THE KING Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Telfer money..same club...any debts..different club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 1. Well, you missed the other article which your opposite number posted from the Guardian, which gives a wee bit of context, I'm guessing that the Guardian article was written by Philips good friend Roy Greensnake? (lol) Wait...you asked for the actual article where the quotes originated but what you really wanted was an article from another newspaper? really? your communication skills are bloody awful. Norman aint right in the head. Telfer money..same club...any debts..different club. Do you even know what you're posting half the time? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) But the January wage bill is covered. The semi final ticket money they taking in this week, all in cash as no credit card facilities doesn't need to be passed onto SPFL till ten days after game. Good luck on the league collecting that as they continue to rob Peter to pay Paul as the old saying goes..... Edited January 14, 2015 by MEADOWXI -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Yes I do, and no I haven't Yes you did. We have had this conversation before and it never ends well for you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I'm guessing that the Guardian article was written by Philips good friend Roy Greensnake? (lol) Norman aint right in the head. Do you even know what you're posting half the time? Half the time yes..that still puts me ahead of you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) It's going to be interesting to see how the NewCo argues its case in front of the arbitrators. The easiest way to dodge the fine would be to say - we have no connection whatsoever with the deceased entity known as "Rangers FC", but that would be a catastrophic propaganda blunder with the fans, likely to cost the NewCo far more money in the long run than just ponying up the quarter-million right now. I actually think they'd have a fairly strong case that they're not liable, if they chose to make that argument. If they want to keep the zoomers onside though, they're effectively going to have to fight with one hand behind their backs by restricting their argument to the agreement with the authorities. I'd say we're about to find out just how attached the money men at Ibrox are to the continuation story, and how far they see their investment as a long haul to be protected. Edited January 14, 2015 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Norman really doesn't like anyone being critical of or mocking Philip, strange behaviour from the die hard Killie fan.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 It's going to be interesting to see how the NewCo argues its case in front of the arbitrators. The easiest way to dodge the fine would be to say - we have no connection whatsoever with the deceased entity known as "Rangers FC", but that would be a catastrophic propaganda blunder with the fans, likely to cost the NewCo far more money in the long run than just ponying up the quarter-million right now. I actually think they'd have a fairly strong case that they're not liable, if they chose to make that argument. If they want to keep the zoomers onside though, they're effectively going to have to fight with one hand behind their backs by restricting their argument to the agreement with the authorities. I'd say we're about to find out just how attached the money men at Ibrox are to the continuation story, and how far they see their investment as a long haul to be protected. they're not trying to get away with paying I think they're trying to get access to the money as the sfa have it. They should try looking down the back of the sofa they may find some money down there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Strange behaviour from the SPFL and SFA boards here, we all know that at the time the fine was for oldco and not newco. This was made very clear and the matter was ended and it has to be asked why wait so long before demanding that this money be paid. Some people may also say that either the SPFL is in financial trouble and needs this money badly (and don't care how they get it) or that this is malicious act from them with one purpose in mind (especially when the club is in chaos at the moment). Obviously these are at this moment not my views as i'm still pondering all of this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 See, this where you let yourself down, instead of being desperate to just have a dig, it may be a good idea to just read the conversation to check what was asked for. The original request. Now he was quite specific...the source material...no editorial comments...no spin were the requests of the day. I obliged and copied the entire article straight from the sun and the man who made those comments...not even the slightest cherry was picked. Not content with this, yer mate attacks me...why? because I did not supply another article that was not the source material but was full of editorial comment and spin. I do not mind when you make a chunt of yerself...honest. Except you didn't post the article from the Sun, did you? You copy and pasted an old post from P&B. As you say, I specifically asked for the source material. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Except you didn't post the article from the Sun, did you? You copy and pasted an old post from P&B. As you say, I specifically asked for the source material. It's not like you don't know that the sun is now behind a pay wall Norman, so please for the love of God stop being such a fud. Philips a bigot and that is that and all your tears won't change that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Back on topic. Do sevco have enough cash to pay wages and keep the lights on for the rest of the month.? And how many times tonight will Bennett and tedi mention wrk(Norman) in a post just to deflect from the clusters£&k of a club/company? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 How do they argue it's not a footballing debt ... Chuckles signed an agreement for TRFC to pay all footballing debts related to the old club... Somers acknowledged it existed and they were liable? Tis true enough, he was desperate enough to sign anything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Back on topic. Do sevco have enough cash to pay wages and keep the lights on for the rest of the month.? And how many times tonight will Bennett and tedi mention wrk(Norman) in a post just to deflect from the clusters£&k of a club/company? Who is deflecting? As far as i can see anything is open for discussion , todays events have been discussed by Rangers fans and will continue to be.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I would have thought the easiest way was to point out what Lord Nimmo said. We fine RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation) £250,000 in respect of Issues 1 to 3, and admonish it in respect of Issue 4. in practice any fine is likely to be substantially irrecoverable and to the extent that it is recovered the cost will be borne by the creditors of Oldco, we nevertheless think it essential to mark the seriousness of the contraventions with a large financial penalty." (p33) However against this we have; Wallace apparently admitting liability for the fine. and this apparent extract from the 5 way agreement. Now was Nimmo aware of this when he spelled out that Newco would have no part in paying this fine and will the Five way agreement signed by Charles Green have any relevance if it transpires he bought the club through fraudulent means? I think you need to take a look at what "in practice" means in that context, Ted. You'll notice that it's not an instruction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Just out of interest has the SPL/SFLP or whatever it's called put in a claim to BDO for money from the creditors pot? Some people elsewhere saying they have but i can't find anything offical... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 What it looks like is that Nimmo had not full knowledge of what was written in the 5 way agreement (if this is indeed the agreement) And is there a reason to think that this will negate either the terms of the agreement or the fine itself? I can't see why it would, but it's not exactly my area of expertise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 5 smilies in yet another post devoid of any substance, that's me convinced then. Who was it that was complaining about sniping via a 3rd party again? You can't argue with smilies © The QC, Densboy and Norman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I think you need to take a look at what "in practice" means in that context, Ted. You'll notice that it's not an instruction. What it looks like is that Nimmo had not full knowledge of what was written in the 5 way agreement (if this is indeed the agreement) Oh dear , you mean the Rangers hero Lord Nimmo might not have been in possession of all the facts?!..well we'll remember that the next time you quote him . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 No, nor am I suggesting there is. At the time I argued that they would never be due for this, Nimmo was fairly clear on this. However at the time the content of the 5 way agreement was not known and our CEO had not admitted liability. It seems the club / newco are due to pay this. Next question is - What about the 250K costs that the SPFL clubs have supposedly already paid out? Looks like your previous owners have proven LNS wrong then, and the fine will be paid. Maybe a tiny measure of justice there, although I'm not confident the SPFL will spend it on e.g. youth development. And, what about this 250k costs? 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.