Erskine Bridge closed!

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Chapmeister... said:
so what was the nimmo smith ruling? if it didn't have any legal substance then why do rangers still have their trophies etc? why hasn't it been taking to a court of law by the spl/sfa/celtic/whomever?
Click to expand...



The ruling was under the auspices of the SFA, it has no bearing in Law whatsoever, it was a report to the SFA, not a legal case.

The ruling suited the SFA so why exactly would they go to a court of law (which would be in breach of UEFA rules) to challenge a ruling which helped them avoid answering a lot of difficult questions?
 
The Mind The Step 5088 said:
Not the awards, the actual trophies as items...should Rangers have sold them to Sevco for buttons?...small part of bigger investigation
Click to expand...

i'm talking more about the names on the trophies, the history.

I do find it quite amusing that celtic fans laughed when they were sold for a pound and appear somewhat angry or suspicious when the were sold for 5.5million
 
Chapmeister...:4899585 said:
The Mind The Step 5088 said:
Not the awards, the actual trophies as items...should Rangers have sold them to Sevco for buttons?...small part of bigger investigation
Click to expand...

i'm talking more about the names on the trophies, the history.

I do find it quite amusing that celtic fans laughed when they were sold for a pound and appear somewhat angry or suspicious when the were sold for 5.5million
Click to expand...

That history belong to Rangers <peacedove>, the cheating part too.

Alleged fraud should make us all suspicious
 
Here we go again. Corporate entities "own" history now.

They owned that history but sold that history to that other company because that company was going titsup so now they own that history.
 
DevAdvocate said:
The ruling was under the auspices of the SFA, it has no bearing in Law whatsoever, it was a report to the SFA, not a legal case.

The ruling suited the SFA so why exactly would they go to a court of law (which would be in breach of UEFA rules) to challenge a ruling which helped them avoid answering a lot of difficult questions?
Click to expand...

i don't know if it suited them, they were all for title stripping at the negotiating table with dear old chuckles last summer

The Mind The Step 5088 said:
That history belong to Rangers <peacedove>, the cheating part too.

Alleged fraud should make us all suspicious
Click to expand...

£5.5 million is suspiciously cheap but £1 isn't?
 
&lt said:
&gt;:4899715]Here we go again. Corporate entities "own" history now.

They owned that history but sold that history to that other company because that company was going titsup so now they own that history.
Click to expand...

You can't buy and sell nor own history you ****wit
 
Biggus Diccus said:
What?

Let me get this straight. Is the "they" in bold trophies?
Click to expand...

they would be rangers, do you know of any trophies bought for a pound?

Biggus Diccus said:
Jesus **** <doh>

Yes £5.5m is supiciously cheap compared to £1 with an estimated £160,000,000 (or however much it was) debt.

That's only confusing if ****s deliberately re-tell it to make it seem confusing.
Click to expand...

jesus **** indeed, funny how all the comments regarding rangers being worth a pound etc didn't have a wee * stating the real story, which by the way, was never that amount (the £160m you mention btw). the initial ebts were only £30 odd million, around £3.5m a year. which grew to £50m in the papers or by hmrc penalties and interest then craig whyte stated that it was £75m when interviewed for sky sports news at administration time. it then became £100 odd million which was always a "worst case scenario" with all the debts combined. likewise the initial outstanding tax money whyte withheld was either £7m or £9m which found itself up at £18m or so either by penalties/interest or journo hacks or maybe even the good old seville calculator?
 
&lt said:
&gt;:4899888]I never said that you could.

Mindyfail #9497
Click to expand...

Sorry

I must have misunderstood when you posted

&lt said:
&gt;:4899715]
They owned that history but sold that history to that other company because that company was going titsup so now they own that history.
Click to expand...

I was unaware that you were being sarcastic and actually agreed with "Timmy"
 
Chapmeister... said:
they would be rangers, do you know of any trophies bought for a pound?



jesus **** indeed, funny how all the comments regarding rangers being worth a pound etc didn't have a wee * stating the real story, which by the way, was never that amount (the £160m you mention btw). the initial ebts were only £30 odd million, around £3.5m a year. which grew to £50m in the papers or by hmrc penalties and interest then craig whyte stated that it was £75m when interviewed for sky sports news at administration time. it then became £100 odd million which was always a "worst case scenario" with all the debts combined. likewise the initial outstanding tax money whyte withheld was either £7m or £9m which found itself up at £18m or so either by penalties/interest or journo hacks or maybe even the good old seville calculator?
Click to expand...

This sums the whole thing up for me.

So, you're not happy when anyone doesn't mention a paragraph of exposition behind the £1 purchase but you're happy to use it (and I'm being deliberately laboured about the point here because parameter consistency isn't a particularly hot point on this whole subject) as a PURELY QUANTATIVE VALUE when comparing it with another headline number? Staggering.

I'm not going to get into the re-telling of the size of the debt (via narrative tools such as using the word "phantom" when referring to the tax bill or suggesting that the tax bill was itself a non-entity until big bad Craig Whyte witheld PAYE - money which he witheld to keep Rangers running).

The UTTT is still outstanding.

If Rangers hadn't gone bust, that tax bill (full amount, penalties, the lot, "worst case scenario") would have to be listed as a liability. To do otherwise is fraud.

Anyway, cheers Chapper, it's been needlessly extensive as ever.
 
Biggus Diccus said:
This sums the whole thing up for me.

So, you're not happy when anyone doesn't mention a paragraph of exposition behind the £1 purchase but you're happy to use it (and I'm being deliberately laboured about the point here because parameter consistency isn't a particularly hot point on this whole subject) as a PURELY QUANTATIVE VALUE when comparing it with another headline number? Staggering.

I'm not going to get into the re-telling of the size of the debt (via narrative tools such as using the word "phantom" when referring to the tax bill or suggesting that the tax bill was itself a non-entity until big bad Craig Whyte witheld PAYE - money which he witheld to keep Rangers running).

The UTTT is still outstanding.

If Rangers hadn't gone bust, that tax bill (full amount, penalties, the lot, "worst case scenario") would have to be listed as a liability. To do otherwise is fraud.

Anyway, cheers Chapper, it's been needlessly extensive as ever.
Click to expand...

You made it so, i merely pointed out...

Chapmeister... said:
I do find it quite amusing that celtic fans laughed when they were sold for a pound and appear somewhat angry or suspicious when the were sold for 5.5million
Click to expand...
 
Chapmeister... said:
i don't know if it suited them, they were all for title stripping at the negotiating table with dear old chuckles last summer
Click to expand...

I never mentioned title stripping, nor was that what I meant. I was talking about the SFA ignoring their own rules and letting a New club into the league without following the proper procedures. If LNS said Rangers were the "Same" club and not a "New" club then that helped the SFA avoid answering a lot of difficult questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back