Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

On the back of today's SFA report stating the offences were second only to match fixing in terms of seriousness, what does this mean for the double contracts report? If it is (as we've been led to believe) going to be explosive, presumably it would be deemed an even more serious offence than tax dodging alone by the footballing authorities at least? I forget now if it's the SPL or SFA working on it (it's been so long). If the latter, I assume it will be another belter. If the former, surely even they can't sweep it under the carpet?

It's an SPL enquiry...........hence not at all independant or impartial.............the usual suspects will let the matter slide lightly I'd wager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@GrahamSpiers: These SFA 'notes' on Rangers FC under Craig Whyte are a kind of 'Carry On' script of bungling, buffoonery, incompetence and cheating.

I can see Craig Whtye doing the line "Infamy Infamy...they've ll got it in for me!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an SPL enquiry...........hence not at all independant or impartial.............the usual suspects will let the matter slide lightly I'd wager.

Could we be heading for an SPL/SFA showdown then? If the SFA thought the offences under Whyte were serious enough to consider revoking membership, I'd imagine they'd have something to say if the SPL find rangers guilty of double contracts and opt to do hee haw about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an SPL enquiry...........hence not at all independant or impartial.............the usual suspects will let the matter slide lightly I'd wager.

As a slight aside, the SFA's (perhaps surprisingly) scathing report against the SPL's (utterly predictable) corrupt mewling suggests that there is merit in not having everything governed from under the one banner as has often been promoted. Checks and balances, checks and balances...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if this has already been posted, but keeping up with this thread is getting to be a full time job.

It's an old story, but pretty much takes everything the likes of McCoist, Jardine and all their nodding dog disciples have been saying, and rams it right back down their smug throats:

THE Old Firm last night insisted they must be allowed to quit Scottish football — because the SPL is better off without them.

I've mentioned this before (probably 100 pages back by now!) So it's either changing their minds based on their best interests or they've been lying through their teeth, not caring a bit if they ruin the Scottish game as long as they benefit. Either way, f**k them, time to twist the knife a bit more. :D

Edited by Hedgecutter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do Queen of the South and all the other clubs who lost out to Rangers in cup finals apply for the lost sponsorship revenue and prize monies?

SFA, SPL, D&P, MIH :guntoting

Aberdeen FC Revised Honours

Champions: 1955, 1980, 1984, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994

Scottish Cup Winners: 1947, 1970, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1990,1993, 2000

League Cup Winners: 1955–56; 1976–77; 1985–86; 1987-88; 1988-89; 1989–90; 1995–96,

ECWC: 1983

Super Cup: 1983

I like the look of that 8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the back of today's SFA report stating the offences were second only to match fixing in terms of seriousness,

I find this an especially interesting comparison.

Was this just an example pulled out of a hat, or are they trying to flush out something that is more significant? cool.gif

This question was asked on P&B some weeks back (by me!). And it wasn't a fishing expedition. wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooooo, HMRC meet today - could be a bombshell

Rangers play on the weekend - could be jsut after this another bombshell

Appeal to SFA heard on Wednesday - another bombshell perhaps

3 opportunities to sink Rangers - this is getting fun.

BTW, I'd like to see that when something tanigble does happen that we keep ths thread going with the result and not start another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With heartfelt apologies to Neil Peart (and cos Rush got mentioned about 250 pages ago... - to the tune of The Trees)

There is unrest down at Ibrox,

There is trouble with EBTs,

For the taxmen want their money

And the orcs ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the diddies,

(And they're quite convinced they're right)

They say the orcs have just been cheating

And it wasn't just Craig Whyte

But the orcs can't help their feelings

If they like the cash they've made.

And they wonder why the diddies

Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble down at Ibrox,

And the bidders all have fled,

As the taxmen scream "evasion!"

And the orcs just shake their heads

So the diddies formed a union

And demanded equal rights.

"The orcs are just too greedy;

And Sandy Jardine's talking shite."

Now there's no more orc oppression,

For they passed another deadline

And the orcs got liquidated

By Hectors, big, tax fine.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

post-5813-0-67037700-1336742575_thumb.jp

Well of course he is. He can get the unruly mob mobilised before the meeting this time.

post-5813-0-86156000-1336742641_thumb.jp

He seems very easily encouraged.

oh and from @BBCAlLamont

McCoist saw the irony in keeping person's identity secret. Talking of which, he maintains he didn't know panel I.d when he demanded names

Aye, ok.

Edited by ray_of_licht
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this an especially interesting comparison.

Was this just an example pulled out of a hat, or are they trying to flush out something that is more significant? cool.gif

This question was asked on P&B some weeks back (by me!). And it wasn't a fishing expedition. wink.gif

Yes, that's how I'm reading it. Not necessarily match fixing (though nothing would surprise me), but by emphasising the seriousness of this incident, it's almost like they're paving the way to come out with something even more shocking and absolutely hammer rangers for it, having previously allowed themselves to been seen to go somewhat leniently on an extremely serious matter.

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...