DXBBud Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 This is absolute gold. Rankers are redefining the Karma Sutra with the number of ways in which they can be f@cked!!!!!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 If they are kicked out of the Scottish cup that fucks up their CVA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Charlie Green at Hampden for SPL meeting. What SPL club does he run? I take it he and his consortium have all passed the fit and proper tests then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 With acknowlegement from p&b is a disgrace who spotted this on RTC first: The CVA proposal is misleading because the £4million-ish of post Admin liability is included as part of the HMRC unsecured claim. Think you’ll find that HMRC have made it very clear to D&P how dischuffed they are with this. The post Admin liability falls to be treated as an expense of the Admin and ought to be paid before any fees are paid to d&P. HMRC will ensure that happens.HMRC are of course aware of why D&P have done this. If you look at the Estimated Outcome table in the proposal – it says that by agreeing to the proposal there will be (humour me) £4.9 million for ordinary creditors.However if £4 million or so the ordinary debt suddenly gets converted to an expense of the Admin it gets to be included in the section above – alongside the Distribution to Preferential Creditors section. Which results in the the estimated funds for unsecured creditors becoming less than £1 million. Nice eh? And then there is the effect of CVA Trading Costs at 5.12. And what do you know? No funds for distribution to ordinary creditors!! H&D following the Ranjurs lead in cooking the books eh?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WendyWho? Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I will bow to the superior knowledge of others, but is FIFA Statute 64 not bordering on being unenforceable? Hypothetically speaking, say a national body such as the SFA does something which although in compliance with their own orders, constitution, rule book or whatever, contravenes a member club's rights at law, what recourse does the member club have other than taking court action since it is expected that FIFA has approved the national body's rules etc. to allow it to have membership of the world governing body. FIFA recognises the Court of Arbitration for Sport as the judicial authority in such cases. Under Statute 64, Rangers could have taken their case there. They instead went to the Court of Session, in breach of the rules. As a member of FIFA, the SFA must punish them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 NB - Accotrding to RTC it looks like they have been continuing to fail to make theTax/NI payments in Administration. RTC was not previously calling for expulsion but there is a sea-change in attitudes now - see their site for the blog and posts which analyse that the EBT proposal also misrepresents the latest situation. If true, surely that points to them deliberately trying to have others shut them down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I had heard this this morning, surley to god their not that thick? It's total suicide. Excuse my ignorance but is this the kind of thing a company has to pay each month or can it be paid annually? Even if annually surley the deadline for that has passed. Excuse my ignorance Tax/NI contibutions from employers are paid in quarterly tranches - the last was due around the middle of May. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Milo, I think the cat in your avatar will draw first (on it's fag). Then all hell will break loose. He may be a cat but he's quick on the paw. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Sannox Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Can anyone tell me if H&D can obtain credit for a club in administration ? For that is what they have done, to the tune of an interest bearing 8.5 million.. That's an interesting point, how on earth can they take on more debt? H&D just seem to be making it all up as they go along.........unchallenged, sadly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Nice to see you adapted my schoolwork line ... very good .. take a gold star .. opps sorry, that won't happen will it !! Who's a cranky wee man, eh? Sssssssshh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DensDerry80 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 This is brilliant its like the last 10 seconds when the timer on the bomb seems to tick louder and faster and 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Ironically, one brain cell does a Celtic supporter make. But only if she's pregnant with twins. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Coming from a Dundee fan that is a joke !!! ^^^^^MEASURES HIS COCK USING THE "SEVILLE CALCULATOR"^^^^^^ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Coming from a Dundee fan that is a joke !!! Supporting a bigger or smaller club doesn't somehow make you respectively more or less worth listening to. Fool. Stop sneaking into farmers' fields to squeeze cows' udders and get a girlfriend. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I will bow to the superior knowledge of others, but is FIFA Statute 64 not bordering on being unenforceable? Hypothetically speaking, say a national body such as the SFA does something which although in compliance with their own orders, constitution, rule book or whatever, contravenes a member club's rights at law, what recourse does the member club have other than taking court action since it is expected that FIFA has approved the national body's rules etc. to allow it to have membership of the world governing body. FIFA is not the United Nations, some toothless international talking shop. FIFA has the right to throw anyone from individuals to entire nations out if they decide to piss on their chips. Anyone that doubts that, just ask South Africa during the Apartheid years where it was expelled from FIFA. If they declare you persona non grata, you cannot play against other FIFA regulated clubs, play in FIFA regulated competitions, etc. If Rangers went to court about it being a restriction of trade, FIFA could easily point to the New York Cosmos, who existed quite happily outside the FIFA umbrella for decades selling merchandise and running the "Cosmos Country" soccer skills camps until ready to reenter the fray. There would be nothing to stop Rangers doing the same if they wanted to run a footballing business, it would be simply they could not do so under the auspices of FIFA competitions and regulations that they think they've a right to flout. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theesel1994 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Tax/NI contibutions from employers are paid in quarterly tranches - the last was due around the middle of May. That's if it's less than £1,500 on average per month. I think it might be a bit more in Rangers case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Nice to see you adapted my schoolwork line ... very good .. take a gold star .. opps sorry, that won't happen will it !! Might happen if you mark the spelling test though. And to think you had a go at my vocabulary. Nice work....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint jason Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 But only if she's pregnant with twins. So much for the rhythm method, eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 FIFA is not the United Nations, some toothless international talking shop. FIFA has the right to throw anyone from individuals to entire nations out if they decide to piss on their chips. Anyone that doubts that, just ask South Africa during the Apartheid years where it was expelled from FIFA. If they declare you persona non grata, you cannot play against other FIFA regulated clubs, play in FIFA regulated competitions, etc. If Rangers went to court about it being a restriction of trade, FIFA could easily point to the New York Cosmos, who existed quite happily outside the FIFA umbrella for decades selling merchandise and running the "Cosmos Country" soccer skills camps until ready to reenter the fray. There would be nothing to stop Rangers doing the same if they wanted to run a footballing business, it would be simply they could not do so under the auspices of FIFA competitions and regulations that they think they've a right to flout. Ultimately, that's precisely what FIFA is. Hence Sepp Blatter. FIFA wouldn't have done that if it weren't for wider influences. Why were the New York Cosmos expelled from the FIFA family? I've honestly never heard that before. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevensanph Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 So were Partick Thistle thrown out the game when they took the footballing authorities to court? No, because, probably like the St.Johnstone case from 1965 (http://saintinasia.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/saints-v-sfa-1965/), this was completely different set of circumstances. Article 64 was only reinforced last August by FIFA to specifically include punishment for members (clubs) which use the civil courts to go against the rules of the FIFA body (the SFA) without referring the case to the CAS. The SFA might very well follow the courts advice re: the transfer ban and change it. But they will then have to punish Rangers for going to the court, in breach of FIFA rules (Art. 64). If the SFA fail to act then FIFA will act on the SFA, and it won't end well. And this is all before we even get to the 'dual contract's again! If Dunfermline are not reinstated in today's meeting and Rangers thrown out, then Scottish football is going to die... How many season tickets have your club sold so far? I'm willing to bet not many - our club haven't... 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.