Jump to content
pozbaird

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

Recommended Posts

Shades, no need to ask me to be honest. I am, of course, an unalloyed Bear but have never shied away from a straight question.

I'd say two things in reply.

1, Do you understand why fans of other teams are casting the accusation that you are deid?

No I don't. The Rangers of yesterday was the same club that my father watched in the 40s and 50s and that my grandfather watched in the 20s and 30s.

Some folk can go to matches as grandfather/son/grandson. They are lucky. I can only imagine being at Ibrox yesterday with my dad and my grandad and hearing them compare Barry McKay to Alan Morton and The Deedle and enjoying the banter.

I said this earlier but I'll repeat it. History is what lives in people's memories and that's especially true of our teams.

Now let me modify your question a wee bit:

2. Do you understand why fans of other teams are casting the accusation that you are shitebags?

Yes, absolutely. The fact that we didn't pay our dues under Whyte is a shame and a stain on our club.

It's a good reply. I understand what you mean when you talk about the emotional connections, I think everyone does. Unfortunately that has no legal bearing.

I also think that if the roles were reversed, and it was Celtic that had been liquidated, that the exact same arguments would be going on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English seemed driven to try and create a reality that does not exist amongst us - as if any of us will ever forget Murray loading the gun and Whyte pulling the trigger.

We know who and what dragged us down. But, I wont forget either the plastics and diddies flying in with the boot.

smile.gif

Between Murray and Whyte , us plastics and the diddies never had a chance to be " sticking the boot in " . Our participation can only really be described as a cheerleading exercise . f**k , Murray didn't only "load the gun" , he organised the funeral and dug the hole !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any bears want to comment on why the centenary year was celebrated in 1973, the wall at Ibrox clearly says 1873, but all of a sudden the club was apparently formed in 1872? It wasnt because they knew they'd never make 140 years, was it? Surely not?

Aye it's a conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between Murray and Whyte , us plastics and the diddies never had a chance to be " sticking the boot in " . Our participation can only really be described as a cheerleading exercise . f**k , Murray didn't only "load the gun" , he organised the funeral and dug the hole !

How's that legal action against the BBC going?

It's oh so quiet....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shred- it Glasgow Limited. Owes £440 at Ibrox. That could be all the EBT documents shredded.

Shred it owe us money, i hope they pay up then.

Every penny counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know who and what dragged us down. But, I wont forget either the plastics and diddies flying in with the boot.

smile.gif

^^^ Totally fucking deranged IMHO. laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have told the prats throwing coins that

Did you know that washing machines live longer with calgon?

A true fact that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ It must be true if you the homosexual troll says so. smile.gif

There's something seriously wrong with this c**t. If it's not Jews it's homosexuals that sit on the very edge of the hints and clues into your ugliest of thinking.

Even the plastics think you're fucking dodgy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something seriously wrong with this c**t. If it's not Jews it's homosexuals that sit on the very edge of the hints and clues into your ugliest of thinking.

Even the plastics think you're fucking dodgy.

^^^ D E R A N G E D and S E E T H I N G as well as a lying bigoted little c**t. laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rangers FC old club

Rfc 2012 P.l.c. is a Pending business incorporated in Scotland on 27th May 1899. Their business activity is recorded as Activities Of Sport Clubs. We have no director details for Rfc 2012 P.l.c.. It has no share capital. It is also part of a group. The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 30/06/2010 reported 'cash at bank' of £348,000, 'liabilities' worth £27,346,000, 'net worth' of £67,850,000 and 'assets' worth £5,990,000. Rfc 2012 P.l.c.'s Risk Score was amended on 06/11/2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kincardine

I also think that if the roles were reversed, and it was Celtic that had been liquidated, that the exact same arguments would be going on here.

I strongly disagree with this. I well remember Celtic being within a baw hair of liquidation before the excellent Bunnet rescued them. Every football fan in Scotland was happy with that outcome.

Obviously that was before The Interwebs so not so many folk could do much except hand-write a letter to The Herald.

However, there is a major difference. You would never find a Bear writing something like "The Big Tim Tax Case Blog". Most Rangers fans don't give a f**k about Celtic. They, otoh, are obsessed by us even to the extent of writing to Glasgow Trading Standards about our 140 years claim.

Oh and a note to mods. I got a warning and and post deleted for using the term '****' last week. Feel free to delete this post and warn me again. Recognise, though, that I mean not a jot of harm in using the term.

Edited by Kincardine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree with this. I well remember Celtic being within a baw hair of liquidation before the excellent Bunnet rescued them. Every football fan in Scotland was happy with that outcome.

Obviously that was before The Interwebs so not so many folk could do much except hand-write a letter to The Herald.

However, there is a major difference. You would never find a Bear writing something like "The Big Tim Tax Case Blog". Most Rangers fans don't give a f**k about Celtic. They, otoh, are obsessed by us even to the extent of writing to Glasgow Trading Standards about our 140 years claim.

Oh and a note to mods. I got a warning and and post deleted for using the term '****' last week. Feel free to delete this post and warn me again. Recognise, though, that I mean not a jot of harm in using the term.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree (strongly) with pretty much every word.

This may well be your own personal view but I don't believe for a second that Rangers fans would be any more charitable than the Celtic fans have been.

Of course Rangers and their fans give a f**k about Celtic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree with this. I well remember Celtic being within a baw hair of liquidation before the excellent Bunnet rescued them. Every football fan in Scotland was happy with that outcome.

Obviously that was before The Interwebs so not so many folk could do much except hand-write a letter to The Herald.

However, there is a major difference. You would never find a Bear writing something like "The Big Tim Tax Case Blog". Most Rangers fans don't give a f**k about Celtic. They, otoh, are obsessed by us even to the extent of writing to Glasgow Trading Standards about our 140 years claim.

Oh and a note to mods. I got a warning and and post deleted for using the term '****' last week. Feel free to delete this post and warn me again. Recognise, though, that I mean not a jot of harm in using the term.

Maybe I missed the post but, I don't remember anything that you posted that is not a reasoned (if not agreed with) opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice copy and paste Job

However they are never going to look at the whole case again

:huh:

You failed to answer my question

HMRC need a point of law to appeal, what point of law are they going to appeal on?

Here's you're answer from HMRC.

Overview of appeals: Appeal to high court on point of law

If either party is dissatisfied with a decision by the General Commissioners as being erroneous on a point of law s/he can by notice in writing addressed to their clerk, require the General Commissioners to state and sign a case for the opinion of the Court.In England and Wales this is the High Court, in Scotland the Court of Session, sitting as the Court of Exchequer (TMA70/S56(10)), and in Northern Ireland, the Court of Appeal. If either party is dissatisfied with a decision at a personal hearing by the Special Commissioners as being erroneous on a point of law they can appeal directly to the Court.In England and Wales an appeal against a decision of the Special Commissioners is direct to the High Court (TMA70/S56A(1)). In Scotland the appeal is to the Court of Session, sitting as the Court of Exchequer (TMA70/S56A(10)) and in Northern Ireland the appeal is to the Court of Appeal (Tax is required to be paid (or repaid) on the basis of the decision of the Commissioners, notwithstanding that a case has been required and/or the appeal is going to be heard by the High Court. Following the decision in the High Court, the Court of Session or the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland there are opportunities for further appeal in certain circumstances, including appeal to the House of Lords in exceptional circumstances. For more information about requesting a stated case and how to handle a case which is going to the High Court see AH1500 (appeal determined by General Commissioners) or AH1850 (appeal determined by Special Commissioners).

Answer is that Rangers FC did use Tax Avoidance scheme like the Employee Benefit Trust, a system that uses loans for not paying income tax.

This is why HMRC are appealing again to change the Tax Avoidance legal firm to illegal, cause it is immoral not to pay tax, because we are still in recession.

Edited by Bairnforever1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kincardine

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree (strongly) with pretty much every word.

This may well be your own personal view but I don't believe for a second that Rangers fans would be any more charitable than the Celtic fans have been.

Of course Rangers and their fans give a f**k about Celtic.

You may well disagree but that makes you either 12 or ignorant.

The Bunnet was generally applauded for saving his club from liquidation by Bears. He was generally derided by Ra Poops for his biscuit-tin mentality and that phrase still lives on.

This is the big difference between us and them. We just do not have the same sense of schadenfreude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We celebrate like the Queen ;)

125th 140th 150th

I agree this was a delightful GIRUY to anybody who tries to push the other version

I was also happy to hear Stuart Diddy Club Champion Cosgrove endorsing our 140 year history on Radio Scotland

Just the odd P&Ber left who has not yet connected with reality :(

Of course you have a 140 year history.

But it willnae reach 141, because your Club is dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Sup troops?

Just back from a cracking wee gig at the 02 Academy. Paul Heaton and Squeeze. :D

Did Rangers die again when I was oot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have highlighted the part that is important

I will ask for the 3rd time, what point of law are HMRC going to use to appeal

They cannot appeal just because they feel it is immoral or because we are in a recession :unsure: , the tribunal already ruled that the EBT`s were loans, it needs to be something that is already illegal, not something they want to make illegal, they do not make laws up just so they can find someone guilty, that is not how justice works, it needs to be something new, some point of law that exists but was not addressed by the tribunal

That's the point of law they are going to look at is loans that are not being paid back.

Appealing to the Upper Tribunal

An appeal can only be made to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law, which includes an incorrect interpretation of the legislation or an argument that the First-tier Tribunal reached a decision that, on the evidence before it, no tribunal could reasonably have made.

This means that there can be less work involved in preparing for an appeal to the Upper Tribunal than there was in preparing for the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal, for example, there are unlikely to be witnesses in an appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Share this post


Link to post
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...