gudge1903 Posted February 14, 2022 Author Share Posted February 14, 2022 Mind the burnt oot bus? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 In Rangers years, they’re actually 550 now. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisGRAEME Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 2 minutes ago, gudge1903 said: "Motherwell born billionaire" https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/craig-whyte-profile-the-scots-billionaire-1076110 Classic Jacko. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinky67 Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 Always worth a post 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 1 minute ago, Jinky67 said: Always worth a post Beautiful. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Kyle Reese said: Was it not the "small tax case" - £30 million, that saw the trigger pulled? If HMRC had been allowed to appoint the administrators, they would have taken a deal that meant they got something towards what they were due. The administrators have a responsibility towards the creditors to get them the best deal that they can. HMRC saw very little compared to what they would have, had a consortium offered to pay some money to take the club over. As secured priority creditors, HMRC would have received more of what they were due. It was, but I don’t think I’ve got my point across correctly. The big tax case was still looming over the club in conjunction with the small tax case, so any wealthy individual or consortium would effectively have to agree to take on a debt estimated to be worth up to £100M. This meant it was a very unattractive proposition for anyone, even if there was some kind of foundation in place. You also need to factor in the significance riding on The Big Tax case. HMRC at this point were looking to set a legal precedent regarding the treatment of EBT’s and contractor loans. This made the agreement of any CVA difficult due to the fact that the big tax case was being argued back and forth (and would continue to do so for years). You are being disingenuous in my opinion, painting this out as if it was simply a case of “you should’ve done what we done” which, I will repeat, was not feasible without someone agreeing to take on the debt in the first place. Edited February 14, 2022 by AJF 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velo army Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 1 minute ago, AJF said: It was, but I don’t think I’ve got my point across correctly. The big tax case was still looming over the club in conjunction with the small tax case, so any wealthy individual or consortium would effectively have to agree to take on a debt estimated to be worth up to £100M. This meant it was a very unattractive proposition for anyone, even if there was some kind of foundation in place. You also need to factor in the significance riding on The Big Tax case. HMRC at this point we’re looking to set a legal precedent regarding the treatment of EBT’s and contractor loans. This made the agreement of any CVA difficult due to the fact that the big tax case was being argued back and forth (and would continue to do so for years). You are being disingenuous in my opinion, painting this out as if it was simple a case of “you should’ve done what we done” which, I will repeat, was not feasible without someone agreeing to take on the debt in the first place. Cheers for this. I am curious, as I was at the time, about a lack of concerted effort to save the club from the fans. I understand that it was perhaps too big a task, but I think had there been an attempt at fundraising that ultimately failed then the myth that "you let your club die" would have had less substance to it. Football fans are primarily emotional rather than rational (exhibit A, Partick Thistle have fans) and I would have expected a big fundraising effort to be part of the "bargaining" phase of this particular grief. That there wasn't one I found to be quite curious. Am I talking shite though and just not remembering any? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 The glaikit specky boy awkwardly patting big hoose guy on the back after his rant was always the most disturbing thing about that news package. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 7 minutes ago, AJF said: It was, but I don’t think I’ve got my point across correctly. The big tax case was still looming over the club in conjunction with the small tax case, so any wealthy individual or consortium would effectively have to agree to take on a debt estimated to be worth up to £100M. This meant it was a very unattractive proposition for anyone, even if there was some kind of foundation in place. You also need to factor in the significance riding on The Big Tax case. HMRC at this point were looking to set a legal precedent regarding the treatment of EBT’s and contractor loans. This made the agreement of any CVA difficult due to the fact that the big tax case was being argued back and forth (and would continue to do so for years). You are being disingenuous in my opinion, painting this out as if it was simply a case of “you should’ve done what we done” which, I will repeat, was not feasible without someone agreeing to take on the debt in the first place. This little tête-à-tête seems more appropriate for the BRALT, which I believe still exists. My understanding is that this is a point and laugh thread. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Reese Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 1 minute ago, AJF said: It was, but I don’t think I’ve got my point across correctly. The big tax case was still looming over the club in conjunction with the small tax case, so any wealthy individual or consortium would effectively have to agree to take on a debt estimated to be worth up to £100M. This meant it was a very unattractive proposition for anyone, even if there was some kind of foundation in place. You also need to factor in the significance riding on The Big Tax case. HMRC at this point we’re looking to set a legal precedent regarding the treatment of EBT’s and contractor loans. This made the agreement of any CVA difficult due to the fact that the big tax case was being argued back and forth (and would continue to do so for years). You are being disingenuous in my opinion, painting this out as if it was simple a case of “you should’ve done what we done” which, I will repeat, was not feasible without someone agreeing to take on the debt in the first place. Perhaps a little. I don't remember any efforts though. I remember a "fighting fund", but they were backing the charlatans that turned up in their droves, still holding on to the hope that a sugar daddy would bail the club out. Couldn't the fighting fund have teamed up with some of the guys I mentioned in the previous post, and at the very least started taking contributions with the purpose of buying the club out of administration? I remember that there was talk of tis being a test case, and that clubs like Arsenal were squarely in HMRC's crosshairs, so maybe not, I suppose. See if Rangers had let HMRC appoint the administrators though, then the administrators would have had to have tried to get the best deal possible for them as creditors. If say Johnston, park, King and a couple of others offered a deal to exit through a CVA, then would they have just not accepted it? I mean, what did they end up with? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gannonball Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 3 hours ago, IDoNotKnowThisOne said: When exactly did the lie start? Pretty much from the moment Charles Green started talking to the press iirc. Started to claim he had bought all their assets and somehow tried to infer that meant the ‘club’ and the titles etc. The attempt to TUPE everyone was a wild hope that it meant it would stick but in the end it saddled them ridiculously overpaid players for the league they were and a manager who was the highest paid in Scotland by some distance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 2 minutes ago, velo army said: Cheers for this. I am curious, as I was at the time, about a lack of concerted effort to save the club from the fans. I understand that it was perhaps too big a task, but I think had there been an attempt at fundraising that ultimately failed then the myth that "you let your club die" would have had less substance to it. Football fans are primarily emotional rather than rational (exhibit A, Partick Thistle have fans) and I would have expected a big fundraising effort to be part of the "bargaining" phase of this particular grief. That there wasn't one I found to be quite curious. Am I talking shite though and just not remembering any? I believe there were some considerations by the various supporters trusts we had at the time, I think the issue that it wasn’t as prominent as the FOH was two-fold. Firstly, how quickly things escalated and the scale of the debt probably caught people on the hop. Of course, there were signs that it was coming, I just don’t think anyone was prepared for how much in the shit we were. Secondly, we were gullible enough to believe in Craig Whyte we’d found the answer and believed things were going to be resolved. Just now, Dons_1988 said: This little tête-à-tête seems more appropriate for the BRALT, which I believe still exists. My understanding is that this is a point and laugh thread. Aye, fair point. I’ll leave you all to it 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSaints1877 Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 Rangers fans watched on for decades while their club spent more than was coming in and did nothing as they swept up trophies to parade to their moronic hordes. It’s the equivalent of financial cheating. The fact that they have continued this charade with the Zombie club defies logic. And yet despite overspending and having the second largest budget for the last 10years they have only one major trophy to show for it. Hopefully next time liquidation results in Ibrox being demolished for flats and housing. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 (edited) Rangers died and their fans all watched. I remember them all cancelling their DDs to their season tickets and the wee conversations I'd have with them as they did it. Edited February 14, 2022 by Busta Nut 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Manhattan Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 16 minutes ago, Ivo den Bieman said: The glaikit specky boy awkwardly patting big hoose guy on the back after his rant was always the most disturbing thing about that news package. It's like in "Criminal Minds" where they film the crowd in case the sociopathic serial killer has returned to the scene of the crime. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 Are they still wearing black and red scarves? All the language coming from Rangers and their supporters was aggressive towards all the governing bodies in football and government, all the other clubs, all the other fans, etc etc. They were banking on a billionaire coming in and getting it right up everyone else. All the demonstrations were about everyone "being out to get Rangers" with language like "enemies" being used freely. There was nothing constructive. No serious plans to unite and at least try and do a Foundation of Hearts type thing. Of course the likelihood is that Hearts learnt from their behaviour and saw what was needed between themselves. The vast majority of the Rangers fans' groups that have sprung up since then have been on the spectrum from ineffective to downright shady, with some real vermin involved. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 Roses are red Don't get the blues 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 23 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: This little tête-à-tête seems more appropriate for the BRALT, which I believe still exists. My understanding is that this is a point and laugh thread. It is, although one diet has also tried to turn it into what the youngsters call "virtue signalling"................... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mean Gene Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 What’s the general consensus on the board, happy Rangers are back and champions or would prefer if they were still fighting it out in division 3? Cheers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkboy Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 31 minutes ago, Ivo den Bieman said: The glaikit specky boy awkwardly patting big hoose guy on the back after his rant was always the most disturbing thing about that news package. Trying to calm him down so he doesn't have another heart attack by the looks of it. 2 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.