with his previous record..Also strange that he openly stated that creditors of the defunct club should reject the CVA .He knew full well what that meant .He then openly states that he would consider bringing oldco back from liquidation. Maybe its only Rangers fans who can figure him out.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Really? No ifs no buts...every tax evader is arrested? Now would you like to revise your position? That's the best you could come up with? Back to google me laddo. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) I'm lost and don't have time to read it all back. Someone summarise what has happened today. Dave has admitted that if it wasn't for EBTs Rangers would probably have had to field different players - these other players would definitely have been really really good though and Rangers would have still won everything Edited November 12, 2015 by Ned Nederlander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Dave has admitted that if it wasn't for EBTs Rangers would have had to field different players - these other players would definitely have been really really good though and Rangers would have still won everything No he said some players may not have signed. Stick to the facts neddly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 That's the best you could come up with? Back to google me laddo. 0.1% of evaders were prosecuted. No ifs, no buts. I could of course bring up other schemes that HMRC have introduced to ensure collection of tax without prosecution such as the EBTSO and the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility that I aware of but then of course I would be making no sense to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 No he said some players may not have signed. Stick to the facts neddly. Facts such as: All tax evaders are arrested? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 He is a strange guy ,who should not be anywhere near a club/company which is embroiled in tax cases ,not with his previous record..Also strange that he openly stated that creditors of the defunct club should reject the CVA .He knew full well what that meant .He then openly states that he would consider bringing oldco back from liquidation. Maybe its only Rangers fans who can figure him out.. Yes, and all this does not at all bode well for the Ashley vs SFA court case! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Exactly. So by using them yous gained an unfair advantage as the others wouln't have signed...duh..!!! Only the players themselves can say if they'd have signed or not, my assumption making friend. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I'm lost and don't have time to read it all back. Someone summarise what has happened today. Time for all us Diddies to board our windaes up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I'm lost and don't have time to read it all back. Someone summarise what has happened today. Imagine Tommy Coopers , glass,bottle,glass,bottle,bottle, glass routine, replaced with ,club,company. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 No he said some players may not have signed. Stick to the facts neddly. Cheers. Edited. Soz. 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.