Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[H Wragg]

Thistle Statement:

As of today, we are dEBT free.

[Alan Stubbs]

Celtic bringing out a statement is pretty diddyish, imo. It was understandable and necessary for clubs to clarify their position when that SPL vote thing was happening in 2012*. What the f**k does this have to do with them?

Mind you it will keep the thick bigots slavering on about their "enemieeeeez" even more, instead of actually looking inwards at themselves and their own role in allowing one con con man after another to totally mug them off. All's well that ends well, I suppose.

*Celtic's own reluctant shitebag act was noted back then btw. Integrity my hoop.

[Farrah Swango]

Where is Mark Hateley?

I seem to remember him claiming Celtic titles had been tainted?

There were a few Rangers type people claiming Celtics titles over the last couple years were tainted as Rangers weren't in the league. Will be interesting to hear their view of whether Rangers 'EBT titles' were also tainted.

[Njord]

There were a few Rangers type people claiming Celtics titles over the last couple years were tainted as Rangers weren't in the league. Will be interesting to hear their view of whether Rangers 'EBT titles' were also tainted.

Didn't Hately fall out with the gardener and therefore became persona non grata with the smsm ?

[Thistle_do_nicely]

It is. I'm not sure why they felt the need to make it though.

True - would be nice for an update from those with the authority to take action on the matter...

[Farrah Swango]

Didn't Hately fall out with the gardener and therefore became persona non grata with the smsm ?

F**k knows. All I know is, he's a p***k.

[The_Kincardine]

I would favour reopening the LNS enquiry, or convening a new enquiry which could override it. I think this is valid because the initial one was instructed to operate on the basis that Rangers' tax dodge had proved legitimate and successful in reducing the club's tax obligations. That picture has now changed.....

It is odd to ask for a commission which found us guilty to be reconvened or overruled by a new commission. On the basis that we should be exonerated or that we should be found more guilty than we actually were? It has to be one or the other.

You also have to have a basis for the new commission. That a later appeal found in favour of HMRC re The EBT scheme? This possibility was both known, explicitly discussed and discounted by the SPL's representative who sought a decision irrespective of the appeal outcome.

Note to a few diddies banging on about sporting advantage. The job of any club's management is to gain a sporting advantage. Our use of EBTs was designed to help that for sure. The issue is whether or not that advantage was gained unfairly. The LNS commission found that it wasn't.

Edited November 13, 2015 by The_Kincardine

[Ken Fitlike]

It is odd to ask for a commission which found us guilty to be reconvened or overruled by a new commission. On the basis that we should be exonerated or that we should be found more guilty than we actually were? It has to be one or the other.

You also have to have a basis for the new commission. That a later appeal found in favour of HMRC re The EBT scheme? This possibility was both known, explicitly discussed and discounted by the SPL's representative who sought a decision irrespective of the appeal outcome.

Note to a few diddies banging on about sporting advantage. The job of any club's management is to gain a sporting advantage. Our use of EBTs was designed to help that for sure. The issue is whether or not that advantage was gained unfairly. The LNS commission found that it wasn't.

Give up ffs....

[Gaz FFC]

Someone take the shovel off him for fuxake

[Monkey Tennis]

It is odd to ask for a commission which found us guilty to be reconvened or overruled by a new commission. On the basis that we should be exonerated or that we should be found more guilty than we actually were? It has to be one or the other.

You also have to have a basis for the new commission. That a later appeal found in favour of HMRC re The EBT scheme? This possibility was both known, explicitly discussed and discounted by the SPL's representative who sought a decision irrespective of the appeal outcome.

Note to a few diddies banging on about sporting advantage. The job of any club's management is to gain a sporting advantage. Our use of EBTs was designed to help that for sure. The issue is whether or not that advantage was gained unfairly. The LNS commission found that it wasn't.

I don't actually think I disagree with you too much on this.

The difference is that my position has been consistent throughout. Back in November 2012, you thought that the LNS enquiry should be stood down in the wake of the FTTT verdict. I argued that it shouldn't have much impact directly, but I expressed the concern that it might. The wording of the LNS ruling, and the brief given to him, seemed to confirm my fears.

Since last week, I've been still saying that I can see this revised ruling having no real material impact, although this time I make no secret of the fact that I'd like it to.

For me, LNS probably won't be re-visited. I can't see what's really changed. The fact that I think the original ruling was wrong though, means that I welcome the renewed scrutiny that judgment currently faces.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm still intrigued by what prevented players being deemed ineligible. I'm also fascinated by the idea that retrospective title stripping was apparently not even able to happen.

I've always argued that the big tax case and title stripping do not amount to the same thing, although they are related.

You're the one who's changed his tune as the verdict for the former has changed.

[The_Kincardine]

What's the tipple tonight auld yin?

A small tin of bitter orange. It's all I could fit in the fridge which is chock-full of the humble pie I can never get round to eating.

[bennett]

Rangers deliberately provided false information to the SFA when registering their players, by failing to disclose the side letters. This meant that the registration was not handled properly. It casts doubt on the registration of these players, an area traditionally treated very seriously by football's authorities.

Grounds for a close look exist. The argument will run however that such an examination has taken place already. What undermines that examination however is the fact that its result was apparently, at least in part, reliant on a decision since overturned. It's also been undermined by the palpably ludicrous claim that accompanied it about "no sporting advantage". That again, has been firmly challenged and discredited in the last week or so.

An agreement with the Scottish football authorities was that LNS verdict was final.

SPL rules also did not allow tittles to be stripped due to side letters or EBT's.

[sugna]

Seriously, given the total lack of financial stability and King's determination to have a showdown that he can never win with Ashley, I am astounded that there are Rangers fans who still think title stripping is of any importance.

It remains my view that the state of their finances is the only thing of any significant relevance to the future of Rangers, which is why I spun off a separate thread on that.

King is taking Rangers, indeed has already taken them, to a financially parlous position. The slapstick stuff with Ashley is simply catalytic: it's just speeding things up.

But despite my view that the board and fanbase are behaving as though this is the first time they've been in such a position, and seem to be erring on the side of a lack of decent humility, my sympathies on the BRALT still lie with the Rangers fans who are sticking by their club. However justified some may feel, a lot of the attacks on here come from a bullying mob mentality: pretty much the gripe that a lot of the attackers have with Rangers, in fact.

It has to be sauce for the goose and the gander, IMHO.

[Monkey Tennis]

An agreement with the Scottish football authorities was that LNS verdict was final.

SPL rules also did not allow tittles to be stripped due to side letters or EBT's.

Yes, I know, but that's surely flawed and ultimately unjust. In the real world, verdicts can be re-visited in the light of new evidence.

Can you explain your second point? I don't mean that you're wrong; I don't think you are. I just don't really understand it.

Can titles be removed in certain circumstances then, that just don't include these ones?

Or can they not be taken away years later, in any circumstances at all?

I think you're clutching at straws to be honest, in that the arguments aren't powerful or home to any moral dimension. Clutching at straws is probably the wrong phrase though, because I do actually expect the straws to hold firm enough to ultimately win the day.

All pretty inglorious though. No?

[Njord]

An agreement with the Scottish football authorities was that LNS verdict was final.

SPL rules also did not allow tittles to be stripped due to side letters or EBT's.

Side letters ? Yes the rules allow for improper registration.

To quote a better poster than I..

" last week - we didnae cheat.

this week - cheating didn't help us win anything

next week - ......"

Vile institution, hope Mr King shuts it for good (which looks like his plan).

[Kneal Down Caster]

For the avoidance of doubt!!! (A great phrase that has been introduced to statements on the subject matter) I am not a Rangers or Celtic fan and couldn't give a shit whether titles are stripped.

I am however a detached, pretty switched on person and it insults my intelligence watching the Govan chaps trying to have their cake and eat it.

Today's classic. Ebt's weren't a sporting advantage because most of the players were not very good and Celtic ran us close on many occasions. Names line Capucho, Bob Malcolm etc were mentioned to name but a few.

However After years of over spending the banks money and their debts being called in, they had to try and maintain their fans expectations.

In circa 2002 they were 80 million in debt. The start of the EBT YEARS. this was the only way of attracting the big signings and hopefully dealing with the debt.

Fast forward to 2009 and the Rangers "we deserve better campaign". Imagine the scenes if there was no EBT Route in 2002, with the bank pulling in the debt. Players like Capucho would be superstars!!!

Bottom line folk are looking at sporting advantage, as in should be winning everything. but without the EBT's and the calibre of player a debt crippled club had. The advantage is actually staying above mid table or relegation battles.

As an aside if Rangers hadn't won a title in the EBT years it would be approx 15 in a row for the East end Chaps.

Here is the "we deserve better" Stance.

QUOTE

RANGERS fans groups today launched a "We Deserve Better" campaign to try and pile the pressure on the club's board.

Chairman Sir David Murray's decision to sell off one of his leading players this month to balance the books has been met with a furious reaction from some Gers fans - who held a banner during last night's win over St Johnstone asking him to quit the club.

The agreed sale of striker Kris Boyd to Birmingham City in a £3.8m deal was the final straw for many and various groups such as the Rangers Supporters Trust and the Blue Order have now issued a statement urging supporters clubs and fans to unite and let the club know their feelings.

advertisementTrust chief David Edgar said today: "This isn't a campaign to get the chairman out or anything like that.

"We know he is in a situation where he hasn't been able to find a buyer for the club but we want to know what direction the club is moving in and we're looking for improvements."

The statement lists areas in which he says supporters are concerned with and want explanations and they are as follows;

- Only 2 league titles in 8 seasons

- Only 2 cups won in last 3 full seasons

- Losing to the worst European opponents faced since Valletta in 1983

- A state of the art training facility, yet no advancements in technique or set plays

- No discernible strategic vision, either on or off the pitch

- No long-term transfer or team-building plan

- Only two youth players (McGregor and Hutton) of genuine quality produced in the last decade

- Selling first team players to cover losses previously made on fringe players

- Consistent failure to move fringe players on for reasonable transfer fees

- Lucrative pay-offs for failed players - Failure to profit from our most lucrative ever season

- Failure to engage with or interact with the support in any meaningful way

- Treating Rangers fans with disdain as customers instead of valuing and working with them as supporters and part of the Rangers family

- Inability to either attract inward investment, or to convince fans to invest in any meaningful way

- Reduction in the status of our club from leading football force in the land, to almost social pariah status through a failure to challenge those seeking to link Rangers with sectarianism

- A PR operation which only acts when senior club figures are personally criticised and all too often fails to defend the Rangers support

- Fan morale lower than at any time in the past 24 years

[Monkey Tennis]

Yes, the "We deserve better" campaign is up alongside the "Sink us and We'll Sink You" banner as personal highlights of all of this.

Absolute monuments to zero self-awareness.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Monkey Tennis

[THE KING]

We all know the Racist 48 hr ex director and the convicted criminal are currently working in a new ,avoidance of doubt rabble rousing statement ...

[THE KING]

It is odd to ask for a commission which found us guilty to be reconvened or overruled by a new commission. On the basis that we should be exonerated or that we should be found more guilty than we actually were? It has to be one or the other.

You also have to have a basis for the new commission. That a later appeal found in favour of HMRC re The EBT scheme? This possibility was both known, explicitly discussed and discounted by the SPL's representative who sought a decision irrespective of the appeal outcome.

Note to a few diddies banging on about sporting advantage. The job of any club's management is to gain a sporting advantage. Our use of EBTs was designed to help that for sure. The issue is whether or not that advantage was gained unfairly. The LNS commission found that it wasn't.

Just sign off you fuckin idiot.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Right, who had "sporting advantage"?