Bearwithme Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 7 minutes ago, bennett said: Can he? Not a legal expert but I was under the impression that they worked on a next on the list system. Where's HBQC, he'll obviously know.... 'Cab rank' rule. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 1 hour ago, Bearwithme said: How sad that you would dig that up. Some of us have learned a few things in the last four and a bit years. At least youre honest about it. A few bears on here could do with mirroring your honesty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 53 minutes ago, Clonmel Bhoy said: There is good reasons he can knock it back. He left Rangers in the 90s, not much of a conflict of interest there that I can see. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 13 minutes ago, bennett said: He left Rangers in the 90s, not much of a conflict of interest there that I can see. Well, if someone with as much experience as our learned friend, bennett says so... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 47 minutes ago, The Tedi said: Sevco 4ever Surprise surprise, the only guy who didnt hold up a red card to liquidation appears. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 1 minute ago, Clonmel Bhoy said: He could still have knocked it back. You'll need to go in more detail here... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 1 hour ago, bennett said: He left Rangers in the 90s He was there more recently than you then... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 29 minutes ago, MoshiniBellend said: Orc invades the pitch, picks a fight, gets leathered and then to add insult to injury he gets four months in the pokey. 20 convictions, charming guy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 "LIMITED LIABILITY" and what it means to be in "LIMITED COMPANY". Because of recent events from 2012 there has been a complete revamping of what the above actually means in a business sense. Rangers Football Club before 1899 was the business that paid taxes as an association of members, but it was the business legally recognised by the law as the entity in question. "LIABILITY", this meant that the association members were held for complete liability of the business's debts should the club/business become victim of being unable to pay off it's debtors. The up side to this arrangement was that the members could share out all the clubs profits between themselves without question. The "CLUB", "Association members", adopted the governments law statutes of the protection of "LIMITED LIABILITY" , meaning should the Club/business be unable pay off it's debts the members had a "LIMITED LIABILITY", meaning they were no longer held accountable for all the clubs debts and were only held accountable to the level of investment they put into the club. If one had invested £1,000 then that was the amount they were liable for and not a penny more. The down side to the arrangement was that the new shareholders, former members of the association couldn't now share all the profits between themselves any more. They either took a wage or a cut of the profits, they couldn't just help themselves to any money in the club just because they could. "COMPANY", often these days referred to as an entity, this is not the case because it is an agreement with the government/HMRC. How so?, the business/club signed off on legal documents to protect any creditors to the business/club should it fall into financial trouble. It is referred to as being in company with the law and the legal system, a partnership if you like. It is not and never will be a separate entity ever because it is an arrangement/agreement/partnership etc, Rangers FC est 1872 lost it's company status/arrangement to the law/legal system because it fell foul to it's obligation to pay off it's debts. The club/entity/business then went through the laws that wound up business's that failed to reach an agreement with its creditors and then into liquidation of the business's assets to pay off the creditors at a fraction of it's debts owed. What the corrupt associations, SFA & SPL have done is try to con everyone that being in company with the HMRC/government is a recognised legal entity, it is not and never will be because it is an agreement/accord. For some Rangers fans who will try to argue the club lives on and this defunct legal arrangement released the club from it's limited liability to then create another limited liability within the law, fcuk off. The club cannot live on as if it was still completely intact to then make another company agreement or another "limited liability" with the law/HMRC. As far as the HMRC as concerned they are liquidating a business/club that went bust chasing the dream, Rangers Football Club went out of business and another separate similarly named business then bought over the dead business's/clubs assets and traded in name to something similar to the entity/club that went bust. A continuation of another dead business but not the exact same business. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 1 hour ago, MoshiniBellend said: Orc invades the pitch, picks a fight, gets leathered and then to add insult to injury he gets four months in the pokey. Did the Orcs blogs fund his legal fees? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 10 minutes ago, hellbhoy said: "LIMITED LIABILITY" and what it means to be in "LIMITED COMPANY". Because of recent events from 2012 there has been a complete revamping of what the above actually means in a business sense. Rangers Football Club before 1899 was the business that paid taxes as an association of members, but it was the business legally recognised by the law as the entity in question. "LIABILITY", this meant that the association members were held for complete liability of the business's debts should the club/business become victim of being unable to pay off it's debtors. The up side to this arrangement was that the members could share out all the clubs profits between themselves without question. The "CLUB", "Association members", adopted the governments law statutes of the protection of "LIMITED LIABILITY" , meaning should the Club/business be unable pay off it's debts the members had a "LIMITED LIABILITY", meaning they were no longer held accountable for all the clubs debts and were only held accountable to the level of investment they put into the club. If one had invested £1,000 then that was the amount they were liable for and not a penny more. The down side to the arrangement was that the new shareholders, former members of the association couldn't now share all the profits between themselves any more. They either took a wage or a cut of the profits, they couldn't just help themselves to any money in the club just because they could. "COMPANY", often these days referred to as an entity, this is not the case because it is an agreement with the government/HMRC. How so?, the business/club signed off on legal documents to protect any creditors to the business/club should it fall into financial trouble. It is referred to as being in company with the law and the legal system, a partnership if you like. It is not and never will be a separate entity ever because it is an arrangement/agreement/partnership etc, Rangers FC est 1872 lost it's company status/arrangement to the law/legal system because it fell foul to it's obligation to pay off it's debts. The club/entity/business then went through the laws that wound up business's that failed to reach an agreement with its creditors and then into liquidation of the business's assets to pay off the creditors at a fraction of it's debts owed. What the corrupt associations, SFA & SPL have done is try to con everyone that being in company with the HMRC/government is a recognised legal entity, it is not and never will be because it is an agreement/accord. For some Rangers fans who will try to argue the club lives on and this defunct legal arrangement released the club from it's limited liability to then create another limited liability within the law, fcuk off. The club cannot live on as if it was still completely intact to then make another company agreement or another "limited liability" with the law/HMRC. As far as the HMRC as concerned they are liquidating a business/club that went bust chasing the dream, Rangers Football Club went out of business and another separate similarly named business then bought over the dead business's/clubs assets and traded in name to something similar to the entity/club that went bust. A continuation of another dead business but not the exact same business. Random..... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Just now, bennett said: Random..... Excellent contribution Benny, will read again for it's amazing insight. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Can he? Not a legal expert but I was under the impression that they worked on a next on the list system. Where's HBQC, he'll obviously know.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Does the Sultans of Swing c**t not have a job? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 1 hour ago, dave.j said: Problem solved Dave, QC Findlay is not happy of being stiffed by Murray in being paid by shares that are now totally worthless. The QC knows the score and is ready to lift the lid to indite Sir Minty Moonbeams in defrauding and being a cheating son of a biatch. There'll be non of this "you were the owner of the company that operates the club" shit YEAH!. It'll be "you were the owner of the former club that is being liquidated aren't you Mr Whyte?", and also "Rangers FC were eventually liquidated because you were unaware that the club was engaged in some dodgy offshore method of cheating the tax man?" I met up with my fellow QC earlier tonight discussing how that cnut Murray is gettin it big style, and we listened to some panicking phone calls made by Dave the Dodgy Eyed fraudster looking for mugs to invest in a hover pitch in Govan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Nah?, seriously folks between you and I. Poor Donny Finnigan as he is affectionately known to us QC's for a giggle is being blackmailed by Whyte to defend him. Daft arse was stupid enough to get drunk sending fax's to RFC PLC rambling about his cut for helping Sir Minty because he couldn't remember what the had done with MIH's fax number. Whyte found the shit and dumped it on dopey and is in fact about to make a claim to the current Rangers FC that RIFC PLC own. Nice. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewHope Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightswoodBear Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 On 30/07/2016 at 02:31, hellbhoy said: Problem solved Dave, QC Findlay is not happy of being stiffed by Murray in being paid by shares that are now totally worthless. The QC knows the score and is ready to lift the lid to indite Sir Minty Moonbeams in defrauding and being a cheating son of a biatch. There'll be non of this "you were the owner of the company that operates the club" shit YEAH!. It'll be "you were the owner of the former club that is being liquidated aren't you Mr Whyte?", and also "Rangers FC were eventually liquidated because you were unaware that the club was engaged in some dodgy offshore method of cheating the tax man?" I met up with my fellow QC earlier tonight discussing how that cnut Murray is gettin it big style, and we listened to some panicking phone calls made by Dave the Dodgy Eyed fraudster looking for mugs to invest in a hover pitch in Govan. On 30/07/2016 at 02:45, hellbhoy said: Nah?, seriously folks between you and I. Poor Donny Finnigan as he is affectionately known to us QC's for a giggle is being blackmailed by Whyte to defend him. Daft arse was stupid enough to get drunk sending fax's to RFC PLC rambling about his cut for helping Sir Minty because he couldn't remember what the had done with MIH's fax number. Whyte found the shit and dumped it on dopey and is in fact about to make a claim to the current Rangers FC that RIFC PLC own. Nice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 The qc must have been on the firewater again. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulliamwallace Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 How many tops have sevco sold ? Have they paid the £250 k fine yet ? Whens the next court case ? lol 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.