barca72

The point is, for this season anyway, that they have got to win. Good, entertaining football is desirable but a secondary goal this season. You can go to a game and see us win and be entertained with good football, you can see us win and not be entertained, you can see us lose and play good football or you could see us lose and not be entertained. In sixty years of supporting Rangers I have never seen a season where every game was good entertaining football and we won too. If everything is good you are happy, if not you are not so happy. The best you can hope for is that your team is playing good enough that you expect to win every match. No matter what, a supporter continues to 'follow, follow'.

That's your contribution? Don't call me, I'll call you.

So if it really was Rangers that HMRC were after in the real world, why would they force them into liquidation and lose their ability to collect on the BTC if they ever win it - it is after all a big prize.? Secondly, if they did force Rangers into liquidation over the BTC because they were "historically non-compliant", why are they still appealing the BTC since, according to you, they will never collect it from Rangers in the real world? Maybe because they were never claiming from Rangers, but MIH? And in the real world if Rangers are not being claimed for the BTC, how can they be historically non-compliant in tax matters?

"historical non-compliance with tax liabilities" - Rangers are not liable ( as yet, or may never be ) for tax under the BTC, so in my book they can't use that against them. ( unless of course Toxic Jack was writing the press releases for HMRC )

I think I'll disagree with you here, but you'll agree that attempting to read between the lines as to HMRC's intent is purely subjective. Let's see if we can agree on the facts, as I have garnered them. 1. Whyte was seen to have owed HMRC, on a personal basis as distinct from his actions with Rangers, approx. £4M. This was a long-running saga which HMRC had great difficulty in pinning him down on. In fact, they believed he was a flight risk. 2. Since acquiring Rangers Whyte caused a debt of approx. £14.5M to be owed to HMRC ( and HMRC watched it happen - why did they not intervene earlier? ). This was the accumulated non-payment of employee taxes and NI deductions, plus interest and penalties. Up to this point Rangers had no history of non-payment of taxes apart from the WTC, which they finally agreed was in fact owed but had not as yet been paid. This could be added to the £14.5M bringing the total to approx. £18.5M. 3. Under the CVA ( CG was offering something like £8.5M I believe ), HMRC as a creditor would have received perhaps 5p/£ ( I don't know for sure ), however, under liquidation they would get nothing. Now for the piddly amount owed by Rangers under the WTC do you reasonably accept that this is why HMRC forced Rangers into liquidation? Here's a quote from the Telegraph from the administrators - "Clark added: "It was with HMRC's approval that a proposal was placed before creditors for consideration. "However, it is the commercial view that the level offered within the CVA was not enough to merit departure from their normal policy of seeking a detailed investigation via a liquidator. "However, we have been left in no doubt by HMRC the fundamental reason for the rejection of the CVA proposal is the historical non-compliance with tax liabilities by the former owners and directors of the club." ( you might argue that that historical reference is directed at Rangers before Whyte, but I believe it is directed at Whyte as owner and director. I base that on the fact I haven't seen HMRC go after any other directors or SDM ) And one from CG - "I can understand HMRC deciding that football clubs which do not pay their taxes need to be punished, but by effectively banning Rangers from Europe for three years all that will happen is that there will be less revenue generated by the club and consequently less money paid over to the taxman. "Also, I do not believe that by opting to vote against the CVA proposal, HMRC will generate more cash by pursuing those they believe as responsible - but that is a matter for them." - CG knew Whyte was skint. So, from what I see there I would have thought that HMRC would have been doing the public, who are after all their bosses, a better service from a monetary point of view by accepting the greater amount in the CVA proposal. However, from the bolded parts we can see that HMRC were more concerned with getting greater investigative powers using the offices of the liquidator. Now this is where we either agree or agree to disagree, but I don't think that HMRC were after SDM, AJ, John Grieg or any of the others. I believe they only want Whyte because I think they have a history with him, probably more than is seen in the articles, and they need the increased powers of the Liquidators office to nail him. As I say, a purely subjective opinion.

Snakes squirm and slither away, and Whyte was good at that. Read the Record article - " HMRC had instructed debt enforcers to chase Whyte with a bill for almost £4million and threaten him with bankruptcy in May 2011 - the same month that he bought Rangers." I guess not paying taxes on your own income is one thing, but to not pay the deductions taken from staff is probably worse in the crime stakes.

In spite of all that they were still in the game until Bell ripped their heart out.

If you read the articles the intent of HMRC was to nail Whyte. The total money owed on the WTC and by Whyte's non-payment of tax and NI premiums, is almost superfluous to their intent of chasing down Whyte. Apparently if they force liquidation they can have a better chance of prosecuting Whyte than they do if they accepted the CVA. Rangers operated a tax avoidance scheme for two former players, Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer, between 2000-01 and 2002-03 known as a 'Discounted Options Scheme' - commonly referred to as the "Wee Tax Case". HMRC issued Rangers with a bill of about £4m for outstanding amounts owed from the discounted options tax scheme, which was settled, but was not paid. As you know the BTC was against Murray/MIH and they were waiting for a verdict from the FTT when the liquidation occurred. A complete non-influence on the rejection of the CVA and subsequent liquidation.

Better than a can full of pish down the back of the legs !!

HMRC never really wanted Rangers. They were purely after Whyte. They looked upon Rangers as just another club who would survive and come back debt-free. They were always after Whyte. Read the Telegraph first, then read the trail in the Record. They wanted to nail Whyte and we were just so much colateral damage. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9326562/Rangers-consigned-to-liquidation-with-HMRC-to-vote-against-Company-Voluntary-Arrangement.html "The tax authority forced Rangers into administration in February over millions of pounds of unpaid tax under Craig Whyte and could also pursue former owner Sir David Murray over a tax case, which could result in a £75million bill. A statement from the tax authority read: "A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company's financial affairs in recent years." http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-being-3992415

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom Common law legal systems exist in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales but not in Scotland which has a hybrid system ( common and civil law ) which involves a great deal of Common Law. Court judgments also commonly form a source of the constitution: generally speaking in English Law, judgments of the higher courts form precedents or case law that binds lower courts and judges; Scots Law does not accord the same status to precedent, and judgments in one legal system do not have a direct effect in the other legal systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Session The Court of Session is the supreme civil court of Scotland, and constitutes part of the College of Justice. It sits in Parliament House in Edinburgh and is both a trial court and a court of appeal. The Court of Session has coextensive jurisdiction with the Sheriff Court—the other Scottish civil court, which sits locally—and the pursuer is given first choice of what court to use. However, the majority of complex, important, or high value cases are brought in the Court of Session. An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing specific acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. An injunction that requires conduct is called a "mandatory injunction." An injunction that prohibits conduct is called a "prohibitory injunction." Many injunctions are both--that is, they have both mandatory and prohibitory components, because they require some conduct and forbid other conduct. When an injunction is given, it can be enforced with equitable enforcement mechanisms such as contempt. These features of the injunction allow a court granting one to manage the behavior of the parties. You were right Scott7, in that the English court is limited. A gagging order from a Scottish court was also required. BlueDell yesterday was also correct in his assertion that this was an 'English' contract, in that there is a clause that states - "The Rangers Retail SHA is governed by English law". This, however, may have only covered the main points of the contract and not such as what is considered 'confidential disclosures' by each party to the contract.

If that's you guys finished for now, it's pretty late here and I need to turn in. Pick it up later.

Unless you know what's round the corner, it does sound kind of loony, doesn't it.

1. You know a finite number of people and no matter how popular you are you do not know the vast, vast majority of the Rangers' support. Neither does the RST. 2. Laugh now , but for how long? 3. DK is an astute business man and hopefully strikes a deal that is favourable all round. The fans power of a boycott will be counter productive to DK's discussions. The better way for the fans to use their power is to buy merchandize and more of it. 4. I've already said a boycott will not bring him to the table, the prospect of making money will. If we as fans try to dry up all sales we shall only be hurting Rangers, Ashley will be laughing all the way to the bank. Remember this man is ruthless and clever. 5. Have you not been reading all of this? I am advocating that by increased sales Rangers will get more than 5p. We can not assume that Ashley is impressed one way of the other by fans' boycotts. In fact these boycotts are playing into his hands, and could have really severe consequences for Rangers. 6. In any negotiating Ashley could bring the discussion to the point where he believes that DK should consult with his shareholders. DK has forestalled him by getting permission up front. I'm telling you right now we cannot believe that the fans can be the tough guys in this, if they try to be they only play into SD's hands.

1. You are going to have to prove that to me this time and not just give an opinion, because they do not represent the vast majority of the fans. The dispute is not because it is the RST but more that they are wrong to cry for a boycott. 2. Yes supporting SD is the best way to help Rangers. Attempting to force SD to the table through a boycott just won't happen. In fact it is the quickest way to cause Rangers dire harm. The best way to get out of this contract is for DK to use every leverage he has and negotiate his way out of it. We will not win by trying to butt heads with SD. 3. Of course DK can not come out and call for a boycott and neither is he attempting to disguise his support for a boycott. He is saying that he wants to allay the fans fears about the contract and get the fans back to historic sales levels of the past. This thing might stick in our craw, but we will not push Ashley around. The best thing we can do is buy merchandize and increase Rangers year-end profits from RR. Ask yourself why DK wants sales to rise to historic levels, and at the same time in Res. 2 today he is asking the fans to give him the permission to negotiate hard with Ashley without having to break off each time Ashley causes an impasse.

RST have let their opinion be known. They are wrong on all counts. First, what percentage of the Rangers' support gave them the indication that they speak for the whole body of the Rangers' support? They don't. Second, where do they get off recommending to the vast Rangers' support to NOT buy any official Rangers' merchandise? They are doing more harm to Rangers with this plea than they would have if they kept their mouth shut. They are very wrong in this. Look at the letter from our chairman, who is quite qualified to advise the fans. Nowhere within that letter does he require the fans to stop buying merchandise. He does say that in the future he hopes for better situations with our retail partners -" I will be engaging our retail partners to find a way forward to deal with the current concern of fans that purchasing replica kit and other merchandise does not support the Club to the extent that historically has been the case." RST take note, he does not ask for you to speak out on behalf (?) of the fans. Could there be a conflict of interest here, specifically the LIONBRAND? If you want to see how to make a statement with dignity and class, look at the way Rangers First have indicated their displeasure with today's proceedings. Please, RST, do not make any further announcements in the same vein before checking on the damage it could do to Rangers. p.s. I do not subscribe to RST or Rangers First share schemes, so I have no bias to either one.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/9461-memorial-service-for-colin-jackson Memorial Service For Colin Jackson Written by Rangers Football Club Memorial Service For Colin Jackson THE Jackson family have notified the Club that Colin’s funeral will be a private service for close family members only. A Memorial Service will, however, be held in the Ibrox Suite at the Stadium on Saturday, 20 June at 11.30am to honour a true Rangers legend. Colin sadly lost his battle with cancer and passed away peacefully with his family last weekend.

Sarcasm does not become you, but thanks for the effort.

So, your opinion and speculative authority. Thx.

Can you tell us what that clause says?

Why, and by whose authority?

You're easily pleased.

Any word if he's bringing Davie Weir and/or Lewis MacCleod with him?

For all that, he did score a few good goals.

Both reports are pure speculation. Better to wait until we see who is appointed and why.