Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

Great to rerun all the stages Rangers have gone through from big and wee tax cases, Murray fleeing the scene of the crime, Whyte with the "millions off the radar", the annihilation of the mainstream media (does anyone remember a guy called Jim Traynor), the sucking up of Rangers legends to whoever they thought had the big money. Dave King flitting across the stage like Banquo the ghost in Macbeth (another Scottish Tragedy). Then Green and his bunch of total charlatans, with administration, liquidation, court cases, charges laid, so we end up where we are today.

Now the history is out of the way....let's look forward.

When does Durrant get totally bumped? What can they base it on? Being pissed at work? Accessing porn on the PC used for tactical analysis?

How can they get shot of Ally on the cheap?

How much humiliation can McDowall take by being told to do this or that, before he walks out the door?

Being presented by a range of shorts with skid marks still present will Jimmy the legend walk the plank?

Knowing Rangers needs the cash badly will Brentford pay £50k up front for MacLeod, the rest of the million after 25 games or so?

Will the legal advisers support Rangers as they continue to trade while insolvent?

Which players will be shown the door in January?

Will the football agents kick up a stushie through the red tops when they see their 'clients' no longer as a gravy train for them.

I am sure Tedi and Benny can give us the inside track on these important questions. :lol:

Just read the tribute to Jimmy Bell http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gordon-parks-jimmys-last-kitman-4882368

Who is this Gordon Parks anyway? Surely not a real person, and definitely not a journalist.

Edited by thelegendthatis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no you don't

'The wording means that any old club/new club debate is also an irrelevance' you were referring to the wording of the rules here I take it?

The SFA will impose a 25 point penalty as they believe that the club is the same but the operator is different...they are clearly separating them....it is very relevant, this is what I corrected you on....you also contradicted yourself when you agreed with this as you have previously stated you do not believe in the separation.

The tedious continuity debate which rages on here is an irrelevance because, as I've said many times, those in charge of imposing penalties consider the club to be the same one.

I do consider the separation to be a contorted nonsense that insults the intelligence, which is why I consider any continuation to not be seamless. My view on this, much like your own however, is not relevant as those in charge have decreed what must happen should Rangers enter administration shortly.

My frustration came from reading the thread and watching Snafu and others debating what the penalty would be. It was therefore a relief to find definitive word then offered.

My observation was not to do with continuation - indeed it was to say that such debate on here didn't matter.

You however, chose to be a bit of a tool about it, which is a pity, given that you claim to enjoy discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is a matter of public record, HMRC were only spelling out the process ... the oldco were in administration until October liquidation did not formally start until the court of session granted it.

Also HMRC said 'Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club' so yes HMRC confirmed that the club was sold to new owners.

Coventry were docked points for entering liquidation ..the moment the cva failed ..not months after when a judge signed it off.

Rangers weren't because they died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can always tell when you are irritated Mhonkey, first step in hiding it more would be to stop being a complete dick and cut out the petty insults, I also do not believe you are confused about what side of the debate you sit on, especially since you contradict that falsehood daily.

You're right - I am irritated. If that represents some sort of triumph for you, congratulations.

I'm not confused about where I stand, or sit at all, so not sure what you're on about there either.

Not at your best tonight old chum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coventry were liquidated but are not a new club? how does that work? is it because they are not Rangers?

Rangers were being ran by new owners by the time that liquidation happened....in October.

Heres how it works...now pay attention....Coventrys new owners paid the CVA rate to their creditors....

They were also docked points in August 13 , 10 months before a Judge approved Liquidation.

Back to the drawing board son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amusing seeing The Rangers' fans in their various states of distress, Tedi is still raging and biting at every piece of bait laid in front of him, 8 is 'comfortably numb' and on the verge of walking away and Beeny, well Beeny has been round the twist and gibbering shite since his tear stained resignation when the CVA failed and he realised his club was dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coventry were liquidated but are not a new club? how does that work? is it because they are not Rangers?

Rangers were being ran by new owners by the time that liquidation happened....in October.

Why do you do this ?, why do you keep applying English clubs to a Scottish predicament ffs ???

The question you should be asking is ?, why were Rangers treated differently than Gretna or Airdrieonians who suffered the exact same fate as Rangers ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right - I am irritated. If that represents some sort of triumph for you, congratulations.

I'm not confused about where I stand, or sit at all, so not sure what you're on about there either.

Not at your best tonight old chum.

He insults you by calling you a dick, and puts another H in your pseudonym, and you call him "CHUM".

You're a better, more patient gentleman than I could ever be. Good on you for rising above these insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mhonkhey is distressed, he just admitted it. The King is also spitting insults.

I am distressed at this daft joystick I got for Christmas, trying to set it up is a blooming nightmare, the game was easier to play with the old mouse and keyboard, still I will persevere...I am good at that.

Aye, nice attempt at hiding it. Away and play with your joystick instead of biting at continuation taunts, if you are not lying again ;p .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't correct me though. You missed the point and got all defensive, while inserting 'h's in my username, before turning on WRK for including wee digs in his post, claiming that it prevented discussion. When this hypocrisy was pointed out of course, you simply ignored it. Poor form, I'd say.

Don't mention their results!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He insults you by calling you a dick, and puts another H in your pseudonym, and you call him "CHUM".

You're a better, more patient gentleman than I could ever be. Good on you for rising above these insults.

When dear old Ted is in this form, 'rising above' is not a difficulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice how the chump just ignored my post I replied to him about rule E20 ?, the post which the SPFL can't even in their own rules distinguish between the company paying taxes because it is registered in Companies House and the club which isn't a company being responsible for paying taxes ???

The club can't in the associations new rules & regulations pay taxes because it doesn't have any legal recognition any more according to their rules and the company running the club is responsible for paying taxes operating the club.

Nonsense. You don't need to be a limited company to pay taxes.

However, you're right that in Rangers case (and that of most football "clubs") they ceased to be a "club" decades ago.

No doubt there are still many clubs still around at amateur level. If they make a profit (from trading with non-members) they have to pay tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was just me replying in kind....anyway I am sure Mhonkey will be glad he has a fine homophobic such as yourself fighting his corner, I am sure he appreciates it.

Don't recall MT sticking an extra letter in your pseudonym, or calling you a dick.

As usual, you are lying.

No.8 told me you were actually a nice guy.

He obviously lied too. Shame, because he seems OK most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense. You don't need to be a limited company to pay taxes.

However, you're right that in Rangers case (and that of most football "clubs") they ceased to be a "club" decades ago.

No doubt there are still many clubs still around at amateur level. If they make a profit (from trading with non-members) they have to pay tax.

You are completely right Stag, but they do need to register with companies house to pay taxes and legal reasons.

In Rangers FC case here this club is separate from the company shite falls apart, their rules at times do not differentiate club from the company unless you read the insolvency rules. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...