Zappa 0 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 It has been made clear to me that this site does not like SDM's influence. You're making a sweeping generalisation here and attaching the views of individuals to the site itself as if everyone is towing some kind of party line regarding the subject of SDM, but that's simply not the case at all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 It has been made clear to me that this site does not like SDM's influence. I would say that dislike is based on the past few years, but Murray has expressed an opinion that he has wanted to get out of football for at least a year before the 'credit crisis' became apparent. Still, SDM seems to be blamed for everything that is wrong with Rangers today. There seems to be no discussion that can support the great things that SDM has done for our club in the past, other than to be pilliored by the 'top dogs' on this site. Although not an expressed ideal, it is evident that anyone supporting SDM's tenure is slated, by said 'top dogs'. Do you agree with this analysis???? Or are you just right all the time???? It's called a discussion. Are you upset that everyone doesn't agree with your point of view? You're allowed to put forward your views but don't expect everyone to meekly accept them and not to express their own opposing views. I disagree with a lot that SDM has done over the years but accept that he has also done good for the club (Enic cash, King cash, the �£60m he has invested, the JJB deal) and I'm happy to argue about them. Whether I'm a moderator or not doesn't make my views any more or less valid. Messageboards are meant for debating and they'd be awfully boring of everyone agreed on everything. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 Last time as you seem to love the attention. I will make this very simple. Your are talking carp and making things up as you and all off us dont know whats going to happen. Please stick to the facts. Suppose this is the price you have to pay for having a good tolerant board like this one. Can you not just put up a decent argument against any of the points I've stated? I'll state once more counteract my posts by putting up a contrary argument and if you can prove that I am "talking crap" then I'll happily concede to your superior knowledge, if that simple request is beyond your comprehension then perhaps the internet is not the place for you. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 You're making a sweeping generalisation here and attaching the views of individuals to the site itself as if everyone is towing some kind of party line regarding the subject of SDM, but that's simply not the case at all. If I could be bothered with the arsing about to find the thread that said that 'this site is not happy with Murray's contribution' I would quote it to you. But I can't be arsed, especially when someone talks of 'sweeping generalisations' on a web site. Huh! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 I'm typing this slowly in the forlorn hope you may actually understand it. Instead of owing LBG circa �£18 million for the term loan we now owe circa �£18 million to Wavetower. Rangers now owe circa �£18 million to Wavetower, Wavetower does not owe anything to LBG. You do understand that ? A simple yes or no will suffice. Wavetower will have secured the monies owed to them by Rangers. Do you understand that?, again a simple yes or no will suffice. In exchange for a consideration of �£1 from Wavetower, Murray, MIH and LBG have absolved themselves of any liabilities regarding Rangers whilst Rangers now have liabilities to Wavetower of circa �£18 million and probably (though admittedly not 100% definitely) to HMRC of circa �£32 million plus penalties (which can range from 0% to 100%). You do understand this don't you?, again a simple yes or no will suffice. If the tax tribunal find in favour of HMRC and we are landed with a bill of circa �£50 million and if HMRC are insistent of their right of payment in full then my understanding is that the only way for Wavetower to get their money back is to liquidate Rangers as they would be entitled to payment before HMRC. Now I may be wrong in my understanding of the ranking of entitlement of Wavetower over HMRC. (Bluedell is far more qualified than I and he's more than welcome to correct me if I'm wrong). Now back to Whytes �£1 bet, do you understand that �£1 is all Wavetower is risking ?(all other monies being secured) again a simple yes or no will suffice. Can you see the massive upside to Wavetower of the �£1 bet if Rangers wins the tax case ? Again a simple yes or no will suffice. The downside to Wavetower if we lose the tax case is the grand total is �£1, do you understand that? again a simple yes or no will suffice. i always thought hmrc had first dibs no matter what. however as you say bluedells the man to say for sure 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 i always thought hmrc had first dibs no matter what. however as you say bluedells the man to say for sure I believe that HMRC lost its status of preferred creditor in 2003. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alliz Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 Am I not correct in saying that it was SDM who either suggested or agreed to us using the tax avoidance route which landed us in situation we now find ourselves in with HMRC? If he did has he got off scot free? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 If my auntie had baws she would be my uncle. I take it you refuse to accept the point i make that he is being way over the top to say the least? Anyway time will tell. The only point i was making is he was not correct in both facts and views. When I was 14 I found out my auntie was really my uncle, couldn't undrestand it at first. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 I believe that HMRC lost its status of preferred creditor in 2003. cheers i am sure you are right. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 Am I not correct in saying that it was SDM who either suggested or agreed to us using the tax avoidance route which landed us in situation we now find ourselves in with HMRC? If he did has he got off scot free? He would have certainly authorised it. However I wouldn't say selling a company whose accounts show net assets of �£70m for �£1 is getting away scot free. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.