Jump to content

 

 

RANGERRAB

  • Posts

    13,601
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by RANGERRAB

  1. There was no way Whittaker, Naismith, Lafferty etc could have stayed after newco was formed.Their wages were prohibitive to them doing so.However the very least they could have done was TUPE over so the club could have got a fee for each of them albeit a very nominal fee.That way none of them would have left with the bad feeling which still does exist amongst a sizeable section of our support. What I would like Naismith & Whittaker to do though is to tell us what legal advice they got from Wishart's players union and it's legal chum Ms Margaret Gribbon. Seeing the two of them at that press conference saying they didn't want to play for Sevco has always made me deeply suspicious of the legal advice they got. If they really do want to attempt to build bridges with the Rangers support then I believe they should be doing this for starters. Some of us may never forgive them and that is something they will need to live with unfortunately
  2. d'art - just when will the 'anonymous operator' of the rangers tax blog be revealed? Surely he must be known to the police and why is it taking so long to bring him to justice
  3. Only if he gets decent service from MF.
  4. We seem to be struggling to score goals just like for spells last season. Worrying.
  5. ' Peter's wealth of experience ' LOL they're having' a laugh now aren't they? What's Liewell ever done for the benefit of Scottish football ? He's only there to look after Shelliks interests. Nothing else. We've a derisory TV deal which he and Dumbcaster signed a couple of years ago and the SPFL still cannot get a sponsor. The professional game in this country is on it's deathbed and desperately needs injections of finance from somewhere. It's time for club chairmen to wake up and start asking the SFA and SPFL proper questions about where the game in this country is heading. Let's start the ball rolling please Mr Somers.....
  6. Does anyone have a realistic solution to the apparent financial shortfall ?
  7. Was it not the case this money never touched Rangers' account. How could it be Rangers Ticketus money?
  8. Who is Mr Fitzpatrick?
  9. There are police investigations ongoing regards Whyte's purchase and subsequent management of Rangers. LBG will undoubtedly have been part of those investigations. Don't forget too that they've still got Whyte's ticketus money which he obtained by 'fraudulent misreprestnation'. It is essentially the proceeds of crime
  10. And the mhedia dare not report that fact as well. What a strange country we now live in......
  11. He said he was a 'last resort' as it was his kids inheritence. If there really is a second share issue in September then Mr King return....
  12. Running costs are too high. Cuts need to be made. No matter where these cuts were made the SoS, UoF etc would then start calling the board fraudsters, asset-strippers etc.
  13. Well if, according to the UoF, there,s to be a second share issue(as early as September?) then let Mr Dave King (and whoever else) come out and openly challenge the board that he is prepared to underwrite this share issue.
  14. Correct me if I'm wrong but if the board wish to have a 2nd share issue and current shareholders do not take up their allocation then the board can then offer those shares to other investors???? Surely then the likes of DaveKing with his 50million would be welcomed with open arms?
  15. No pressure on Ally is there ?????
  16. Hopefully we can get the SFA to make a special case for us to get into the EL next season
  17. Perhaps due to more games being televised viewing figures increased? Forget the viewing figures. The deal Dumbcaster and Liewell signed two years ago after we got voted out the SPL is worth peanuts. All other similar-sized countries to ours have far better deals in comparison.The brain dead chairmen in this country need to realise this
  18. I doubt it was that simple. Were no checks done on Whyte by Ticketus or whoever? It's a helluva lot of money for what turned out to be unsecured loans?
  19. But they were effectively lending money for the purchase of a company which had a potentially massive bill from HMRC hanging over it which it couldn't have paid and would have gone bust. Why did they give Whyte the money and did they not know about his shady business past ? And why didn't they know the difference between Scots law and English law regards ST sales as security? Did they not seek legal advice?
  20. Why do the board feel the need to release yet another statement regards security of Ibrox?
  21. OK understand. I'd thought because they'd pursued Whyte they'd relinquished their rights as creditors(unsecured)? But are there not two very pertinent questions regards Ticketus 1) why did they give Whyte so much unsecured credit? 2) did they have no idea of Whyte's dubious business background? On the day he got Rangers just about everyone else seemed to know I.e. Jeff Randall, Alistair Johnston, Paul Murray etc. Did they think it wise to lend to such an individual?
  22. Agree but as unsecured creditors didn't that effectively mean they'd have got nothing? Lord hodge awarded them personal contractual rights and did not not mean they could go after Whyte which they did thro the courts down south
  23. They didn't own the seats.They thought they did but Lord Hodge ruled otherwise under Scots Law. They were awarded personal contractual rights by Lord Hodge hence their pursuit of Whyte
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.