RANGERRAB

I don't think ANY of us disagree with you that the personnel had to change on the pitch. It is the manner in which it has happened that is appalling. We don't know if these guys will be better but that happens with ANY new signing. But the manager should never have had these signings forced upon him.

You're missing the point(s).

We would struggle to get promoted with the current squad & manager who doesn't want to be there.

Something had to happen to give us a better chance of promotion.

The Board shouldn't have given him such a contract then. Hate them, not McDowall for simply honouring his contract.

The current board didn't give him his contract. It was TUPE'd over in 2012.It would have been Martin Bain probably

McCoist will earn more from TV appearances - so he will do just fine.

He'd be better doing that than football management that's for sure.

It reamins to be seen if they're capable of doing any better than the current mob, I can't imagine that they'll be all that motivated.

I'd be absolutely amazed if they weren't better than the unmotivated dross we've currently got most of whose contracts are up at the end of the season anyway

What if this is part of a plan to scupper us on the park before they are forced out.

With better player players than the ones we've already got?

The one reason, the only reason, the board are meddling in team matters is that they are making money out of it. Mark my words, there will be a slimey wee contract which says that for every game these guys play then money will be paid to Uno Hu, money which Rangers will have to borrow from Uno Hu.

Not making a case for/against the board but they want us promoted back to top division. Every Rangers supporter should want that IMO. Don't you?

I am going to email all members of the RFB and challenge them to reinforce their vote of no confidence in the Board as a result of their interference in the team selection process and invite them to resign if the Board do not reverse this ridiculous decision which will make us the laughing stock of the football world.

 

I suggest others do the same or similar as they see fit.

perhaps a vote of no confidence in the first team management as well?

The board are meddling in team matters because the football management are perceived to be failing in their primary objective i.e. getting Rangers promoted back to the top division.

We can debate all day whether they're correct to do that or not

that's exactly what the board want.

'Project Ally' has been an abject failure. People need to realise that. Drastic action was needed if we're to get promoted. Hence these 5 loan signings

McDowall has earned an absolute fortune in his time at Rangers - way, way over in relation to what he has actually delivered.

 

Even if he was to walk, he'd hardly be eating beans on toast for the rest of his life. I have asbolutely no sympathy for him.

Another like McCoist who has absolutely no hope of ever getting the same salary elsewhere.

Where the f*&k does this end?

 

Do they tell him what formation to play?

 

If he wants to substitute any of them does he have to run up to the Director's Box and get their permission?

Formation ? LOL.

He doesn't know anything except the tried & failed 4-4-2 which just about every other manager in the division knows how to play against

what happened to the cauldron of Glasgow that Thompson was talking about when Goodwillie was up for transfer ?

That's a fair point. Call me a cynic but do they not seem to accept lower bids for their players from Celt*c than us ? Armstrong still had 18 months on his contract.

There is no political will to challenge this vile club and its grotesque support.

Apparently 3 of the 5 are out injured. Send them home.

So do you think we'd get promoted with what we have we have?

Or would you rather not get promoted?

If it helps Ashley no. We have our own players to develop and its hardly a straight choice anyway. We have plenty of players more than good enough to get us up. Indeed more than good enough to win it.

 

Ashley should have left us lewis or paid for derrek McInnis if he really wanted to. help.

I bet DK wants us promoted to the top division just as much as anyone. We're losing too much money not being there

Helpfully Dave king will send them home next month.

so how do we get promoted then ? Don't you want to get promoted ?

Keith Jackson suggests they're 'unamused'.

Wonder why they didn't try to stop these 5 loan signings then? I genuinely thought they would.

Income tax and the misdeeds of HMRC is a reserved issue.

 

It was not possible for Holyrood to have become involved as there is simply no mechanism for doing so, any more than your local MSP would be able to intervene on foreign affairs.

Alex Salmond did try to intervene regards the Rangers BTC was got told where to go as it was nothing to do with him.

At the time I thought it rather strange that the top politician in Scotland got rebuffed in such a rude manner. Was there something HMRC wanted to hide?

It's the biggest case of unrequited love in history. The "Queens XI" is the one that amuses me most though, the thought that the Saxe Coburg / Battenberg / Windsors have the faintest idea who or what Rangers are supposed to be is absurd and how Her Majesty could allow such loyal subjects to be...subject...to the agony that Rangers fans have gone through at the hands of "The Revenue" is beyond me.

Do you seriously believe the monarchy or westminster parliament is involved in HMRC cases ?

The question I ask is whether a caucus of yahoo-supporting polticians have been using influence on HMRC to financially cripple Rangers by pursueing a case so weak it has failed their own two internal appeals

In the name of God...Reid's party have been out of office since 2010, and he left office in 2007. A Conservative government has been in place since 2010 and has done nothing - ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL - to get Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs off our backs. But aye, it was all John Reid's fault and if only we'd had a Tory govt. we'd have been OK.

 

This is sheer folly, man.

So because he left office he had no influence and wasnt up to anything????

I didn't believe half of what Clark & Whitehouse told us during the administration. The fact that they've been called up on criminal charges would suggest it was maybe a prudent way to have read the situation.

 

All seems very strange? Yes, it certainly does and did at the time too.

Ive always believe it was their intention to return a debt-free Rangers back to their client Whyte after administration but after it emerged what he'd been up to (non payment of PAYE and N.i.) that was never going to be possible

But did Clark and Whitehouse never discuss a CVA with HMRC? Find that difficult to believe

D'art , I vividly remember listening to Talksport just after the announcement that HMRC had vetoed the CVA , they had their own expert in insolvency/tax affairs on and he was bewildered as to why HMRC had been allowed to carry the full amount of their demands whilst the case was under appeal , his opinion was that HMRC should have been given a notifiable amount of £1 as in theory that was all their demand was worth given his own experience of these cases . It has always mystified me as to why this was never taken forward .

And I think it has to be remembered there was an assumption of guilt by almost everyone including SPL chairmen and CEO's who voted us out the SPL. HMRC seemed to think they had an open & shut case with Rangers EBT's. They didnt. We need to find out why they thought this and who it was who instigated all of this

It always seemed possible to me at the time that the administrators, Clark and Whitehouse never even intended to produce a CVA proposal which could be accepted by the creditors, so is it possible that they added it to GreenCo's CVA proposal specifically so that it would fail?

 

After all, the failed CVA meant that the Club cost their preferred bidder a lot less money and the 'newco' route which Clark and Whitehouse were clearly very keen on also meant leaving the massive potential liability with the 'oldco' in liquidation.

I dont think that's entirely correct is it? I seem to recall Clark & Whitehouse telling us during administration we'd get a CVA.

What I find strange was that when it got refused HMRC seemed to suggest there never wasany chance of us getting one because of what Whyte had done.

Clark & Whitehouse also said they were in constant contact with HMRC as I recall also. Was the possibility or not of a CVA not discussed with HMRC given they were rightly or wrongly the main creditor? All seems very strange to me

This link here Rab suggests that was not the case

 

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/new...kets-by-gbp73m

 

The STV one contradicts it.

 

Thats why I spoke of the confusion - some of which is clearly genuine' date=' while other parts are clear misdirection[/quote']

 

The biggest question of all D'Art is why HMRC chose to pursue this EBT bill. This Jim Harra character even says EBT's were legal so what made HMRC go after Rangers? Was there political interference by the likes of Reid?

And I've always been suspicious of the timing of when Rangers got this EBT taxbill i.e just before the 2010 General Election which Labour were expected to lose and did. Presumably it had to be done before an incoming Tory government got in which might not have been so willing to let HMRC act in such a manner towards EBT tax avoidance which Harra even acknowledges was legal

Im not convinced of that Rab - as I point out there are two sources of info on this which appear to contradict each other as to whether HMRC were primary or secondary creditor

Surely the EBT tax bill shouldnt have been included in allowing HMRC to be the main creditor because it was being contested?