Henrik's tongue Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 the plastic the plastic Bendarroch Loyal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 You know fine well CG boughts all the assets, he is on record as saying this(1) He has also said he will fight any move to take away titles(2) At the end of the day he knows fine well that if he did not fight it then any hope he has of selling shares disappears, it would be an easy and low cost case to win 1. Yes. Yes he is. He is also on record as saying that liquidation meant the end of the club. He is also on record as saying the players had to accept new contracts under TUPE. He is also on record as saying that he would not comply with the SPL investigation as they had no jurisdiction over newco. 2. If he wants to fight rangers' corner, on what basis will he do so? The Tribute Act don't have any titles, and BDO are overseeing rangers final days. Charlie Boy has no legal connection with rangers. How do you think the share issue is going to go - titles or no titles - after his soundbites of recent weeks? When does the Euro Super League Kick off? How many millions of XXXXXL tops have they sold in Asia and N. America? Are Adidas still pushing ICBINR as their No.1 team? I bet Southampton and Villa fans are as jealous as f**k - when do they ever get a day out to Elgin? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I dare say that the bloggers you mention will have legally protected themselves by the use of the word "allegedly" and the fact fact that that conclusion wasn't unanimous could be another reason that Murray / MIH might not take this further..............the HMRC might of course appeal the decision too. Agree that the timescale of the decision was far too long. If the bloggers can be shown to have received confidential information directly from one or more HMRC employees then, I believe, this is treated as receipt of stolen goods. Should Murray and others (especially MPs or MSPs) choose to go after HMRC aggressively then HMRC's best way of defending itself might be to throw the leaker and any bloggers that received information to the wolves. All speculation of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 HMRC didn't want to liquidate Rangers over the EBT case. they wanted to do it so BDO can have a closer look at the books. I think they believe Rangers had been doing some very dodgy stuff over the years. I take it you watched a lot of jackanory when you were younger HMRC Statement on Rangers Football Club, "A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company's financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation. So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 These bloggers have been quite conspicuous by their absence though,wouldn't you say. RTC couldn't get that site closed down quick enough. I am reliably informed that the contents of that site were copied before it was closed down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 You call that wise conduct, I call it shitting yourself If they are 100% convinced everything they wrote and peddled is correct, why hide? surely they should be out there blogging about the injustice of it all, how the tribunal was wrong and they are right Wise conduct my arse I've seen bloggers all over the land do this, even when they were 100% certain they were correct. I've seen a minor politics blog take down information relating to a well-known Independent journalist before, even though their comments were a matter of public record. I'll name them, if you want to check this out - it would be very, very easy to verify. Even honest brokers take down actionable material as soon as they receive a complaint, because libel law in this country is so insanely slanted in favour of wealthy litigants that fighting libel suits often isn't worth it. That's why Americans often sue American magazines in London, rather than in the US, where they wouldn't have a chance. There's a wealth of source material on this aspect of libel law I can point you to, if you're interested in it. But like I say, it doesn't matter. I hope that David Murray does sue the RTC blogger and Phil McWhatever. Let them all rip each other to shreds in the public eye, and let justice be done! I would be loving it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 The biggest beneficiary from the EBT scheme was Murray himself, sorry am not taking the piss David but I cannot remember him scoring a hatrick on our way to yet another title You stated in your post that they were players as if it was a fact, truth is you know nothing Yes, but Sir Dave would be only one case, wouldn't he? I believe you're on the hook for over thirty. Are you a gambling man? Care to work out the odds that all thirty cases relate to executives or kit-men? And of course, I do know nothing - nothing more than is in the public domain, anyway, so no more than you. You'll notice that our conclusions are very different, though. Are you confident that my interpretation is based solely upon a mad desire to destroy your football club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I say rumour, the plastic says fact, yet the supposed killie fan ignores the plastic and attacks me Just throw the mask away You think that was an attack? Christ, but you're a sensitive wee soul. All I did was ask if you had a source for your figures. Did a wee bit of calculation, and expressed an opinion (that's still OK, right?) that the figure you quoted was in fact pretty substantial, or fucking massive as I referred to it. And "plastic"? What does that even mean? Try referring to posters by name - it clears up confusion sometimes, and you and your mates could do with some fucking clarity at times, God knows. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Who is/was Mr. Red? A rangers employee, whose evidence before the tribunal has been referred to in the verdict (by Dr. Poon) as "defensive" and "obstructive". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 You call that wise conduct, I call it shitting yourself If they are 100% convinced everything they wrote and peddled is correct, why hide? surely they should be out there blogging about the injustice of it all, how the tribunal was wrong and they are right Wise conduct my arse True, out of the 3 main bloggers RTC, McConville and Irish Phil - only the must be monitored at all times lawyer uses his real name. It's the people who believed every single word they said that i feel sorry for, poor deluded fools. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nofixedability Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 A rangers employee, whose evidence before the tribunal has been referred to in the verdict (by Dr. Poon) as "defensive" and "obstructive". Yeah, but who is he? I wonder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Deleted the rest of your post and so are resorting to your normal drivel that does not justify a response Charlie disagrees, The Rangers fans disagree, both have made it clear that those titles belong to Rangers, the same club the SFL confirm were established in 1872 and now play in SFL3 and that will be the basis on which we fight and win You'd best get hold of Charlie and share your favourite (only?) link with him, then. Fucking Boilerplate, that. So you'll be paying the remaining tax liability and the creditors, then? BTW, quoted your entire post so we can all play a game : Re-arrange the first line of Tedi's post so that the words make a comprehensible sentence. (20 minutes - 40 marks) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Yeah, but who is he? I wonder. I'm fairly sure that, if the Orcish spunkfest comes off and Murray goes to court over ANY of this clusterfuck, Red and many other colours and towns will be made a lot clearer. As the Flying Rodent says, that would make this whole shitstorm look like the Pearl & Dean crap before the main movie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 S your argument is supposition Isn't yours? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Does not change the fact that these bloggers are running scared and rightly so, I have no doubt when they are taken to task for writing the hordes of inaccurate, misinformed and generally made up shite they penned over the last year then you will be on here defending them with conspiracy theories about corrupt wealthy judges Me, I will be loving it Who is going to sue them? David Murray? Is David Murray really interested in accounting for his business affairs at Rangers in an open, public forum? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Who is going to sue them? David Murray? Is David Murray really interested in accounting for his business affairs at Rangers in an open, public forum? I would have thought that a criminal complaint that the bloggers knowingly received stolen information would be sufficient. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 S your argument is supposition, your case is about as strong as the SPL`s case, the appeal should be fun Serious questin Tedi - you can confer. Did Charlie not say that his club were not going to attend the SPL proceedings? I believe he said something about "no jurisdiction because we've never been members", but in all the stuff he's said, details get lost. If they don't take part in the hearing, surely that will weaken any appeal? And by "weaken", I mean "destroy". As I say, serious question. You may want to hand over to Bennett or Youngsy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAFC Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Can I just add a personal note - I sincerely hope that Dunfermline are one of the clubs that do not over come their curent troubles. After Yorkston gladly accepting a cheque from the RFFF and then turning on us, I think it's only fair that we now return the love. I'll think you'll find that it was our Chairman who screwed Rangers by allowing vast sums of money to be loaned to them in the first place. (allegedly) Good on you for paying money you were due. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I would have thought that a criminal complaint that the bloggers knowingly received stolen information would be sufficient. That would require some sort of proof, not some Internet Bampot talking bollox. But hey, off you go.....let us know how you get on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 So your argument is supposition, your case is about as strong as the SPL`s case, the appeal should be fun I guess we'll see how strong or weak it is and, like I say, I certainly wouldn't put it past your old club to find some underhanded method of sliming their way out of their current predicament. They've done little else, over the last few years. But I will say this - what you're doing here is shouting No it isnae! and No it wisnae! to every point put to you, regardless of whether these points are supported by facts that are a matter of public record or are just inferences drawn from what we currently know. That might make you feel better, but your club's lawyers might want to concoct a sturdier defence than yours. 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.