Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[dave.j]

So abusing people online is acceptable ? A simple yes or no will suffice....

That wasn't your original question though. You seem to have generalised it quite a bit, from:

So abusing people anonymously via the Internet is acceptable behaviour then ?

[AberdeenBud]

So abusing people online is acceptable ? A simple yes or no will suffice....

Simple liar or a fool will suffice, which is it with regard to your victim smearing?

I thought you got it? yes, abusing two faced people on P&B who lie or are incredibly ignorant is fine in my book.

Threatening people online and in public because they voiced an opinion you disagree with is most definitely not. Surprised you need that explaining to you tbh.

Faux offence seems to be your (only) strong point, perhaps just stick to that.

[Magoo9uk]

The dud was complaining about people abusing Jum.I posted something he didn't agree with and he immediately jumped right in with the p***k,Liar, Fool nonsense.From what I can gather then it would have been acceptable to abuse Jum online? Or is that only applicable to Rangers fans? ;-)

[Ross.]

Some interesting reading here:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2013/B6.pdf

Particularly this:

4. One of the Murray Group companies was Rangers Football Club plc (“RFC”), whose financial stability was known to be threatened by (among other things) tax debts, or at least claimed tax debts. As is well known, RFC collapsed into administration in March 2012, followed by liquidation in October 2012. It has been re-named RFC 2012 plc. The greater part of its business, and with it most of its assets, were purchased from the administrators in June 2012 by Sevco Scotland Ltd, which has since been re-named The Rangers Football Club Ltd. Although the professional football team known as Rangers had played in the Scottish Premier League until 2012, the collapse led to the ejection of the team from that league, and a team known as Rangers now plays in the Scottish Third Division.

And this:

27. Before coming to the detail of the case it is worth making a preliminary observation. I have referred above to the strong feelings of many football supporters. Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as having a special status. In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should nevertheless not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a “club”, in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders.

Edited to add, these are the views of Colin Bishopp, Upper Tribunal Judge, President, First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).

Edited September 13, 2013 by Ross.

[Magoo9uk]

Simple liar or a fool will suffice, which is it with regard to your victim smearing?

I thought you got it? yes, abusing two faced people on P&B who lie or are incredibly ignorant is fine in my book.

Threatening people online and in public because they voiced an opinion you disagree with is most definitely not. Surprised you need that explaining to

you tbh.

Faux offence seems to be your (only) strong point, perhaps just stick to that.

I think if anyone was faux offended then it was you.I'm not really worried about what an Internet crank thinks and I'm not easily offended.

Thanks for clearing that up though that its all right to abuse people who disagree with you as long as you do it anonymously via a football forum.#hero :-)

[AberdeenBud]

The dud was complaining about people abusing Jum.I posted something he didn't agree with and he immediately jumped right in with the p***k,Liar, Fool nonsense.From what I can gather then it would have been acceptable to abuse Jum online? Or is that only applicable to Rangers fans? ;-)

Nope. Fail again.

I called you a p***k for attempting to smear a victim instead of condemning the behaviour of your fellow fan. Nothing to do with disagreeing with you on a matter of opinion.

HTH.

So, liar or fool? Sorry if this offends you.

[Magoo9uk]

That wasn't your original question though. You seem to have generalised it quite a bit, from:

So abusing people anonymously via the Internet is acceptable behaviour then ?

Yes.Two totally different things.I can see how you might have become confused.;-)

[AberdeenBud]

Good the UTT is being held in public.

Surprising to see the lack of coverage in the MSM.

[Magoo9uk]

Nope. Fail again.

I called you a p***k for attempting to smear a victim instead of condemning the behaviour of your fellow fan. Nothing to do with disagreeing with you on a matter of opinion.

HTH.

So, liar or fool? Sorry if this offends you.

Ok, I get it now.It's okay for you to abuse people. You just don't like to see it happen to Sports Journalists from Tayside?

[AberdeenBud]

Ok, I get it now.It's okay for you to abuse people. You just don't like to see it happen to Sports Journalists from Tayside?

Liar or fool when you said JS should contact the police and was an "attention seeker"?

Simple answer will suffice, not that difficult is it?

[Bookies Love Me]

The dud was complaining about people abusing Jum.I posted something he didn't agree with and he immediately jumped right in with the p***k,Liar, Fool nonsense.From what I can gather then it would have been acceptable to abuse Jum online? Or is that only applicable to Rangers fans? ;-)

You can disagree with some persons opinion without being "overly" abusive.

Being able to overly abuse on-line is the attraction for some people who in "normal" situations don't have the backbone or nous to argue a point constructively.

Example:

"The grass is green"

"No it's not!"

"I can assure it is"

"GREEN!?! F*ck off you T*mmy lovin' Basturt".

Anybody who comes on to P&B and expects not to be abused at sometime is very naive (I'm laying myself open to a torrent of "abusive banter" there)

But, the line should be drawn when it is carried over to face-to-face confrontation, or the comments are a veiled incitment for others to commit an unlawful act.

[~~~]

Some interesting reading here:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2013/B6.pdf

Particularly this:

4. One of the Murray Group companies was Rangers Football Club plc (“RFC”), whose financial stability was known to be threatened by (among other things) tax debts, or at least claimed tax debts. As is well known, RFC collapsed into administration in March 2012, followed by liquidation in October 2012. It has been re-named RFC 2012 plc. The greater part of its business, and with it most of its assets, were purchased from the administrators in June 2012 by Sevco Scotland Ltd, which has since been re-named The Rangers Football Club Ltd. Although the professional football team known as Rangers had played in the Scottish Premier League until 2012, the collapse led to the ejection of the team from that league, and a team known as Rangers now plays in the Scottish Third Division.

And this:

27. Before coming to the detail of the case it is worth making a preliminary observation. I have referred above to the strong feelings of many football supporters. Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as having a special status. In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should nevertheless not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a “club”, in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders.

Edited to add, these are the views of Colin Bishopp, Upper Tribunal Judge, President, First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).

He's a Celtic fan, that's the only explanation

[Ross.]

He's a Celtic fan, that's the only explanation

It's the surname that gives it away. Opus Dei'd out his nut I'm sure.

[dave.j]

He's a Celtic fan, that's the only explanation

Thank god, getting things back on track!

Forgive me, but what is the link actually to?

What is the UTT?

Is this HMRC's appeal kicking off?

Edited September 13, 2013 by dave.j

[Ross.]

Thank god, getting things back on track!

Forgive me, but what is the link actually to?

What is the UTT?

Is this HMRC's appeal kicking off?

Pretty much it. Upper Tier Tribunal. The main thing to take from it are that the original Rangers are dead, another club called Rangers play in the 3rd tier of Scottish football, and the appeal will be held in public, as opposed to in private like the original case. Well, in public apart from the fact that those who were granted anonymity on the original case will still be granted anonymity.

[captain kirk]

Good the UTT is being held in public.Surprising to see the lack of coverage in the MSM.

Have the panel and their families been investigated for any links to Catholosism yet?

[Fotbawmad]

Some interesting reading here:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2013/B6.pdf

Particularly this:

27. Before coming to the detail of the case it is worth making a preliminary observation. I have referred above to the strong feelings of many football supporters. Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as having a special status. In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should nevertheless not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a “club”, in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders.

Edited to add, these are the views of Colin Bishopp, Upper Tribunal Judge, President, First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).

Does this mean we can no longer refer to Pacific Shelf 508 as "Celtic"

[Ross.]

Does this mean we can no longer refer to Pacific Shelf 508 as "Celtic"

I think the name thing is a bit of a sideline. The point is whether or not the incorporated club is still in existence. In the case of Pacific Shelf 508 and Celtic, I think the original incorporated club is still there, but owned and operated by the Pacific Self 508 company. I expect this is similar to the situation with a lot of clubs. In Rangers case, the original incorporated club is in the process of being liquidated. That another club called Rangers, playing in blue and at Ibrox is filling the gap left by this liquidation is irrelavent.

So to answer you, Rangers still exist, but Rangers don't.

[cyderspaceman]

Rangers football club BECAME a company. That company was placed in liquidation. That company is dead, cogito ergo sum , the 'club' is dead. It does not matter what Nimbo Bimbo has said.

Anyway, if you actually read what he said

"A club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues on existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator."

He didn't actually say that Rangers fell into that category.

That's because, as I said above, they BECAME a company. They were not being 'operated' by a company, as they are now. In fact, they may still NOT be a club. Do they have all that 'articles of association' stuff? They may just be a 'footballing entity' (or non-entity)

It's all very confusing for the berzz.

[cyderspaceman]

I think the name thing is a bit of a sideline. The point is whether or not the incorporated club is still in existence. In the case of Pacific Shelf 508 and Celtic, I think the original incorporated club is still there, but owned and operated by the Pacific Self 508 company. I expect this is similar to the situation with a lot of clubs. In Rangers case, the original incorporated club is in the process of being liquidated. That another club called Rangers, playing in blue and at Ibrox is filling the gap left by this liquidation is irrelavent.

So to answer you, Rangers still exist, but Rangers don't.

Fixed