FinnesTON Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Aye and ye forgot to mention the fact that he "also ripped off the taxpayer to the tune of about £40,000" I wonder why?, best sweep that under the rug How much did your da pay ur maw? or was it the other way aboot? Someone replace that irony meter. Why don't you reply to No8 with his belief that the administration of Rangers before administration cheated it isin't point scoring these guys will hopefully be sanctioned by Companies House or hopefully the law. This isin't just Whyte all the others failed and that includes Smith (Wiggy) who also must have known but decided to snake out before it blew up big time. The problem is still who is in charge of your club not those spectating at the scene of the next disaster. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 The £15M that CW deliberately did not pay?, yes have agreed with this many times If you claim it was only Craig Whyte who done this, and its not the clubs fault How can Rangers fan claim a law firm such as Harper McLeod are biased when (apparently) only one employee had a go at Charles Green in a meeting So how can you hold Harper McLeod responsible for the actions of one man, and in the same breathe claim one man was responsible for the actions of Rangers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Are SevCo fans being so ignorant of what's going on because they can't face the prospect of living without a team to support? Is that how it works? If we keep turning a blind eye to everything then it won't happen. Cool. My gas and credit card bills came in the post yesterday. I'll just not open the envelopes, put them in a drawer, and everything will be fine. Thanks Tedi for clearing that up for us all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Yes but who will be charged with Fraud? the company or the individuals (who were aware) that ran the board? It would be like a thief claiming it wasn't him it was his hand that stole (obviously this defence goes well in Saudi Arabia) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 If you claim it was only Craig Whyte who done this, and its not the clubs fault How can Rangers fan claim a law firm such as Harper McLeod are biased when (apparently) only one employee had a go at Charles Green in a meeting So how can you hold Harper McLeod responsible for the actions of one man, and in the same breathe claim one man was responsible for the actions of Rangers? How can you absolve Harper McLeod for the actions of one man but not do the same for Rangers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 You have no idea what you are talking about There are many laws in place to stop individuals hiding behind the company mantra, in cases of fraud or negligence it will be the directors that will take the brunt of punishment Since you are so clued up, name them. And can you tell me, since you are the only one who has an idea around here, those five stars? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 You have no idea what you are talking about There are many laws in place to stop individuals hiding behind the company mantra, in cases of fraud or negligence it will be the directors that will take the brunt of punishment You are correct. But, what you are leaving out is that whatever monies or gains are made by such activities are taken from the company that benefited from these acts. For example, say a director does a few dodgy deals on his own and pockets the company £20 million. He's found out to have acted illegal and gets his collar felt for it. Does the company (that according to you wasn't to blame as he acted alone) get to keep the money? Eh, no they don't. And the award they won as top trading company of the year because of the money he brought in from his dodgy deals, or whatever, is taken off the wall Rangers benefited from illegal activities both financially and and in awards. They shouldn't get to keep either. If you stole a tv and dvd player, and you got caught a few weeks later by the police, would your missus and kids still be allowed to keep them because it "wisnae anything tae dae with them"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 How can you absolve Harper McLeod for the actions of one man but not do the same for Rangers? Nice try Still no proof to show Harper McLeod are biased in any way! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Team Bible Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 How can you absolve Harper McLeod for the actions of one man but not do the same for Rangers? He's not, that's exactly the point he's trying to make by turning the argument around to focus on what SEVCO fans may think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurcher Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Yes but who will be charged with Fraud? the company or the individuals (who were aware) that ran the board? The individuals will be charged either alone or as representatives of the company and, as the SFA report shows, there was widespread knowledge of what was going on and naebdy did a feckin thing, including the finance director, it was corrupt to the core. But it's all moot as Rangers doesn't exist anymore, or at least is in the process of dying, so any fraud enquiries will obviously focus on the individuals concerned. More worrying for you lot should be the liquidation process of oldco though, it's unlikely but there is a real possibility they'll try to reclaim the assets sold to Sevco and New Rangers might have the rug pulled from under them just when they're looking at a top half finish in SFL3. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurcher Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Since you are so clued up, name them. And can you tell me, since you are the only one who has an idea around here, those five stars? I'm assuming he's got you on ignore, or is choosing to ignore that question, but it makes me laugh every time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dundee Hibernian Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Hugh Neilson didn't actually do anything illegal, did he? I find it reprehensible that he gained £40,000 from the public purse, yet that appears to be one of the benefits of the system for folk like him. The fault lies with the Law Lords looking after one of their own, and the system which allows someone to legally get away with such payment. The affair stinks, but it has nothing to do with HM's work to outline and clarify evidence of, (can I write it?) cheating at Ibrox. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Rangers to be liquidated on the 17th September is the date for the BDO to come in at Ibrokes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) The affair stinks, but it has nothing to do with HM's work to outline and clarify evidence of, (can I write it?) cheating at Ibrox. It appears to be the correct word use to me. Dictionary cheat (cht)v. cheat·ed, cheat·ing, cheats v.tr. 1. To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging them for purchases. 2. To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land. 3. To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye. 4. To elude; escape: cheat death. v.intr. 1. To act dishonestly; practice fraud. 2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards. 3. Informal To be sexually unfaithful: cheat on a spouse. 4. Baseball To position oneself closer to a certain area than is normal or expected: The shortstop cheated toward second base. n. 1. An act of cheating; a fraud or swindle. 2. One who cheats; a swindler. 3. A computer application, password, or disallowed technique used to advance to a higher skill level in a computer video game. 4. Law Fraudulent acquisition of another's property. 5. Botany An annual European species of brome grass (Bromus secalinus) widely naturalized in temperate regions. [Middle English cheten, to confiscate, short for acheten, variant of escheten, from eschete, escheat; see escheat.]cheater n. Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms Noun1. cheating - a deception for profit to yourself cheat dissimulation, deception, dissembling, deceit - the act of deceiving gerrymander - an act of gerrymandering (dividing a voting area so as to give your own party an unfair advantage) Adj. 1. cheating - not faithful to a spouse or lover; "adulterous husbands and wives"; "a two-timing boyfriend" two-timing, adulterous unfaithful - having sexual relations with someone other than your husband or wife, or your boyfriend or girlfriend; "her husband was unfaithful" 2. cheating - violating accepted standards or rules; "a dirty fighter"; "used foul means to gain power"; "a nasty unsporting serve"; "fined for unsportsmanlike behavior" unsporting, unsportsmanlike, foul, dirty unfair, unjust - not fair; marked by injustice or partiality or deception; "used unfair methods"; "it was an unfair trial"; "took an unfair advantage" Edited September 7, 2012 by Itwiznaeme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Might actually get a tshirt with "I was ignored by Tedi" printed on it, and wear it at Firhill on sunday, just to see how many people smile knowingly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Stramash Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) They weren't actually relegated to the SFL, although that is effectively the result. They were expelled from the SPL (due to the transfer of share being rejected), and applied for the vacancy in the SFL. As a result of Dundee moving up to the SPL, and others shuffling into D1 and D2 to replace them, this vacancy was in D3. So actually Rangers were relegated to limbo from the SPL, and promoted to SFL3 from limbo. I believe that is exactly what happened, although for limbo I would use the term non-existence. Otherwise Rangers would have transferred to Rangers which, as someone as pointed out, is simply not possible. The only hope for the original club and its history (that I can see) is if the liquidators nullify the administration and sale by Duff & Phelps. On the face of it there appears to have been enough dodgy dealing for this to happen. The whole argument of the Blue Knights towards the end was that unless the CVA route was open then the historical continuity would be lost. It was the only chance to save the club. To get around this Duff & Phelps appear to have convinced Green that they've sold him Rangers' history - well, minus the historic debt. But perhaps Green did not need much convincing. He'd been sniffing around for a long time, there's also rumours that he was somehow in league with Whyte. He certainly had an easier time doing a £1 (or was it £2?) deal with Whyte than the Knights. It appears Charlie was Whyte's chosen as were Duff & Phelps. But that must all be totally co-incidental, surely? The rule-bending by the SFA to accomodate Green's Sevco company and pretend that it's still Rangers is muddying the waters. It may also backfire on Charles Green if he is accused of merely phoenixing Rangers, along with others, as a tax dodge. To be honest, to the man in the street, it looks very much to be exactly that. But if this stands, and the liquidators cannot or will not do anything to recompense creditors, then there is nothing to stop any debt-ridden club in the UK going into administration, hiring helpful administrators - who do not necessarily put creditors first - and when an impossible CVA is rejected, have someone ready to buy the assets + history at an unusually-low knock-down price, and Bob's your uncle. After which, of course, the admins pay themselves a large chunk of dosh, courtesy of the creditors. Nice work, if you can get it (and avoid jail). Edited September 7, 2012 by Danish Pastry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Ok .. okay ... the cheats failed to pay Dundee United the money they owe. Happy now Roll on the tribunal and we can put this to bed once and for all, then we can brand your club forever .. Simply the Cheats. What you going to have to say then .. After all appeals are exhausted,should the club be found guilty of side contracts and the EBT Tribunal also find against the club i'll consider it. What are you going to say should it all go for the club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurcher Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 You think BDO will finish the liquadation this year? Have a wee dig and have a look how long they (BDO) usually take 5 Years is the average I have to laugh at all these posts that say tick tock 5 days and yes I have that yahoo on ignore I was talking about the reclaiming Ibrox and Murray Park in 5 years when youse are just atrting to look good for a top half finish in SFL3... I imagine it'll take anything between 1 day and 100 years, it'll take however long it takes to do it, and probably depends a lot on how much the crooks who were in control of the club for the last 20 odd years could destroy or how deep they could bury what they've been up to. Reclaiming assets to pay off creditors is certainly an option though, and I wouldn't get too confident about that, especially given the insane bargain basement price Charlie One Suit got the remnants for. And while I'm at it, could you tell me what those 5 stars are for? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dundee Hibernian Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 It happened before he was employed at HM, they are a reputable law firm?Why do they employ someone of his ilk knowing his past endeavours? Tedi, most law firms are full of slimey individuals. Neilson probably fits right in. Most lawyers are the type you wouldn't want to spend an evening with. Reference for me would be Donald Findlay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Since you are so clued up, name them. And can you tell me, since you are the only one who has an idea around here, those five stars? Just never gets tiresome for you does it? 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.