RANGERRAB

Maybe he his, maybe he isn't because the two are so closely linked that the events of 2012 created a multitude of questions and grey areas, but my point wasn't about what he actually said, it was about (as I said) what he 'inadvertently' raised.

The club & it's history continued. Frankly couldn't give a damn about the corporate stuff

He says it's the same club legally but in his heart it doesn't feel that way. I feel much the same.

No he doesn't . Read the DM article

One day later you clearly still haven't read the article.

I can assure I have read the article. Findlay does suggest it is a new club. Quite ridiculous

When DF talks about Rangers being a new entity that needs to create its own history, he's not talking about the company - he's talking about the club.

 

I fully understand why people feel as they do, and I have no issue with people abandoning the club as it now is, but whether or not it feels like the old club, it actually is the club of old and DF's ill-chosen remarks have undermined the efforts of all those fans who have challenged broadcasters, journalists and programmes writers who have been happy to tell the world that Rangers is a new club.

The question about being a new club or not has been answered many times by those whose opinion matters I.e. the football authorities & the law lords. It is not a new club that is clear. Its history continued when it's legal entity changed.

I'd have thought Donald Findlay would have known that. Maybe he should stick to criminal law as his knowledge of corporate law is clearly lacking somewhat.

We can't deny any of the actual facts dB, which are:

 

Same club? Yes.

 

Different companies? Yes.

And let's not forget our chums from the east end have in fact got 3 companies on the go: shellik plc,shellik FC ltd and the shellik football and athletic company ltd.

Findlay is talking utter nonsense and he knows it. His fall from grace as Rangers vice chairman obviously still hurts him.

The new club debate ended long ago. The football authorities and law lords decided the club continued.

Frankly Findlay is just mischief-making talking to a yahoo so-called journalist like McGowan

If an offence has been committed surely the police have no choice but to take action. Just ask Duncan Ferguson

Why do they think Ashley's going to put money in?

To improve & rebuild the business maybe? No one knows for sure.

Putting the subject matter to one side - what a fucking nonsense! A complete waste of money and resources by the police and the judiciary.

Really? I think it's public money and resources being put to excellent use.

Pity we can't punish their club too though. They're not entirely blameless either as history shows judging by their past inactions & tolerating and even encouraging these sort of people in their support

What did Tyrell do which was worty of note?

I often wonder how we'd feel if it were the yahoos Ashley was involved with.

Would we be so confident then and going round laughing at them telling them he was going to bleed them dry and ruin them?

Or would we be more than a little scared at the thought of the 15th richest person in Britain effectively controlling their club with all the financial security that entails? The yahoos in my work dont like this one bit I can assure you. The thought of ashley putting in money has them running scared

What the fuck are you talking about? How does any of that tired, clichéd nonsense relate to a daft young boy winding people up on social media?

Had that young boy been a Rangers supporter making similar such comments about our detractors and their like you can be sure it would be seen in a different light by the mhedia and their flock.

Years of dignified silence and rising above what the other side was doing really never got us anywhere though did it?

And made us an easy target in the process.Our enemies thought they could get away with it. And generally they did.

What does Kennedy's bid and meek acceptance of it's failure have to do with Ashley and litigation? The board turned down his offer.

I just laughed when Kennedy put in an offer of a loan. We'd heard nothing fromhim for over 2 years then all of a sudden he's back. Another who should have been buying shares over theses past two years if he genuinely wanted to influence things

No big surprise if McCoist sacked. Promotion by no means a certainty this season unless better playeres are recruited in January. Would anyone trust Ally to do that?

depends who he brings in. plus ashley loves a poor manager to take the heat off him.

He's certainly got one at Rangers then hasnt he?

the glee towards ashley by shug kheevins yesterday on clyde was sickening.

Dont listen to Radio Cattolica. What did slug say?

And you are quite right to avoid it Rangerstits. This was on the text from the BBC on Scottish football live yesterday. You know the thing where they have text updates on all SPFL games? (They started the SPFL talking solely about us, naturally.....) This is the EPL one for today, for example:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/29417158

 

 

I am sorry I didn't make it clear at the time. Basically I was typing as it happened, I was following the text re the Rangers' news, which was a fresh wound at the time (still is!), he reacted and I reacted instantly on here, without detailing the context for future readers.

 

 

Here's a bit of English on King in the past, it's a much politer version of his ferocious rant re the South African judge's views but, anyway, it gives you a flavour with a snide comparison to Whyte in "rand off the radar":

 

The enormous contradiction in all of this, of course, is that at that precise moment the South African Revenue Service (SARS) were not only accusing King of a lack of humility but were also threatening to get him stuck in the slammer for upwards of 15 years. When told of King’s call for contrition at Rangers, a source close to SARS was not exactly impressed. “What about practising what he preaches?” said the source.

 

This is where the analysis of King becomes mind-bending. A year earlier, the man who wanted Rangers to express regret for the things they had done wrong was denounced as a “glib and shameless” liar by a judge in a South African tax court. In his epic battle with the authorities, King was described, by Justice Southwood, as a “mendacious witness” who had “no respect for the truth” and who “does not hesitate to lie.” King versus SARS lasted 14 years and it was the biggest tax case in the history of the country. In the beginning the revenue service were chasing him for 2.7bn rand (about £230m) but recently the entire affair, including the 322 criminal charges, were settled for around £44m.

 

King accepted that he had not been compliant with South African tax law and expressed regret at the way he had behaved. It took him long enough, but he got there in the end. There is now something of a rush to install him as the new King of Ibrox, the great redeemer who can replace chaos with order on the back of his undoubted wealth. Rand off the radar, or something like that.

 

Of course, this wouldn’t be Rangers if there weren’t multiple layers to the story. There’s the moral argument and whether an accepted tax cheat should be welcomed into Scottish football. The flip-side of that is that he has fronted up and paid his dues. All matters have been settled. The moral argument is less important than the technical argument. The SFA’s improper person rules are a bit like their rules on gambling. They exist, but the question is how rigorously they will be enforced.

 

King’s involvement in Whyte’s board should be an insurmountable obstacle to the notion that he can become Rangers chairman. King was no acolyte of Whyte’s, far from it. But he still had a degree of culpability. For confirmation, all the SFA have to do is re-read the report of their own judicial panel investigation into Whyte’s regime. King, it said, had asked a few questions and griped a little about the lack of information coming from Whyte, but beyond that, the report concluded, he hadn’t done a whole lot to challenge the former owner. In essence, he should have done more.

The last paragraph is hilarious. Never mind DK what were the SFA doing before and during Whyte's ownership of Rangers?

Were they aware of Whyte's past before he got Rangers? Just about everyone else was including AJ,PM etc.

And at what point were the SFA made aware Whyte wasnt paying over NI/PAYE and what action did they propose to take?

What did they expect King to do? He couldnt remove Whyte because he was effectively the owner.

Ive said it before that Rhegan should have been sacked over the Whyte fiasco. Him and the SFA's total lack of action was nothing short of scandalous. Was it deliberate? Maybe Rhegan was just doing as told by Liewell.

Ashley is infamous for refusing to engage with supporters and shareholders.

He made a big mistake doing that at Newcastle. Will he do the same thing at Rangers?

The Scum will meet their reality in their next annual accounts. Then again, they may be able to sell some more of their "crown" jewells like Commons for silly money again.

They won't get silly money for Commons. His contract is up at the end of the season

I do wonder what the exact terms of this deal are. What interest/securities are held as part of this loan? What would happen if there isn't a great uptake of shares - can Ashley really underwrite this issue given the 10% rule? Would the SFA allow him to go over the 10% as a form of special dispensation? Who exactly will take the place of Nash and Wallace.

 

And i am going to assume that the Wallace pay off will be paid through the loan.

 

An utter shambles of a club. It really worries me as to what exactly it will take to rid our club of these charlatans. Do we need to endure this for 20-odd years?? I am not going to judge King, Murray etc - but i am convinced we would not be in this position if these Rangers men had been buying shares and had worked up a holding.

I do wonder about this 10 percent rule. Is it an SFA rule ? Where is it written and is it applicable to all clubs or just for Ashley's Rangers interest.? The EPL have no rules to prevent Ashley owning Newcastle and Rangers do where did it come from?

bloody English sticking his oar in:

 

BBC Scotland's Tom English

Posted at 14:35

"Somebody needs to make this club [Rangers] face up to financial reality.

Maybe Rangers should start to bank with the co-op bank and get loans and overdrafts up to £32m .

Would that be facing up to financial reality Tom?

The BBC article is pure lies. Which prospective administrators were contacted? Wilson and McLaughlin should name them.

How could Rangers go into administration when there were three separate funding packages available.

Since when?

 

Will the ST sales from this year go up or down with entry to the top league?

No guarantee we'll be in top division next season with our current squad and manager.

Only way to improve our chances is to get players in January. Will funds be made available and would anyone trust Ally to spend it wisely?

From anyone prepared to loan the club a few million under the more onerous of terms?

 

This could be supplemented via the sale of someone like Wallace who we (supposedly) actively tried to move on last winter? I'd imagine there would also be plenty of interest in a cut-price deal for Lewis Macleod.

 

Funds can be found. And, as we seen last February and clearly from under Greenco, the incumbents care little where it comes from.

Who would be preared to give a loan and for how much? Rangers cannot keep getting by on loans forever. The business needs to become self sustaining at some point