Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[hellbhoy]

Exactly, Green is on record (STV) claiming that the IPO would be rubber stamped by the FSA, this is not as you correctly point out a requirement to float on AIM, this may prove to be a huge own goal by Green, as anybody with the cash to invest is likely to be unimpressed if it is proven that Green lied on national TV about the one thing that could really give his prospectus some credibility.

The one thing I do not know is, can Green ask the FSA to approve this deal directly even though it is not required?

The bit in bold Tedi ! Green has already made a complete twat of himself on national TV umpteen times since he tried to buy the old club through a CVA.Best of luck if you believe him.

[Bendarroch]

"The occasion of Rangers winning the UEFA championship led to six sub-trusts being created for Mr Warwick, Mr Camden, Mr Islington, Mr Kensington, Mr Balham, Mr Brixton to pay their entitlement via the trust arrangements"

From Dr Poon. Yes, the same Dr Poon who's summary sent plastics and diddies in to orbit with giddy excitement. And the same summation that Fuckit, Suckit and Duckit suggested might not be from her own hand.

[flyingrodent]

"The occasion of Rangers winning the UEFA championship led to six sub-trusts being created for Mr Warwick, Mr Camden, Mr Islington, Mr Kensington, Mr Balham, Mr Brixton to pay their entitlement via the trust arrangements"

From Dr Poon. Yes, the same Dr Poon who's summary sent plastics and diddies in to orbit with giddy excitement. And the same summation that Fuckit, Suckit and Duckit suggested might not be from her own hand.

Dr Heidi Poon, CA, CTA, PhD vs Bendarroch, WTF D&P (Diddies & Plastics)

Hmmm. Highly-qualified expert in tax law vs repetitive internet numpty with expertise in shouting "No it isnae", "No we didnae" and "youse are all stupid" until everyone gets bored.

I think I might go with Dr Poon's version of events here, however poor her grasp on football results are.

[Bendarroch]

I think I might go with Dr Poon's version of events here, however poor her grasp on football results are.

But, was it an error? Was she mislead? I wonder what else she might have a poor grasp of? What other errors might there be? No legal qualifications after all - and the two people on the panel (who have substantial legal accreditation) both disagreed with the person who thinks we won the 'UEFA championship'.Result? Rangers won their appeal. Even the runaway (fast!) RTC acknowledges it as the one that matters.

And I wonder if Dr Poon is aware that the new, anonymous emperors of the plastics and diddies are even questioning if she wrote it at all?

Floggit, Fuggit and Forgetit said this: "So is Dr Poon's Judgement all in her own hand - or is the ghost of someone else in there?"

There's nothing like a lack of accuracy in a court judgement to cast doubt. Unless, of course, you are of the diddy and plastic mindset and to hell with accuracy.

[Bendarroch]

Jesus your slow .. even the not so bright Fivestars posted that eons ago ... do try and keep up fella .. It wasn't that funny then.

Repetition does not make the 'error' any less enjoyable.

Unless you're plastic-minded it seems.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

A wee hint, Bendarroch - yes, there may be someone else's input in Dr Poon's opinion. Have a real hard think (yeah, I know...) and ask yourself who might want to get across some points that they couldn't due to the constrictions inherent in the structure of the verdict.

Or, keep digging.

[Bendarroch]

A wee hint, Bendarroch - yes, there may be someone else's input in Dr Poon's opinion.

Are you asking us to accept that Dr Poon is incapable of returning her thoughts on the matter herself? Is this why there is a glaring error present?

Do you know this or are you guessing? And if you know it - was the information supplied to you by people who take you seriously?

Well, not you as the board WKR (© Dhensebhore) but one of your other personae?

[flyingrodent]

But, was it an error? Was she mislead? I wonder what else she might have a poor grasp of? What other errors might there be? No legal qualifications after all - and the two people on the panel (who have substantial legal accreditation) both disagreed with the person who thinks we won the 'UEFA championship'.Result? Rangers won their appeal. Even the runaway (fast!) RTC acknowledges it as the one that matters.

And I wonder if Dr Poon is aware that the new, anonymous emperors of the plastics and diddies are even questioning if she wrote it at all?

Floggit, Fuggit and Forgetit said this: "So is Dr Poon's Judgement all in her own hand - or is the ghost of someone else in there?"

There's nothing like a lack of accuracy in a court judgement to cast doubt. Unless, of course, you are of the diddy and plastic mindset and to hell with accuracy.

Well, if you have some serious reason to suspect Dr Poon's judgement, then let's hear it.

If you can impugn her credentials or cast doubt upon her analysis, fire away. If you can refute her arguments or find fault with her reasoning, then testify, brother! Go tell it on the mountain!

Can you do any of that, or can you only repeat some minor error somebody else found on your behalf, then act as if you've made some earth-shattering point?

Because that's kind of idiotic, if that's all you've got.

[Bendarroch]

Well, if you have some serious reason to suspect Dr Poon's judgement, then let's hear it.

There's a basic, factual error in her judgement.

To ask if it's the only one seems perfectly reasonable.

Given your blind support for the dissenting opinion, can we assume you have no objections to court judgements having factual inaccuracies?

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Are you asking us to accept that Dr Poon is incapable of returning her thoughts on the matter herself? Is this why there is a glaring error present?

Do you know this or are you guessing? And if you know it - was the information supplied to you by people who take you seriously?

Well, not you as the board WKR (© Dhensebhore) but one of your other personae?

Of course I'm guessing - we've all been guessing since February 13th. Well, most of us, but you seem to be catching up slowly.

YOU raised the possibility of Dr Poon's opinion not being "all her own work" - I'm simply pointing out that, as she was working with two others on the verdict, and those two others state in the document that they only exonerated rangers because they "had to", then they may have allowed some of their feelings to be released under Dr Poon's name. Sure, it's unlikely, sure it would never happen...

But very few of us "guessed" in February that rangers would die and a Tribute Act replace them in Scottish football.

The fat lady hasn't even left the dressing room.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Well, if you have some serious reason to suspect Dr Poon's judgement, then let's hear it.

If you can impugn her credentials or cast doubt upon her analysis, fire away. If you can refute her arguments or find fault with her reasoning, then testify, brother! Go tell it on the mountain!

Can you do any of that, or can you only repeat some minor error somebody else found on your behalf, then act as if you've made some earth-shattering point?

Because that's kind of idiotic, if that's all you've got.

I'll go with repeating minor errors found by someone else. Do I get a prize? Do I?

[flyingrodent]

There's a basic, factual error in her judgement.

To ask if it's the only one seems perfectly reasonable.

Are you seriously suggesting that a minor error relating to what is at best a tangential issue in the dissenting opinion casts any doubt at all over the content?

This raises your head-in-the-sand act to an artform and is, by some distance, the most inane opinion you've expressed in, oh, maybe the last seven days or so.

[Bendarroch]

Are you seriously suggesting that a minor error relating to what is at best a tangential issue in the dissenting opinion casts any doubt at all over the content?

And you know it's the only error? And if so, how? Did Bentit, Rentit and Inventit tell you? The guys who openly question if the dissenting opinion sought others to write on her behalf?

Your will to dismiss the error is very revealing. Not newly revealing of course. Because we already know how interested in accuracy you are from previous lionisations of wibblings from the disgraced lawyer, the IRA writer and the runaway.

And now you can happily, easily and readily excuse a factual error in a judgement. With no further questions asked.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Bendarroch

[THE KING]

There's a basic, factual error in her judgement.

To ask if it's the only one seems perfectly reasonable.

Given your blind support for the dissenting opinion, can we assume you have no objections to court judgements having factual inaccuracies?

Surely you'll be calling for a rehearing since she was clearly incompetent or are you full of shite?

[flyingrodent]

And you know it's the only error? And if so, how?

For the love of... (headdesk)

Look, it's a judicial opinion. I don't have to go through it and fact-check everything in it in order to give it legal heft - it has that on its own, without my assistance, because of the credentials of the author and the context in which it was written.

If you want to take issue with the judgement, then you have to go through it and fact-check everything in it, then explain in precise terms why you think it is wrong.

And here's a hint - see if you go through the whole thing and the biggest error you find is that at one point it says "Rangers FC won a trophy" where it should say "Rangers FC did not win a trophy", that doesn't cast any doubt on the judgement's merits. All it says is that you are a straw-clutching chancer who doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand what he's talking about.

Your will to dismiss the error is very revealing. Not newly revealing of course. Because we already know how interested in accuracy you are from previous lionisations of wibblings from the disgraced lawyer, the IRA writer and the runaway. And now you can happily, easily and readily excuse a factual error in a judgement. With no further questions asked.

We could all treat you like this. We could all keep pointing out to you that a Rangers supporter has no right whatsoever to suggest that anyone else on Earth is gullible or credulous.

Look - your club is dead because you and your fellow supporters spent years attacking any media organisation that had the temerity to warn you of its impending demise. When Craig Whyte killed Rangers, you were all dumbfounded because you had all been too busy waiting for his lawsuit against the BBC, the one that would smite all of your club's "enemies", to notice that he was a conman.

And here you are, not a year later, with a dead club, waiting for David Murray's lawsuit against HMRC!

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me four hundred and fifty seven times, buy some shares.

I mean, the scientific analysis has been undertaken; the lab tests are complete and the test results are in. Here they are - your club's supporters are, beyond all question or dispute, the stupidest, most gullible, credulous bunch of suckers ever to clamp lips upon a fraudster's bumhole.

Would you like proof? Your club is dead, and you're all cheering on the man who killed it because he is distracting you with promises to smite your club's "enemies".

Now, every one of us could fill every response to you with some variation on this. But we don't, because that would be boring and pointless.

Edited November 28, 2012 by flyingrodent

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Rehearing? is there even such a thing? her position, findings along with error(s) are irrelevant, the tribunal found in Rangers favour, voted correctly by the 2 other members who were legal experts and not prone to glaring error(s)

Remember last week, Tedi? Remember "HMRC can only appeal on a point of law"?

A verdict reached on incorrect evidence could well be seen as a reason for a rehearing - if that's the term, I'm familiar with retrials in criminal cases under English law, not Scottish civil hearings - so as with Bendarroch, I'd be careful what you wish for.

Remember it wasn't a totally favourable verdict for your dead club - which is still dead, by the way. You did read the verdict document, didn't you?

[Bendarroch]

you're all cheering on the man who killed it because he is distracting you with promises to smite your club's "enemies".

As has been noted before - you haven't a fucking scooby about Rangers supporters.

Murray has his own shame in this debacle, but I'm not going to complain if he scuds the law into other deserving cases.

Not at all.

Will the runaway RTC stand by those who illegally provided his information?

[Bendarroch]

Surely you'll be calling for a rehearing since she was clearly incompetent or are you full of shite?

Perhaps you missed the point. Rangers won the appeal. The only dissenting voice reported on the decision. With at least one error.

Still angry that the disgraced bungler had to deconstruct his blog are we? And so soon after you assured us all was well...

[Bendarroch]

The error in context is no more serious than a spelling error ....

Really? Are you basing this marvellous claim on your creative ways with 'typos' and 'mild lysdexia'?

Ooft!

[flyingrodent]

You haven't a fucking scooby about Rangers supporters.

Murray has his own shame in this debacle, but I'm not going to complain if he scuds the law into other deserving cases... Will the runaway RTC stand by those who illegally provided his information?

The only thing you need to know to understand Rangers supporters is that loads of them are stupid enough to be overjoyed that the man who slaughtered their club is making noises about chasing after some blogger.

If you're a Rangers supporter and that's your opinion, then you are stupider than rocks; duller than a soggy slice of toast. You couldn't outwit a box of lego, because only an idiot would be fooled and played and scammed and screwed over again and again this many times, and then beg for more.

If a clear majority of Rangers supporters hold that opinion, it's entirely fair to say "Rangers supporters are as thick as shitty jam". Because they are.