Rangers

The forum is for discussion of club football outside Australia and national team football Please do not post any offensive or malicious comments.

Moderators: BillShankly, arxidi, Judge Judy, Forum Admins

Post Reply
User avatar
yogi
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:09 pm

Re: Rangers

Post by yogi »

Bomber wrote:
yogi wrote:
Bomber wrote:yogi, that hole you keep digging for yourself, I'm surprised you havent tunnelled to China yet.

Put simply - OWNED! (yet again)
Gees, thats what I was thinking about you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,digging all the way to Poland.
Even a pisshead like you could surely come up with something better than that. Better stick to quoting hawkesy's humerous posts - even if you must do it more than once.
Wow,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,its true what they say, you are an old grumble bum. :roll:
Image
Image
User avatar
Bomber
Vice Chairman
Vice Chairman
Posts: 60561
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 141 times

Re: Rangers

Post by Bomber »

Showing you up time and time again may make me some things, dont see how it can make me a grumble bum. I'm not grumbling, merely highlighting your idiocy. Completely different things, although in your case, not surprising that you cant tell the difference.
Ignore this signature
User avatar
DOC
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach
Posts: 12834
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:37 am

Re: Rangers

Post by DOC »

ImageImage
followfollow
Ball Boy
Ball Boy
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:06 pm

Re: Rangers

Post by followfollow »

I am utterly disappointed on how a club with a history of 140 years can have these matters looming over the head. Surely in the past ten years, there many people aware of the situation.
I think a lot of the damage was done during the Advocaat years with the highly paid Dutch imports.
Family back home are saying the Strathclyde police wish to postpone the old firm game in March due to possible violence. The latest thing I have heard that they have been trying to pay HRBC and they have declined to accept the offer but accepted Vodofone's worse credit history.
Below is n extract from a letter on the ESPM website, he makes interesting points on how many other clubs have been excused for silimar dealings.

I have yet to see anything specific cited in either the SPL/SFA rules beyond general rules around disrepute and breaching articles of association. It seems to me we have a growing suggestion new rules and penalties should be created which flies in the face of natural justice. The only clubs I ever recall being stripped of titles are Juventus and Marseille both of which were cases involving match fixing (happy to be corrected on this point if anyone has examples). Clearly Rangers improved their cash position by using EBTS but applying this logic should Chelsea lose the EPL titles because of Roman's largesse? Should Hearts lose the Scottish Cup won during Vlad's era? What of Livingston who were allowed to win the League Cup whilst actually in administration? Should Celtic lose the trophies they won when Desmond and not the club's bank account funded Robbie Keane's wages? (Just a wee joke there to lighten the mood Bhoys. I know he won nothing) Any arrangements by which a team lives beyond their means can be considered unfair. The issue of levelling the sporting playing field, possibly with a salary cap, is a debate football generally seems reluctant to have.

The most relevant example I can think of regarding tax would be Portsmouth. Currently in their second administration they came out their first through a CVA. One of their creditors who was HMRC. In simple terms their decision not to pay the tax man, who due to the CVA received pennies in the pound not the full amount due, never resulted in any calls to strip them of their FA Cup. Arsenal too reached an agreement with HMRC on tax issues allowing them to make partial payment and avoid a potential tribunal. What penalty was imposed on them for “cheating” in the period they under paid?

I am not suggesting Rangers do not deserve punishment, I am merely requesting that they are treated in line with any other club and that vested interests are not allowed to create new rules and punishments which fly in the face of any true justice.
Mato
Promising Junior
Promising Junior
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:43 pm

Re: Rangers

Post by Mato »

lol that is gold

"we are the people"

"... what does that even mean?"

"it means we are the people"
User avatar
DOC
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach
Posts: 12834
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:37 am

Re: Rangers

Post by DOC »

ImageImage
User avatar
yogi
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:09 pm

Re: Rangers

Post by yogi »

followfollow wrote:I am utterly disappointed on how a club with a history of 140 years can have these matters looming over the head. Surely in the past ten years, there many people aware of the situation.
I think a lot of the damage was done during the Advocaat years with the highly paid Dutch imports.
Family back home are saying the Strathclyde police wish to postpone the old firm game in March due to possible violence. The latest thing I have heard that they have been trying to pay HRBC and they have declined to accept the offer but accepted Vodofone's worse credit history.
Below is n extract from a letter on the ESPM website, he makes interesting points on how many other clubs have been excused for silimar dealings.

I have yet to see anything specific cited in either the SPL/SFA rules beyond general rules around disrepute and breaching articles of association. It seems to me we have a growing suggestion new rules and penalties should be created which flies in the face of natural justice. The only clubs I ever recall being stripped of titles are Juventus and Marseille both of which were cases involving match fixing (happy to be corrected on this point if anyone has examples). Clearly Rangers improved their cash position by using EBTS but applying this logic should Chelsea lose the EPL titles because of Roman's largesse? Should Hearts lose the Scottish Cup won during Vlad's era? What of Livingston who were allowed to win the League Cup whilst actually in administration? Should Celtic lose the trophies they won when Desmond and not the club's bank account funded Robbie Keane's wages? (Just a wee joke there to lighten the mood Bhoys. I know he won nothing) Any arrangements by which a team lives beyond their means can be considered unfair. The issue of levelling the sporting playing field, possibly with a salary cap, is a debate football generally seems reluctant to have.

The most relevant example I can think of regarding tax would be Portsmouth. Currently in their second administration they came out their first through a CVA. One of their creditors who was HMRC. In simple terms their decision not to pay the tax man, who due to the CVA received pennies in the pound not the full amount due, never resulted in any calls to strip them of their FA Cup. Arsenal too reached an agreement with HMRC on tax issues allowing them to make partial payment and avoid a potential tribunal. What penalty was imposed on them for “cheating” in the period they under paid?

I am not suggesting Rangers do not deserve punishment, I am merely requesting that they are treated in line with any other club and that vested interests are not allowed to create new rules and punishments which fly in the face of any true justice.
Fair point Big Yin !
Just reading what has been going on of late in the press,
I think the HMRC will punish ( Fine ) Rangers for their indescretion, but they will not let the club fold.
They will work with the Huns to try and sort out a possible agreement.
This agreement might make it hard for Rangers to purchase players, like the Dutch imports of years ago and
they might be on par with players from Hearts etc. for the next few years.

P.S. But its still great stirring the Huns up about it,,,,,,,,,, :wink:
Image
Image
handy
Apprentice
Apprentice
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:04 pm

Re: Rangers

Post by handy »

followfollow wrote:I am utterly disappointed on how a club with a history of 140 years can have these matters looming over the head. Surely in the past ten years, there many people aware of the situation.
I think a lot of the damage was done during the Advocaat years with the highly paid Dutch imports.
Family back home are saying the Strathclyde police wish to postpone the old firm game in March due to possible violence. The latest thing I have heard that they have been trying to pay HRBC and they have declined to accept the offer but accepted Vodofone's worse credit history.
Below is n extract from a letter on the ESPM website, he makes interesting points on how many other clubs have been excused for silimar dealings.

I have yet to see anything specific cited in either the SPL/SFA rules beyond general rules around disrepute and breaching articles of association. It seems to me we have a growing suggestion new rules and penalties should be created which flies in the face of natural justice. The only clubs I ever recall being stripped of titles are Juventus and Marseille both of which were cases involving match fixing (happy to be corrected on this point if anyone has examples). Clearly Rangers improved their cash position by using EBTS but applying this logic should Chelsea lose the EPL titles because of Roman's largesse? Should Hearts lose the Scottish Cup won during Vlad's era? What of Livingston who were allowed to win the League Cup whilst actually in administration? Should Celtic lose the trophies they won when Desmond and not the club's bank account funded Robbie Keane's wages? (Just a wee joke there to lighten the mood Bhoys. I know he won nothing) Any arrangements by which a team lives beyond their means can be considered unfair. The issue of levelling the sporting playing field, possibly with a salary cap, is a debate football generally seems reluctant to have.

The most relevant example I can think of regarding tax would be Portsmouth. Currently in their second administration they came out their first through a CVA. One of their creditors who was HMRC. In simple terms their decision not to pay the tax man, who due to the CVA received pennies in the pound not the full amount due, never resulted in any calls to strip them of their FA Cup. Arsenal too reached an agreement with HMRC on tax issues allowing them to make partial payment and avoid a potential tribunal. What penalty was imposed on them for “cheating” in the period they under paid?

I am not suggesting Rangers do not deserve punishment, I am merely requesting that they are treated in line with any other club and that vested interests are not allowed to create new rules and punishments which fly in the face of any true justice.
I think the size of club that rangers are, the Hrmc wont let rangers die.
They will work together with rangers to sort out a happy outcome for everyone concerned.
User avatar
DOC
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach
Posts: 12834
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:37 am

Re: Rangers

Post by DOC »

yes they will try and work an agreement, but something has to be paid and rangers are skint, whyte has no more money, this is the problem for them, they cannot raise any revenue, hence why people are talking about liquidation

watch my first link, let the bear explain it for you :lol:
ImageImage
User avatar
DOC
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach
Posts: 12834
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:37 am

Re: Rangers

Post by DOC »

ImageImage
User avatar
yogi
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:09 pm

Re: Rangers

Post by yogi »

Haaaaaaaaaaaa x 100000
Effin classic,,,,LOL !

The McGregor comment was effin brilliant :lol: :mrgreen: :lol:
Image
Image
User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
Board Member
Posts: 51452
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Rangers

Post by God is an Englishman »

I'd still rather be a broke hun that a rich fenian.
Image
Hibs seven
Promising Junior
Promising Junior
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:58 pm

Re: Rangers

Post by Hibs seven »

God is an Englishman wrote:I'd still rather be a broke hun that a rich fenian.

Is this for real!!!
Hibs seven
Promising Junior
Promising Junior
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:58 pm

Re: Rangers

Post by Hibs seven »

handy wrote:
followfollow wrote:I am utterly disappointed on how a club with a history of 140 years can have these matters looming over the head. Surely in the past ten years, there many people aware of the situation.
I think a lot of the damage was done during the Advocaat years with the highly paid Dutch imports.
Family back home are saying the Strathclyde police wish to postpone the old firm game in March due to possible violence. The latest thing I have heard that they have been trying to pay HRBC and they have declined to accept the offer but accepted Vodofone's worse credit history.
Below is n extract from a letter on the ESPM website, he makes interesting points on how many other clubs have been excused for silimar dealings.

I have yet to see anything specific cited in either the SPL/SFA rules beyond general rules around disrepute and breaching articles of association. It seems to me we have a growing suggestion new rules and penalties should be created which flies in the face of natural justice. The only clubs I ever recall being stripped of titles are Juventus and Marseille both of which were cases involving match fixing (happy to be corrected on this point if anyone has examples). Clearly Rangers improved their cash position by using EBTS but applying this logic should Chelsea lose the EPL titles because of Roman's largesse? Should Hearts lose the Scottish Cup won during Vlad's era? What of Livingston who were allowed to win the League Cup whilst actually in administration? Should Celtic lose the trophies they won when Desmond and not the club's bank account funded Robbie Keane's wages? (Just a wee joke there to lighten the mood Bhoys. I know he won nothing) Any arrangements by which a team lives beyond their means can be considered unfair. The issue of levelling the sporting playing field, possibly with a salary cap, is a debate football generally seems reluctant to have.

The most relevant example I can think of regarding tax would be Portsmouth. Currently in their second administration they came out their first through a CVA. One of their creditors who was HMRC. In simple terms their decision not to pay the tax man, who due to the CVA received pennies in the pound not the full amount due, never resulted in any calls to strip them of their FA Cup. Arsenal too reached an agreement with HMRC on tax issues allowing them to make partial payment and avoid a potential tribunal. What penalty was imposed on them for “cheating” in the period they under paid?

I am not suggesting Rangers do not deserve punishment, I am merely requesting that they are treated in line with any other club and that vested interests are not allowed to create new rules and punishments which fly in the face of any true justice.
I think the size of club that rangers are, the Hrmc wont let rangers die.
They will work together with rangers to sort out a happy outcome for everyone concerned.

Not just Advocaat, think Souness and Murray must take some flak, Butcher, Woods, Hateley, Trevor Stevens, Mark Walters, Trevor Francis and others did not go there for poor wages.
User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
Board Member
Posts: 51452
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Rangers

Post by God is an Englishman »

Hibs seven wrote:
God is an Englishman wrote:I'd still rather be a broke hun that a rich fenian.

Is this for real!!!

of course it, i hate celtic.
Image
handy
Apprentice
Apprentice
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:04 pm

Re: Rangers

Post by handy »

Hibs seven wrote:
God is an Englishman wrote:I'd still rather be a broke hun that a rich fenian.

Is this for real!!!
sounds like he's not all there.
:shock:
handy
Apprentice
Apprentice
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:04 pm

Re: Rangers

Post by handy »

Hibs seven wrote:
handy wrote:
followfollow wrote:I am utterly disappointed on how a club with a history of 140 years can have these matters looming over the head. Surely in the past ten years, there many people aware of the situation.
I think a lot of the damage was done during the Advocaat years with the highly paid Dutch imports.
Family back home are saying the Strathclyde police wish to postpone the old firm game in March due to possible violence. The latest thing I have heard that they have been trying to pay HRBC and they have declined to accept the offer but accepted Vodofone's worse credit history.
Below is n extract from a letter on the ESPM website, he makes interesting points on how many other clubs have been excused for silimar dealings.

I have yet to see anything specific cited in either the SPL/SFA rules beyond general rules around disrepute and breaching articles of association. It seems to me we have a growing suggestion new rules and penalties should be created which flies in the face of natural justice. The only clubs I ever recall being stripped of titles are Juventus and Marseille both of which were cases involving match fixing (happy to be corrected on this point if anyone has examples). Clearly Rangers improved their cash position by using EBTS but applying this logic should Chelsea lose the EPL titles because of Roman's largesse? Should Hearts lose the Scottish Cup won during Vlad's era? What of Livingston who were allowed to win the League Cup whilst actually in administration? Should Celtic lose the trophies they won when Desmond and not the club's bank account funded Robbie Keane's wages? (Just a wee joke there to lighten the mood Bhoys. I know he won nothing) Any arrangements by which a team lives beyond their means can be considered unfair. The issue of levelling the sporting playing field, possibly with a salary cap, is a debate football generally seems reluctant to have.

The most relevant example I can think of regarding tax would be Portsmouth. Currently in their second administration they came out their first through a CVA. One of their creditors who was HMRC. In simple terms their decision not to pay the tax man, who due to the CVA received pennies in the pound not the full amount due, never resulted in any calls to strip them of their FA Cup. Arsenal too reached an agreement with HMRC on tax issues allowing them to make partial payment and avoid a potential tribunal. What penalty was imposed on them for “cheating” in the period they under paid?

I am not suggesting Rangers do not deserve punishment, I am merely requesting that they are treated in line with any other club and that vested interests are not allowed to create new rules and punishments which fly in the face of any true justice.
I think the size of club that rangers are, the Hrmc wont let rangers die.
They will work together with rangers to sort out a happy outcome for everyone concerned.

Not just Advocaat, think Souness and Murray must take some flak, Butcher, Woods, Hateley, Trevor Stevens, Mark Walters, Trevor Francis and others did not go there for poor wages.
yes I agree Hibs 7, Murray must shoulder most of the blame for this happening to rangers.
there's some impressive players that you mentioned above there.
User avatar
DOC
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach
Posts: 12834
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:37 am

Re: Rangers

Post by DOC »

what about gazza, he would not have come cheap

and as rangers lack assets, as the bear described above, they are fucked :mrgreen:
ImageImage
User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
Board Member
Posts: 51452
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Rangers

Post by God is an Englishman »

handy wrote:
Hibs seven wrote:
God is an Englishman wrote:I'd still rather be a broke hun that a rich fenian.

Is this for real!!!
sounds like he's not all there.
:shock:

I hate celtic almost as much as I hate west ham
Image
sephiroth
Squad Player
Squad Player
Posts: 1578
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:57 pm

Re: Rangers

Post by sephiroth »

assume administrator will find funds to pay the HRMC debt, probably through selling of players / capital assets, club will exit administration as a bare-bones of what it previously was, and Whyte will be in big, big trouble with the authorities.
handy
Apprentice
Apprentice
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:04 pm

Re: Rangers

Post by handy »

Is this for real!!![/quote]

sounds like he's not all there.
:shock:[/quote]


I hate celtic almost as much as I hate west ham[/quote]

Good on you mate, were so happy for you, :roll:
User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
Board Member
Posts: 51452
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Rangers

Post by God is an Englishman »

handy wrote: Good on you mate, were so happy for you, :roll:
Your opinion means fuck all to me.
Image
User avatar
DOC
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach
Posts: 12834
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:37 am

Re: Rangers

Post by DOC »

il principe wrote:assume administrator will find funds to pay the HRMC debt, probably through selling of players / capital assets, club will exit administration as a bare-bones of what it previously was, and Whyte will be in big, big trouble with the authorities.
um read my posts again and watch my first link, the assets they have will not be enough

squad would be worth 20 mil at most, murray fields training ground is unsellable as it cannot be developed and ibrox is part heritage listed, they are fucked

they owe nearly 80 million pounds and cannot float shares to fans as whyte pulled the club off the stock market, and fan part ownership wont happen as the fans do not have the money to raise enough to save the club

whyte earns money out of this no matter what, hence why he hasn't spent money, plus he cannot cover the debt himself, club goes to insolvency, he makes 18 mil
ImageImage
User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
Board Member
Posts: 51452
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Rangers

Post by God is an Englishman »

DOC wrote:
il principe wrote:assume administrator will find funds to pay the HRMC debt, probably through selling of players / capital assets, club will exit administration as a bare-bones of what it previously was, and Whyte will be in big, big trouble with the authorities.
um read my posts again and watch my first link, the assets they have will not be enough

squad would be worth 20 mil at most, murray fields training ground is unsellable as it cannot be developed and ibrox is part heritage listed, they are shiraz

they owe nearly 80 million pounds and cannot float shares to fans as whyte pulled the club off the stock market, and fan part ownership wont happen as the fans do not have the money to raise enough to save the club

whyte earns money out of this no matter what, hence why he hasn't spent money, plus he cannot cover the debt himself, club goes to insolvency, he makes 18 mil

what if their tax accountants are correct and they owe nothing?

What if they just go bankrupt?
Image
User avatar
DOC
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach
Posts: 12834
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:37 am

Re: Rangers

Post by DOC »

God is an Englishman wrote:
DOC wrote:
il principe wrote:assume administrator will find funds to pay the HRMC debt, probably through selling of players / capital assets, club will exit administration as a bare-bones of what it previously was, and Whyte will be in big, big trouble with the authorities.
um read my posts again and watch my first link, the assets they have will not be enough

squad would be worth 20 mil at most, murray fields training ground is unsellable as it cannot be developed and ibrox is part heritage listed, they are shiraz

they owe nearly 80 million pounds and cannot float shares to fans as whyte pulled the club off the stock market, and fan part ownership wont happen as the fans do not have the money to raise enough to save the club

whyte earns money out of this no matter what, hence why he hasn't spent money, plus he cannot cover the debt himself, club goes to insolvency, he makes 18 mil

what if their tax accountants are correct and they owe nothing?

What if they just go bankrupt?
the tax debt is owed, the players were paid in a way so murray could avoid paying taxes, HMRC found out and want its money back, they have to pay either way

bankrupt, insolvency, wound up, all could happen

the cops are worried about not getting paid and are unwilling to police games until pre payment is made

rangers still owe money to dufermline and dundee united too for away stand tickets, which is putting more financial pressure on these clubs

as i said they are fucked
ImageImage
User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
Board Member
Posts: 51452
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Rangers

Post by God is an Englishman »

DOC wrote:the tax debt is owed, the players were paid in a way so murray could avoid paying taxes, HMRC found out and want its money back, they have to pay either way
that's not what the tax accountants/lawyers are saying. They believe they don't owe the money which is why they are contesting it.

HMRC have even said that should they lose then they will appeal the decision, so even they are open to the fact that the might lose.
Image
User avatar
DOC
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach
Posts: 12834
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:37 am

Re: Rangers

Post by DOC »

God is an Englishman wrote:
DOC wrote:the tax debt is owed, the players were paid in a way so murray could avoid paying taxes, HMRC found out and want its money back, they have to pay either way
that's not what the tax accountants/lawyers are saying. They believe they don't owe the money which is why they are contesting it.

HMRC have even said that should they lose then they will appeal the decision, so even they are open to the fact that the might lose.
of course rangers are going to say that, because they dont think they did anything wrong, if so then why did murray walk? and why was whyte so eager to go into administration? if rangers ceases to be, as i said he gets 18 mil

he and murray fucked them big time

HMRC are probably saying appeal to get a settlement amount rather than a full amount, which as has been mentioned happens in most cases anyways, but the problem is rangers actually have no money, either does whyte
ImageImage
User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
Board Member
Posts: 51452
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Rangers

Post by God is an Englishman »

DOC wrote:of course rangers are going to say that, because they dont think they did anything wrong, if so then why did murray walk? and why was whyte so eager to go into administration? if rangers ceases to be, as i said he gets 18 mil

he and murray shiraz them big time

HMRC are probably saying appeal to get a settlement amount rather than a full amount, which as has been mentioned happens in most cases anyways, but the problem is rangers actually have no money, either does whyte

good to see this degenerated to "probably".

rangers went to administration because HMRC were about to name their own administrators. Rangers beat them to the bunch so go to make their own choice. Very clever move by the good guys.

It's a legal battle, who know who will win but remember rangers have denied they owe this money and HMrc claim they did. It's all a game and a legal battle.
Image
User avatar
DOC
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach
Posts: 12834
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:37 am

Re: Rangers

Post by DOC »

God is an Englishman wrote:
DOC wrote:of course rangers are going to say that, because they dont think they did anything wrong, if so then why did murray walk? and why was whyte so eager to go into administration? if rangers ceases to be, as i said he gets 18 mil

he and murray shiraz them big time

HMRC are probably saying appeal to get a settlement amount rather than a full amount, which as has been mentioned happens in most cases anyways, but the problem is rangers actually have no money, either does whyte

good to see this degenerated to "probably".

rangers went to administration because HMRC were about to name their own administrators. Rangers beat them to the bunch so go to make their own choice. Very clever move by the good guys.

It's a legal battle, who know who will win but remember rangers have denied they owe this money and HMrc claim they did. It's all a game and a legal battle.
who would you back in a legal battle, the crown or the dodgy administrators who rangers brought in :wink:
ImageImage
User avatar
God is an Englishman
Board Member
Board Member
Posts: 51452
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Rangers

Post by God is an Englishman »

DOC wrote:
God is an Englishman wrote:
DOC wrote:of course rangers are going to say that, because they dont think they did anything wrong, if so then why did murray walk? and why was whyte so eager to go into administration? if rangers ceases to be, as i said he gets 18 mil

he and murray shiraz them big time

HMRC are probably saying appeal to get a settlement amount rather than a full amount, which as has been mentioned happens in most cases anyways, but the problem is rangers actually have no money, either does whyte

good to see this degenerated to "probably".

rangers went to administration because HMRC were about to name their own administrators. Rangers beat them to the bunch so go to make their own choice. Very clever move by the good guys.

It's a legal battle, who know who will win but remember rangers have denied they owe this money and HMrc claim they did. It's all a game and a legal battle.
who would you back in a legal battle, the crown or the dodgy administrators who rangers brought in :wink:
hmrc don't lose many, but they do lose some. It has nothing to with these administrators, their lawyers/accountants are the ones telling rangers they are acting legally.
Image
Post Reply