Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

Shouldn't be surprised really, it was that attitude of not giving a f**k that helped push the old club over the edge.

It is amazing isn't it, that after everything that's happened, you still get Rangers fans saying they don't care about that sort of stuff?

I don't think the trouble they get into as a club, is entirely unrelated to such a prevalent attitude either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is amazing isn't it, that after everything that's happened, you still get Rangers fans saying they don't care about that sort of stuff? I don't think the trouble they get into as a club, is entirely unrelated to such a prevalent attitude either.

It's the fans that are 100% to blame for the demise of rangers

^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh when will Armageddon end?

Hopefully, never! The game in Scotland is much more interesting now, if only we could get rid of the East End footballing carbuncle, we could truly have a competitive top division and start to sell the Premiership as an exciting prospect. Not that I'm too fussed about the TV income, just want a good league to watch...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never crossed my mind when the ball hit the back of the net tbh Mikey!

Celebrating a goal scored twenty odd years ago by a club that cheated and subsequently got liquidated.... Good times for ra peepul :lol: ...how is the wee c**t, heard he is in hospital?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JJ again landing jabs :D , conspiracies ahoy !!

A quick look at The Court of Session rolls reveals the following:

LADY WOLFFE R Martin, Clerk

Tuesday 24th November

By Order

1

P989/15 Pet: Michael Ashley for Judicial Review

Brodies LLP

Burness Paull LLP

2

P1039/15 Pet: Mash Holdings Ltd for Judicial Review

Brodies LLP

Anderson Strathern LLP

Burness Paull LLP

Both petitions were originally submitted to the Court of Session for Judicial Review on the 17th November. They are being heard, and opposed, on Tuesday of next week. It is interesting to note that Lady Wolffe is married to Dean of Faculty, James Wolffe QC, who represented Rangers in the recent petition brought by Charles Green in regard to his legal costs.

Anderson Strathern, the employer of Rangers secretary James Blair, instructed Mr Wolffe. In a surprising development, they are co- respondents with another firm, Burness Paull LLP.

It would be imprudent to speculate at this point, but if Mr Ashley is seeking any injunctions, then they would be heard on Tuesday, three days prior to the AGM.

Level 5 are fully engaged on discrediting Mike Ashley and promoting King prior to the AGM. The fact that King lied, on more levels than 5, to the shareholders on his investment of £30m, will be buried under a blitz of Level 5 churnalism in the coming week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And re LNS , his judgement was based on that the clubs use of ebt's were lawful. Which they were not.

So grounds to reopen :)CUVY_7AUEAAIqLt.png

That does, on the face of it, sound like grounds for reopening.

However, this business of the SPL apparently accepting that the commission proceed on the basis of the situation as it stood, even though it was open to appeal, looks problematic.

You'd imagine that such a stipulation could surely be open to some kind of challenge though.

Either way, it's clear that if Rangers do cling onto these titles ultimately, then it's not on the basis that they deserved to. They should really still be accompanied by an asterisk in the records, to establish that they only belong to Rangers due to a technical quirk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to consider the previous sentence for it to make sense, of course.

Ah, you're pouncing on this "lawful" thing again as if that's the point.

The point that the scheme was not operated successfully stands fully. It's that basis that the commission went to work on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, you're pouncing on this "lawful" thing again as if that's the point. The point that the scheme was not operated successfully stands fully. It's that basis that the commission went to work on.

Oh don't you start too! Please don't tell me that this paragraph says that The SPL reserved the right to amend the decision of the LNS Commission based on the outcome of HMRCs appeal. You surely can't believe this is what the paragraph posted means?

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...