Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[flyingrodent]

I would have thought that a criminal complaint that the bloggers knowingly received stolen information would be sufficient.

Could be. That would be ironic, wouldn't it? A man with Sir Dave's... chequered business history, getting somebody else banged up for receiving stolen goods.

Time will tell, and I've got a lot of popcorn in the cupboards.

[Paquis]

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.

David Murray already alluded to it in his statement after the result of the Tribunal.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

David Murray already alluded to it in his statement after the result of the Tribunal.

And you honestly believe Murray wants to wash his dirty laundry in expose his business history in court? Under oath? to the power of .

f**k me, where have the Amigos been hiding YOU?

Lads! Lads! I've found another one!

[Umbungo1874]

We'll see who's moaning when the transfer window opens in January and we can begin negotiations with players who become free agents next summer. We're free to sign such players the moment the ban ends.

We'll be up (at the very least) one division by then - so I'm sure there will a lot of moaning. Not much if it from Rangers supporters mind you.

Hearts, for example, will have more than a few such players coming on to the market.

I think after the new thrifty wage structure comes into force at Ibrox it will be the Rangers fans moaning that after buying shares and season books the standard of player at Ibrox is below what they expected.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Umbungo1874

[Bendarroch]

You know, Bendarroch, if you got your Santa wishes granted, you'd be sat watching the Tribute Act training every day, because they'd have nobody to play against.

We're more than happy to face Elgin, Stirling, Airdrie or whoever else.

You think it matters any kind of f**k at all if the diddies we play include Dunfermline?

[Paquis]

And you honestly believe Murray wants to wash his dirty laundry in expose his business history in court? Under oath? to the power of .

f**k me, where have the Amigos been hiding YOU?

Lads! Lads! I've found another one!

He doesn't need to. Prosecution of the purveyor and recipients of stolen information is a quite different matter to Murray's business history.

I would have thought that would be evident even to you.

[SS-18 ICBM]

We're more than happy to face Elgin, Stirling, Airdrie or whoever else.

You think it matters any kind of f**k at all if the diddies we play include Dunfermline?

[Bairnforever1992]

The Big Tax Case Verdict

Since the verdict of the FTTT on The Rangers "big tax case" was made public on Tuesday 20th November 2012, we have had over the top declarations from many in the Scottish mainstream media that the former club had "won" the case. Now we also have many of the former incumbents of the club, which existed until this year, climbing out from under the rocks they disappeared under to declare a great victory for the former club and looking to blame all and sundry for the death of Rangers.

Let's take a step back and look at the overall picture. The first tier tribunal hears appeals against decisions relating to tax made by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Rangers appealed a claim by HMRC, which resulted in one of the most high profile cases Scotland and possibly the UK has ever seen.

The FTTT decision was made on the basis of a 2:1 verdict, the decision was not unanimous and which may, lets not forget, still be appealed. Ultimately, we are all aware that Rangers operated a scheme which allowed them to offer packages to attract players who would not otherwise have been obtainable. What Rangers have "won" is a potential reduction in the tax liability due to be paid.

What we have seen following the issue of the decision is the reemergence of the men who were ultimately responsible for the death of Rangers Football Club, not as you would think to show remorse for their previous actions but in fact to attempt to lay blame at the door of HMRC and all those who apparently were ruthless and vindictive in their attempts to destroy the club.

First of all there is the man who was at the top of the tree for decades, the man who called all the shots, the man that spent far out with his means in the pursuit of success, the man who systematically destroyed Rangers and who had a hugely detrimental impact on the whole of Scottish Football, it is of course David Murray. Here is a man that claimed to have been duped by someone who had less credibility than Chemical Ali but also claimed he was confident all along of "winning the big tax case".

If he was so confident why did he seemingly refuse to accept any potential liability at the time the club was up for sale? Before Craig Whyte came along the club had been up for sale since around 2007 yet no one would consider buying due to the potential problems they faced. If David Murray was so confident, as well as sticking to his statement of only selling to someone who could take Rangers forward, why did he not agree to sell the club to such an individual or consortium on the understanding that he would be responsible for any liabilities as a result of "the big tax case"?

We then have Paul Murray throwing his sixpence worth in, demanding investigations and having to ask himself "were people acting with a degree of malice towards Rangers?" and even more alarmingly, though in the grand scheme of things probably not surprising, seeking some sort of damages claim against, well, everyone by the sounds of things. This is a man who was part of the hierarchy who, it seems, overseen and approved their reckless spending sprees over the years. A man who apparently attempted to buy the club on the proviso that David Murray would take on the potential tax liability. His Blue Knights consortium were found out to be nothing more than bravado and bluster, he then slinked off into the wilderness with his tail between his legs. He now has the audacity to ask why it took so long for a decision to be reached and also mentioning in recent statement "moral and legal" responsibilities.

Perhaps Mr. Murray could confirm why investigating officers had such difficulties obtaining documents relevant to the investigation? Maybe if they had been forthcoming a bit quicker the result could have been determined much sooner than it was?

Instead of these blowhards in suits coming out claiming victories and mentioning morals, what they should be doing is addressing the fans of the club they destroyed and apologizing for their actions over the decades. The cause of death of Rangers Football club was not due to the actions of HMRC it was due to the utter failure and complete mismanagement by the club custodians. Regardless of the big or even wee tax case, the club went into administration owing a reported £55 million pounds to over 270 creditors. Despite the club introducing a scheme which gave them the upper hand over their competitors, they still attempted to live out with their means and as a result were liquidated.

HMRC have a statutory duty on behalf of the public purse to pursue what they regard as tax avoidance. That's exactly what they did in the case of Rangers, its exactly what they did in the case of the Jersey based K2 scheme which "benefited" the likes of Jimmy Carr and resulted in the Prime Minister stating "some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong". The chancellor, during his budget speech no less, describing illegal tax evasion and legal but aggressive tax avoidance as "morally repugnant" and various other MP's stating their objections to such schemes. Yet here we are in our little country seeing a media outrage at HMRC's attempts to claim back money which they feel is due.

During the course of this whole circus that has been "the big tax case" ordinary fans have become familiar with terms and phraseology that you would never have before heard in the pubs or in the stands but discussions over EBT's, creditors, PAYE, VAT, Administrators and eventually liquidators were almost as common place as who was playing up front or who was in the treatment room. The FTTT decision, although clearly a major news story has no real impact on the current state of Scottish football, it refers to an entity that no longer exists, so why football "journalists" are focusing on the result is beyond me and most other reasonable minds. These media hacks would be better spending what little time they have left in their positions reporting on what is happening to our game now and what might happen in the future. They made no attempt at all to uncover the real truth of what caused the destruction of Rangers so they should stay well clear of peddling more lies and attempting to report on issues that they clearly do not understand.

These media whores had an opportunity to investigate and report on the dealings of Rangers Football Club for years, yet they decided to ignore the real stories and instead splash the moonbeams all over their back and front pages. They had an opportunity to help address the real issues and even potentially avoid the club being liquidated but they failed miserably. They have a chance to redeem themselves by actually asking questions and reporting on the current goings on at The Rangers Football Club Limited incorporated 29/05/12 or maybe have a wee look at Rangers Football PLC incorporated 16/11/12, will they do that? Of course they won't, what they will do is regurgitate whatever the relevant PR people tell them, write columns completely devoid of fact and ignore the real stories that are staring them in the face and allow those fronting the team playing in Division 3 to continue in their attempts to fleece genuine fans of their hard earned cash.

So ask yourself, with all these headlines of VICTORY who actually won in this whole farce?

Edited November 22, 2012 by Bairnforever1992

[Umbungo1874]

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

Why did Charlie not fight for them when he was in negotiations about the 5 way agreement? When Charlie is trying to sell shares he talks a good game but the reality is when it comes to the SPL he has backed down to them on more than one occasion.

[Bendarroch]

If they are 100% convinced everything they wrote and peddled is correct, why hide?

If the bungling lawyer was 100% convinced, he wouldn't have been busy deconstructing his blow to remove all traces of fake documents and references to them - and neither would he be publicly declaring he will never, ever publish them again in any shape or form.

Plastics are forming queues for his forthcoming 'read all about it' book as we speak. He's learned well from the IRA writer - preaching to the converted can be lucrative. Even if you're peddling complete and utter shite - they'll buy it nevertheless.

As for the RTC fantasiser and the many others - the only thing they are 100% convinced of is that hordes of diddies and plastics were hanging on their every word.

Some still are.

[Bairnforever1992]

Shred-It Ltd glasgow Owed £444

I’ve been lucky (or unlucky) enough to have been able to find some time to read through sections of the FTTT ruling document.

There is a lot in it and I don’t blame the media for not publishing every paragraph ‘word for word’ … there are very few saddos like me out there would be that interested. However what is annoying is the blatant cherry picking going on with regards to the ‘Headlines’ over the last day or so. Even the good part for Old Rangers is, in many ways, quite damning.Not that this is the time for any more negativity for the fans of those who play from Ibrox stadium. Seize the good news lads … Run with it for as long as possible.

With regards to the things that were going on (based on the document obviously) at that club/company there are far too many things to comment on just now. The reason for writing this part, is that the MIH/RFC seem to have “won” their appeal (not on all of them may I add) based on some evidence not actually existing.

When HMRC requested information in relation to the EBTs there appears to be no evidence available, basically ‘mislaid’.

On the flip side … on files seized unexpectedly from the Club, side-letters were there.

Below are some extracts from the document that made me shake my head in disbelief. Are the Main Stream Media reading this document …. Maybe they are just taking their time? ;

By the way poor wee Shred-it Glasgow Ltd. one of the many creditors wont get their £444!

————-

The auditors were also told that the paperwork for Mr Purple was ‘mislaid’, (and therefore was not available for the auditors to inspect).

————————–

In the course of their enquiry there had been concealment from HMRC of many relevant documents. In footballer employment files volunteered to HMRC sideletters had been removed apparently. However, in files seized unexpectedly from the Club side-letters were present.

————————–

The conduct of the Murray Group in general, and Mr Red in particular, in the course of HMRC’s enquiry went beyond the description of ‘a lack of candour’. It would be judicial to conclude that it had been obstructive and obscurantist, and there is evidence of active concealment of documents, as the Respondents submit. Equally, to describe Mr Red as ‘somewhat defensive’ in giving his sworn testimony (para 10 MD) would be an understatement. On more than one occasion, Mr Red had attempted to mislead the Tribunal. The following paragraphs give examples of how Mr Red had made certain assertions or denials in an attempt to create an impression of the nature and operation of the Trust, which was commensurate with his own understanding of what would be the legitimate scope of its use as a tax-saving scheme.

————————–

It is not accepted that there had been no deliberate concealment of the side-letters, in view of how the first side-letter only came to light through the seizure of Mr Berwick’s file nearly four years into the enquiry. It is not accepted that the nondisclosure of the side-letters arose from a ‘credible’ view that Mr Red considered the side-letters irrelevant to HMRC’s enquiry. As a former Inspector of Taxes, Mr Red knew, or should have known, that the side-letters were highly relevant to the enquiry. The side-letters showed a form of contractual arrangement, and they proved linkage between the sums contributed into the sub-trusts at the appointed dates and their withdrawal as loans from the sub-trusts as contemporaneous transactions.

————————–

A fair conclusion to be drawn from the circumstantial evidence on the one hand, and Mr Red’s oral evidence on the other, is that the side-letters had been actively concealed. The reason for the concealment might have been, in Mr Red’s view, the side-letters could be incriminating evidence against the impression of the trust operation that he had been trying to give.

[SS-18 ICBM]

The Big Tax Case Verdict

Since the verdict of the FTTT on The Rangers "big tax case" was made public on Tuesday 20th November 2012, we have had over the top declarations from many in the Scottish mainstream media that the former club had "won" the case. Now we also have many of the former incumbents of the club, which existed until this year, climbing out from under the rocks they disappeared under to declare a great victory for the former club and looking to blame all and sundry for the death of Rangers.

Let's take a step back and look at the overall picture. The first tier tribunal hears appeals against decisions relating to tax made by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Rangers appealed a claim by HMRC, which resulted in one of the most high profile cases Scotland and possibly the UK has ever seen.

The FTTT decision was made on the basis of a 2:1 verdict, the decision was not unanimous and which may, lets not forget, still be appealed. Ultimately, we are all aware that Rangers operated a scheme which allowed them to offer packages to attract players who would not otherwise have been obtainable. What Rangers have "won" is a potential reduction in the tax liability due to be paid.

What we have seen following the issue of the decision is the reemergence of the men who were ultimately responsible for the death of Rangers Football Club, not as you would think to show remorse for their previous actions but in fact to attempt to lay blame at the door of HMRC and all those who apparently were ruthless and vindictive in their attempts to destroy the club.

First of all there is the man who was at the top of the tree for decades, the man who called all the shots, the man that spent far out with his means in the pursuit of success, the man who systematically destroyed Rangers and who had a hugely detrimental impact on the whole of Scottish Football, it is of course David Murray. Here is a man that claimed to have been duped by someone who had less credibility than Chemical Ali but also claimed he was confident all along of "winning the big tax case".

If he was so confident why did he seemingly refuse to accept any potential liability at the time the club was up for sale? Before Craig Whyte came along the club had been up for sale since around 2007 yet no one would consider buying due to the potential problems they faced. If David Murray was so confident, as well as sticking to his statement of only selling to someone who could take Rangers forward, why did he not agree to sell the club to such an individual or consortium on the understanding that he would be responsible for any liabilities as a result of "the big tax case"?

We then have Paul Murray throwing his sixpence worth in, demanding investigations and having to ask himself "were people acting with a degree of malice towards Rangers?" and even more alarmingly, though in the grand scheme of things probably not surprising, seeking some sort of damages claim against, well, everyone by the sounds of things. This is a man who was part of the hierarchy who, it seems, overseen and approved their reckless spending sprees over the years. A man who apparently attempted to buy the club on the proviso that David Murray would take on the potential tax liability. His Blue Knights consortium were found out to be nothing more than bravado and bluster, he then slinked off into the wilderness with his tail between his legs. He now has the audacity to ask why it took so long for a decision to be reached and also mentioning in recent statement "moral and legal" responsibilities.

Perhaps Mr. Murray could confirm why investigating officers had such difficulties obtaining documents relevant to the investigation? Maybe if they had been forthcoming a bit quicker the result could have been determined much sooner than it was?

Instead of these blowhards in suits coming out claiming victories and mentioning morals, what they should be doing is addressing the fans of the club they destroyed and apologizing for their actions over the decades.

The cause of death of Rangers Football club was not due to the actions of HMRC it was due to the utter failure and complete mismanagement by the club custodians.

Regardless of the big or even wee tax case, the club went into administration owing a reported £55 million pounds to over 270 creditors. Despite the club introducing a scheme which gave them the upper hand over their competitors, they still attempted to live out with their means and as a result were liquidated.

HMRC have a statutory duty on behalf of the public purse to pursue what they regard as tax avoidance. That's exactly what they did in the case of Rangers, its exactly what they did in the case of the Jersey based K2 scheme which "benefited" the likes of Jimmy Carr and resulted in the Prime Minister stating "some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong". The chancellor, during his budget speech no less, describing illegal tax evasion and legal but aggressive tax avoidance as "morally repugnant" and various other MP's stating their objections to such schemes. Yet here we are in our little country seeing a media outrage at HMRC's attempts to claim back money which they feel is due.

During the course of this whole circus that has been "the big tax case" ordinary fans have become familiar with terms and phraseology that you would never have before heard in the pubs or in the stands but discussions over EBT's, creditors, PAYE, VAT, Administrators and eventually liquidators were almost as common place as who was playing up front or who was in the treatment room. The FTTT decision, although clearly a major news story has no real impact on the current state of Scottish football, it refers to an entity that no longer exists, so why football "journalists" are focusing on the result is beyond me and most other reasonable minds. These media hacks would be better spending what little time they have left in their positions reporting on what is happening to our game now and what might happen in the future. They made no attempt at all to uncover the real truth of what caused the destruction of Rangers so they should stay well clear of peddling more lies and attempting to report on issues that they clearly do not understand.

These media whores had an opportunity to investigate and report on the dealings of Rangers Football Club for years, yet they decided to ignore the real stories and instead splash the moonbeams all over their back and front pages. They had an opportunity to help address the real issues and even potentially avoid the club being liquidated but they failed miserably. They have a chance to redeem themselves by actually asking questions and reporting on the current goings on at The Rangers Football Club Limited incorporated 29/05/12 or maybe have a wee look at Rangers Football PLC incorporated 16/11/12, will they do that? Of course they won't, what they will do is regurgitate whatever the relevant PR people tell them, write columns completely devoid of fact and ignore the real stories that are staring them in the face and allow those fronting the team playing in Division 3 to continue in their attempts to fleece genuine fans of their hard earned cash.

So ask yourself, with all these headlines of VICTORY who actually won in this whole farce?

[Paquis]

The Big Tax Case Verdict

Since the verdict of the FTTT on The Rangers "big tax case" was made public on Tuesday 20th November 2012, we have had over the top declarations from many in the Scottish mainstream media that the former club had "won" the case. Now we also have many of the former incumbents of the club, which existed until this year, climbing out from under the rocks they disappeared under to declare a great victory for the former club and looking to blame all and sundry for the death of Rangers.

Let's take a step back and look at the overall picture. The first tier tribunal hears appeals against decisions relating to tax made by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Rangers appealed a claim by HMRC, which resulted in one of the most high profile cases Scotland and possibly the UK has ever seen.

The FTTT decision was made on the basis of a 2:1 verdict, the decision was not unanimous and which may, lets not forget, still be appealed. Ultimately, we are all aware that Rangers operated a scheme which allowed them to offer packages to attract players who would not otherwise have been obtainable. What Rangers have "won" is a potential reduction in the tax liability due to be paid.

What we have seen following the issue of the decision is the reemergence of the men who were ultimately responsible for the death of Rangers Football Club, not as you would think to show remorse for their previous actions but in fact to attempt to lay blame at the door of HMRC and all those who apparently were ruthless and vindictive in their attempts to destroy the club.

First of all there is the man who was at the top of the tree for decades, the man who called all the shots, the man that spent far out with his means in the pursuit of success, the man who systematically destroyed Rangers and who had a hugely detrimental impact on the whole of Scottish Football, it is of course David Murray. Here is a man that claimed to have been duped by someone who had less credibility than Chemical Ali but also claimed he was confident all along of "winning the big tax case".

If he was so confident why did he seemingly refuse to accept any potential liability at the time the club was up for sale? Before Craig Whyte came along the club had been up for sale since around 2007 yet no one would consider buying due to the potential problems they faced. If David Murray was so confident, as well as sticking to his statement of only selling to someone who could take Rangers forward, why did he not agree to sell the club to such an individual or consortium on the understanding that he would be responsible for any liabilities as a result of "the big tax case"?

We then have Paul Murray throwing his sixpence worth in, demanding investigations and having to ask himself "were people acting with a degree of malice towards Rangers?" and even more alarmingly, though in the grand scheme of things probably not surprising, seeking some sort of damages claim against, well, everyone by the sounds of things. This is a man who was part of the hierarchy who, it seems, overseen and approved their reckless spending sprees over the years. A man who apparently attempted to buy the club on the proviso that David Murray would take on the potential tax liability. His Blue Knights consortium were found out to be nothing more than bravado and bluster, he then slinked off into the wilderness with his tail between his legs. He now has the audacity to ask why it took so long for a decision to be reached and also mentioning in recent statement "moral and legal" responsibilities.

Perhaps Mr. Murray could confirm why investigating officers had such difficulties obtaining documents relevant to the investigation? Maybe if they had been forthcoming a bit quicker the result could have been determined much sooner than it was?

Instead of these blowhards in suits coming out claiming victories and mentioning morals, what they should be doing is addressing the fans of the club they destroyed and apologizing for their actions over the decades. The cause of death of Rangers Football club was not due to the actions of HMRC it was due to the utter failure and complete mismanagement by the club custodians. Regardless of the big or even wee tax case, the club went into administration owing a reported £55 million pounds to over 270 creditors. Despite the club introducing a scheme which gave them the upper hand over their competitors, they still attempted to live out with their means and as a result were liquidated.

HMRC have a statutory duty on behalf of the public purse to pursue what they regard as tax avoidance. That's exactly what they did in the case of Rangers, its exactly what they did in the case of the Jersey based K2 scheme which "benefited" the likes of Jimmy Carr and resulted in the Prime Minister stating "some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong". The chancellor, during his budget speech no less, describing illegal tax evasion and legal but aggressive tax avoidance as "morally repugnant" and various other MP's stating their objections to such schemes. Yet here we are in our little country seeing a media outrage at HMRC's attempts to claim back money which they feel is due.

During the course of this whole circus that has been "the big tax case" ordinary fans have become familiar with terms and phraseology that you would never have before heard in the pubs or in the stands but discussions over EBT's, creditors, PAYE, VAT, Administrators and eventually liquidators were almost as common place as who was playing up front or who was in the treatment room. The FTTT decision, although clearly a major news story has no real impact on the current state of Scottish football, it refers to an entity that no longer exists, so why football "journalists" are focusing on the result is beyond me and most other reasonable minds. These media hacks would be better spending what little time they have left in their positions reporting on what is happening to our game now and what might happen in the future. They made no attempt at all to uncover the real truth of what caused the destruction of Rangers so they should stay well clear of peddling more lies and attempting to report on issues that they clearly do not understand.

These media whores had an opportunity to investigate and report on the dealings of Rangers Football Club for years, yet they decided to ignore the real stories and instead splash the moonbeams all over their back and front pages. They had an opportunity to help address the real issues and even potentially avoid the club being liquidated but they failed miserably. They have a chance to redeem themselves by actually asking questions and reporting on the current goings on at The Rangers Football Club Limited incorporated 29/05/12 or maybe have a wee look at Rangers Football PLC incorporated 16/11/12, will they do that? Of course they won't, what they will do is regurgitate whatever the relevant PR people tell them, write columns completely devoid of fact and ignore the real stories that are staring them in the face and allow those fronting the team playing in Division 3 to continue in their attempts to fleece genuine fans of their hard earned cash.

So ask yourself, with all these headlines of VICTORY who actually won in this whole farce?

I agree with much that you post above.

However, make no mistake, David Murray is clearly planning to go after HMRC, its leaker and the bloggers that benefited. That makes perfect sense for him. First of all, HMRC are now vulnerable, second, illegal activity occurred. But the major benefit for Murray is to distract attention from his own conduct. By making HMRC his target he is setting them up as the villains and painting himself as just another victim.

There are many villains in this whole saga starting with David Murray. Things have been said, allegations and assumptions have been made and there has been a rush to judgement by many which has been shown to be both premature and ill-advised. Certain journalists would be well advised to shut their mouths and crawl back under their rocks.

As a Rangers supporter, however, there are some good things that have come from this mess. First, we have seen just how massive and loyal the Rangers support is. 37,000 season tickets sold tells its own story. Also, as a support we are more united than ever. I think there is a genuine sense of optimism that we are on the way back with a club that is financially sound, a broad based ownership and a management that appears to be considerably more competent than the David Murray regime.

[Paquis]

No you will not .. your new club has been informed that you can use the proper appeals channel ... if not you will face penalties from UEFA/SFA .. so seriously doubt your triumphalist pish.

Actually we can. The Court of Session asserted its supervisory power over Scottish football when we took the SFA to court and the SFA was forced to acknowledge that.

The SFA would be in contempt of court if they tried to prevent Rangers (or anyone else) from asserting their right to seek remedy from the court.

For the same reason, UEFA/FIFA would be unable to punish an individual club. Any sanctions, therefore, would have to be against Scottish football as a whole.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Paquis

[WhiteRoseKillie]

We're more than happy to face Elgin, Stirling, Airdrie or whoever else.

You think it matters any kind of f**k at all if the diddies we play include Dunfermline?

That would be Airdrie Utd, I assume? After Murray warmed up for the ibrox job with his "just business" statement and killed the original club.

And I thought you were going to be playing Real Madrid, Man U and Barca? It'll be years before your Tribute Act even get the chance to boycott the Pars.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

He doesn't need to. Prosecution of the purveyor and recipients of stolen information is a quite different matter to Murray's business history.

I would have thought that would be evident even to you.

Oh, I think it may crop up in the general run of things.....

Anyhoo, who's going to make the complaint, and based on what?

[SS-18 ICBM]

...we are on the way back with a club that is financially sound, a broad based ownership and a management that appears to be considerably more competent than the David Murray regime.

'Time will tell'

[beermonkey]

I think there is a genuine sense of optimism that we are on the way back with a club that is financially sound, a broad based ownership and a management that appears to be considerably more competent than the David Murray regime

You are kidding, right ?

And BTW, your club may be on the way up, not on the way back.

Happy to clear that up.

Edited November 22, 2012 by beermonkey

[ribzanelli]

The Herald and Scotsman, I believe, are talking about an admitted liability in the tens of millions (that's "seven-figure sum" in paper-speak). Other than (S)Dm and his 6.3 million back-pocket bonus, what non-playing staff are we talking about?

So call it ten million - as low a seven figure sum as possible. Over ten years - ballpark figure. One million a year.

You do realise ten million is an eight figure number don't you???

10,000,000

ETA - apologies if its been mentioned, I can hardly keep up.

Edited November 22, 2012 by ribzanelli

[SS-18 ICBM]

You are kidding, right ?

And BTW, your club may be on the way up, not on the way back.

Happy to clear that up.

When he refers to himself as "we", he is referring to he and all the other followers not their (mis)leaders. He appears to be proud of being a follower.

Edited November 22, 2012 by SS-18 ICBM