Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

Why did MASH take months to prepare a case against The SFA then drop it like a hot tattie on the day they went to court? It can only be either because they realised The SFA had a robust and credible process or, as tashiebhoy hinted, corruption.

Any other suggestions?

Neither of us have the information to draw any conclusions of the behaviour of MASH. What we do know is that the SFA has a process for determining if a person is for and proper to run a football club. Again neither of us is in a position to make a determination as to it's effectiveness as we do not have any information on the process.

I know that you would like it to be well defined but that is pure conjecture on your part. The fact that MASH's legal team released a statement alluding to impropriety would cast doubt on the process. Whilst the SFA have released a counter statement, they have not actually provided any evidence to show that the process was robust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is quite clear that Mike Ashley wanted to do at Rangers what he has managed to do at Newcastle, basically exploit a club and its fans for every penny he can squeeze out of them and in turn tie up the ownership of the club, assets and commercial components in a complex set intricacies that would again benefit him should he decide to sell.

He managed to do this in part with Rangers but was then scuppered by a concerted effort of Rangers supporting fans and businessmen. Much of what he had planned has unraveled, the assets are no longer in his control, the trademarks have slipped his grasp too and his shareholding means nothing in the face of overwhelming opposition to anything he does. The only thing he has left is the retail contract and even that is not as good for him as it once was, the customer base for the retail deal are in most part completely alienated and as such profits from this deal are dire.

All of this has made Fat mike quite bitter, spurious court cases are merely his attempt to lash out at those who outmaneuvered him every step of the way and still continue to do so, this past year has been a complete embarrassment for him and he deserves every inch of the humiliation and scorn the so called 'tank general' is now quite rightly receiving.

I also agree with almost all of this, the only point I may have a slight issue with is "outmanoeuvred" .

It's pretty plain his arguments were weak so not much manoeuvre was required.

I'd have been a lot happier if the SFA disclosed the method used to reach F&PP process decision, (not only in this instance but for everyone).

I'm still far from convinced that King is fit & proper although he meets the SFA criteria- time will tell I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the way the Mike Ashley has went after all things Rangers in court case after court case then I very much doubt they have any evidence of this at all, if they did then they would pushed ahead with their obvious vandetta.

 

The statement was nothing more than childish bluster from a well beaten Fat Bully.  The fact that after reading the statement you are now choosing to cling to any part of it is laughable.

Cool. I will let you post this "well defined process" that Kinky claimed.  You can add to the transparency by showing the critiera that the SFA applies.

 

Failing that, I would suggest tha you are the one that is basing your position on unknowns.  Meanwhile the SFA are perfectly at liberty to publish the findings of their judgement into Dave King.  There is nothing in their rules that provides confidentiality to anyone subject to the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'The trademarks slipped his grasp'

Was that not because Ashley actually made them repay a loan that they were very reluctant to settle at that time?

"He made them" At the time the p's and d's were telling us that the tank commander wouldn't accept the repayment and would be keeping the trademarks.....

Cool. I will let you post this "well defined process" that Kinky claimed.  You can add to the transparency by showing the critiera that the SFA applies.

 

Failing that, I would suggest tha you are the one that is basing your position on unknowns. 

------ ------------

Meanwhile the SFA are perfectly at liberty to publish the findings of their judgement into Dave King.  There is nothing in their rules that provides confidentiality to anyone subject to the process.

So now you want transparency, is it only Rangers who can't ask for transparency?

Then they would really have to publish their findings for every club official, only a complete moron would think that they were involved in a conspiracy here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will let me post something that I never even mentioned?...'you will let me' :lol:

 

Unknowns...Fat Mike has been going after everything Rangers via courts for the past year...that is well know..you have been backing him every step of the way, you are merely coming across as someone that is bitter about yet another loss.

 

What we do know is the there was only one party that gave up here, if they had anything, anything at all, they would have used it.  It is safe to say that then they do not, using an argument that there might be something that nobody knows about is quite frankly pathetic and amongst the worst kind of clutching at straws I have seen in a while...really I am embarrassed for you.

 

The SFA clearly stated that information was 'confidential'

 

'As part of the recent litigation process we elected - with the consent of Mr King - to provide certain confidential information expanding on our statement.

 

Now you may choose to say they are wrong to say this but again why are MASH not pursuing this? any attempt to say they are not extremely motivated to do so would be bullshit.

 

Confidential information, you say?  Do you think he just rolled up his trouser-leg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will let me post something that I never even mentioned?...'you will let me' :lol:

Unknowns...Fat Mike has been going after everything Rangers via courts for the past year...that is well know..you have been backing him every step of the way, you are merely coming across as someone that is bitter about yet another loss.

What we do know is the there was only one party that gave up here, if they had anything, anything at all, they would have used it. It is safe to say that then they do not, using an argument that there might be something that nobody knows about is quite frankly pathetic and amongst the worst kind of clutching at straws I have seen in a while...really I am embarrassed for you.

The SFA clearly stated that information was 'confidential'

'As part of the recent litigation process we elected - with the consent of Mr King - to provide certain confidential information expanding on our statement.

Now you may choose to say they are wrong to say this but again why are MASH not pursuing this? any attempt to say they are not extremely motivated to do so would be bullshit.

Ah, I have it now. You are trying to deflect away from the original claim from Kinky.

I think I will ignore this and press on with my original point. There is no evidence of a well defined process.

If you want to argue the point then feel free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends what you mean. Would not being the biggest club change who i support? No. Does being the biggest enhance my pride for my football club? Yes.

 

as an aside, my main annoyance with the scottish football community is that i really cant understand why people in Scotland find it so difficult to just support their own team and recognise the good that the supposedly evil fans and teams do. Why do they care so much about supposedly dead clubs that they spend thousands of hours on the internet, spending tens of thousands and being given tens of thousands by their readers, just to blog and post for the benefit of people who already believe their nonsense. Why can't, say, a Partick fan go out, support Partick and that be that? There always has to be some chip on their (any club's supporters) shoulder and a large degree of bitterness. The only explanation i can give is that because Rangers (and Celtic) have for so long been dominant, that these people now have it ingrained in them a degree of the wee man syndrome, as a result of living alongside a largely Rangers/Celtic supporting populace, which has led them to automatically hate and despise everything about the club(s) and find a negative in every single thing they do. Rather than maybe see things for what actually happened (a fraudster and criminal illegally acquiring a major business from which to siphon huge amounts of personal income at the expense of the taxpayer, then leading to the same club and fans being financially pillaged for three years thereafter by an assortment of crooks and dodgy folk), people who support these clubs prefer to blame that actual good guys. Although Dave King has been convicted of whatever, and whatever peoples opinions are on him or our fans in general, even the most ardent Celtic fans etc must see that these guys have Rangers best interests at heart, and any sane scottish football supporter would recognise that means they also (possibly indirectly) want to contribute to an improvement of the wider scottish game. Why not help and promote positive stories like Rangers fans groups now owning about 7% of the club, and have the biggest FO scheme in the UK.

 

In this backward wee country we prefer to slate that, criticise those same fans, yet somehow you all want something similar for your clubs, but just because its rangers (or Celtic), it must be a bad thing right? 

 

 

Lets not get started on racism pal. If you want to go down that route i could find far more examples of racist behaviour from celtic fans (and staff) than from rangers fans. This seems to be another popular myth in scottish football fandom

The sectarian cheats, Rangers FC, went into administration in 2012.

 

Sevco and their business partners from across the city bring nothing to Scottish football but baggage and bile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a regular stand up guy - and to illustrate the magnanimity that courses through my atherosclerotic arteries - I'd like to be the first to congratulate ra Sulk on their *fourth* one horse race championship. In a row!

 

It will be a one horse race for a good few years unless any other team wants to go down the overspending route.

 

Another 4-5 years of sellick domination is the reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is quite clear that Mike Ashley wanted to do at Rangers what he has managed to do at Newcastle, basically exploit a club and its fans for every penny he can squeeze out of them and in turn tie up the ownership of the club, assets and commercial components in a complex set intricacies that would again benefit him should he decide to sell.

 

Mike Ashley has put about £250 million into Newcastle, with little or no prospect of ever getting it back. How does this amount to "exploiting the fans"? Without Ashley, they wouldn't have a club to whinge about.

 

And BTW he did decide to sell, but no-one wanted to buy.

Edited by Stag Nation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Ashley has put about £250 million into Newcastle, with little or no prospect of ever getting it back. How does this amount to "exploiting the fans"? Without Ashley, they wouldn't have a club to whinge about.

And BTW he did decide to sell, but no-one wanted to buy.

Mike Ashley's number 1 priority is always Mike Ashley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and how much does he make out of the retail deal and the sponsorship deals, Newcastle may as well call themselves sports direct FC, anyone who thinks MA does anything that is not for MA`s benefit is deluded.

 

Assuming a generous 10% net profit on retail sales, he'd need 50,000 Newcastle fans spending £50,000 each at SD to get his money back. That was never going to happen.

 

Anyway, even if he bought Newcastle for his own benefit it is perfectly clear that it didn't work, and he must have known that before he bought his Rangers shares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10%? was that a guess?

 

I would guess at a much much better arrangement for Sports Direct and as I said, the sponsorship deals and advertising (they are Free) will also be a winner for SD, Sports Direct FC do make a profit, for the owners benefit, not the club.  MA is a ruthless successful businessman, do not delude yourself that ownership of Newcastle does not benefit him.

 

10% was, as I said, a generous guess. The real figure is almost certainly much less.

 

Sponsorship is part of the club income which produced a £32 million profit last year. Ashley didn't take any of that, according to the club accounts.

 

Advertising? - OK, the stadium is plastered with SD adverts, but how much is that worth when the entire support claim to hate SD and Ashley?

 

Would you care to produce some figures to show how Ashley is benefitting? That means making more money than he would if he'd put his £250,000,00 in a building society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well bears I think it is only fitting we have a day of remembering the biggest 90 minutes of headsgone action that took place 17 years ago today

Celtic 0 Rangers 3

Title party at the piggery :)

 

These American highlights always make me piss myself :lol:

 

Absolutely no idea :lol:

 

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...