Jump to content

 

 

RANGERRAB

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,582

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

 Content Type 

Everything posted by RANGERRAB

  1. RANGERRAB
    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?
  2. RANGERRAB
    Why do the board feel the need to release yet another statement regards security of Ibrox?
  3. RANGERRAB
    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?
  4. RANGERRAB
    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
  5. RANGERRAB
    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
  6. RANGERRAB
    How? Explain?
  7. RANGERRAB
    Unprofessional & negligent I'd say.
  8. RANGERRAB
    Astonishing.......
  9. RANGERRAB
    ???? I thought they were suing on behalf of creditors and for the exorbitant fees of D&P and BDO. CB were negligent in allowing Whyte to acquire Rangers hence they were sued
  10. RANGERRAB
    He declared the deal Whyte had with ticketus regards ST's to be null and void after administration
  11. RANGERRAB
    At the tail end of last year Whyte lost his appeal against Ticketus at the high court in London for 'fraudulent misrepresentation' and was ordered to pay Ticketus £17.6m. How could Ticketus have pursued both Whyte and Rangers oldco for the same debt? As I understand they were originally a creditor for £26.7m with their profit on the deal being £26.7m - £17.6m eqs £9m but chose to go after Whyte instead
  12. RANGERRAB
    I'd be more inclined to say the court consider CB to have been extremely negligent in not appearing to have researched Whyte and his source of funding which he used to acquire Rangers not to mention the legal aspects of this bid. Not quite sure how this involves PM though.
  13. RANGERRAB
    My apologies. It was Lord Hodge who threw out ticketus' claim to be a creditor hence their pursuit of Whyte thro' the courts down south
  14. RANGERRAB
    I remember him bidding at the time but always thought he'd left it too late i.e. the deal with Whyte had already been done.
  15. RANGERRAB
    How was that? Please explain
  16. RANGERRAB
    They can be in touch with DK all they like but until they get themselves a substantial shareholding or persuade enough of the current shareholders to elect them instead of the current board they will have no part to play in Rangers.
  17. RANGERRAB
    The big question now for the UoF,SoS,DK etc is where do they go from here? Their ST idea hasn't worked. They can say what they like about the current regime but they hold the power and will continue to do so. I don't suppose it's ever occurred to the UoF,SOS, DK etc that the current regime might actually want Rangers to be successful again at home and abroad?
  18. RANGERRAB
    Hibz got transferred from Forth Holdings to Farmer's newco. It's listed in wikipedia. My arguement regards the players was that the oldco was never insolvent (the BTC victorys and not owing ticketus anything). A newco need never have been created. Whoever was responsible for the newco needing to be created should be pursued the costs of the fees lost for the players who left. HMRC?
  19. RANGERRAB
    Perhaps the board now consider DK as an irrelevance. Perfectly understandable given his strategy(or lack of it)
  20. RANGERRAB
    What were the reasons then? The oldco/newco is not an arguement. Hibz did that in 1991 when their old parent company went bust and Farmer transferred the club to his newco. I maintain all along it was deliberate lies aimed at destroying Rangers and the clubs voted accordingly It is now time for retribution. The board must seek damages for lost revenues and also players who walked away denying the club transfer fees
  21. RANGERRAB
    Oh come on BH every man and his dog in this country had Rangers guilty of anything and everything and we had to accept our 'punishment' for this. Now the BTC is almost over(does anyone think HMRC will win this now?) the case against Rangers has all but collapsed.And there hasn't even been the hint of a suggestion of an apology from these ten clubs or Rhegan's SFA to say they got it wrong. Badly wrong IMO. The information these ten clubs based their decision on was nothing more than deliberate false speculation from the east end. Rangers were guilty of 'cheating' and 'playing players we couldn't otherwise afford' by cheating the tax. Who can forget Michael Kelly screaming down a mic on BBC news night he wanted titles stripped? Remember too KIllie abstained from this vote. a wise decision now methinks
  22. RANGERRAB
    By what means?
  23. RANGERRAB
    I read this morning McCoist wants to sign 'an attacking midfielder'. Haven't we already got Law and McLeod(if he gets played in his best position middle-to-front and not defensive MF). Would we not be better off trying to get a bit of creativity in MF ? Last season our MF was slow and predictable with little or no flair or creativity. How will that change next season?
  24. RANGERRAB
    Is it not now proven to be the case these 10 clubs took a decision based on deliberately inaccurate information aimed at causing the maximum possible damage to Rangers? The decision to eject Rangers from the top division has cost Rangers well into tens of millions of pounds in lost revenue. Will the board make any attempt to recover that lost revenue from either these ten clubs or the SFA itself who should have taken any such decision?
  25. RANGERRAB
    What date is it?
×
×
  • 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.