The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Metalface Mark said:
Its not called the Daily Rangers for nothing.
Click to expand...

Lol. The only people that refer to it as such are Celtic supporters. Similarly many Rangers fans call it the Daily Rebel.

When the chief sportswriter is Hugh Keevins it can hardly be accused of being pro Rangers.

Although in fairness that article by Keith Jackson probably sums up the standard of sports journalism in this country.
 
steve1873 said:
Were all the facts on the BBC documentary 100% accurate?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

What do you think??

They have evidence and are presenting it to the public in a television programme, fairly safe to say the BBC are not into embezzling the evidence to sensationalise such a story...

So yes no reason to doubt it really.
 
pingwing said:
:rolleyes:

What do you think??

They have evidence and are presenting it to the public in a television programme, fairly safe to say the BBC are not into embezzling the evidence to sensationalise such a story...

So yes no reason to doubt it really.
Click to expand...

Yet I have already given 1 example of a fact that was incorrect, and easily checked. If a serious investigative journalist cannot get even basic facts correct, then does that not cast doubt on any other "facts" they might try and pass off?
 
pingwing said:
:rolleyes:

What do you think??

They have evidence and are presenting it to the public in a television programme, fairly safe to say the BBC are not into embezzling the evidence to sensationalise such a story...

So yes no reason to doubt it really.
Click to expand...

Ouch, I think steve1873 is/was looking for someone to say yes just so he could bring up the point below which he mentioned earlier. The implication being that if you can cast doubt on any part of it, regardless of how small, that you cast doubt on the whole thing.

Personally I'm not convinced that an inaccuracy necessarily invalidates the whole but it does mean that scrutiny needs to be applied. The substantial bulk of the programme may be entirely fair and provable but I haven't watched it to know for sure.

steve1873 said:
But when other parts of their research were so poor (Pedro Mendes did not leave Rangers to join Vitoria Guimares), then it must cast doubt on the rest of the program.
Click to expand...
 
semi-pro waster said:
Ouch, I think steve1873 is/was looking for someone to say yes just so he could bring up the point below which he mentioned earlier. The implication being that if you can cast doubt on any part of it, regardless of how small, that you cast doubt on the whole thing.

Personally I'm not convinced that an inaccuracy necessarily invalidates the whole but it does mean that scrutiny needs to be applied. The substantial bulk of the programme may be entirely fair and provable but I haven't watched it to know for sure.
Click to expand...

That is the thing, there were numerous occasions where "evidence" was shown on screen. Specifically regarding a potential conflict of interest between Duff & Phelps and Ticketus. Leaked emails were shown on screen.

Yet, despite ensuring us all that certain players using the EBT's had "side letters" and that they had actually seen them, none were shown. If the evidence exists, show us.

The only new information of any substance that the program shed light on was a payment in 2004 for £30,000 to Graeme Souness - a clear inference that it was a bung for the Tugay transfer. And that David Murray tried and failed to pull Joanna Lumley. The rest was regurgitated from the likes of the RTC blog and the like.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Ouch, I think steve1873 is/was looking for someone to say yes just so he could bring up the point below which he mentioned earlier. The implication being that if you can cast doubt on any part of it, regardless of how small, that you cast doubt on the whole thing.

Personally I'm not convinced that an inaccuracy necessarily invalidates the whole but it does mean that scrutiny needs to be applied. The substantial bulk of the programme may be entirely fair and provable but I haven't watched it to know for sure.
Click to expand...

Yeah he's been looking to use the "one fact is slightly wrong so sweep it all under the carpet" argument for a little while...

Seeing how no one named or mentioned in the show had any interest in defending them selves out side of just blankly not talking suggests serious problems will come when this is eventually sorted out. I really don't think a tiny discrepancy can absolve Rangers or anyone associated with the club from blame or punishment from all this (fan's are separate to that but could do well to just take it for once instead of whining)
 
pingwing said:
Yeah he's been looking to use the "one fact is slightly wrong so sweep it all under the carpet" argument for a little while...

Seeing how no one named or mentioned in the show had any interest in defending them selves out side of just blankly not talking suggests serious problems will come when this is eventually sorted out. I really don't think a tiny discrepancy can absolve Rangers or anyone associated with the club from blame or punishment from all this (fan's are separate to that but could do well to just take it for once instead of whining)
Click to expand...

Who has a need to defend themselves?

The players accused of being part of the EBT? Why would they need to defend themselves? They were participants in a legal scheme administered by tax advisors and professional accountants.

Duff & Phelps? I'd say the written statements provided to the BBC prior to the documentay, but only partially covered at the end of the program were defence enough.

David Murray & Craig Whyte? Neither has any defence.

The fact remains however, that the simple basic error regarding Pedro Mendes would suggest that at least 1 of the researchers working on the program was of a poor standard. What other "facts" did the same researcher research?

As I said, the program was very poor. I actually feared it was going to be horrendous viewing, but it was nothing not already known, other than 1 or 2 small pieces of information which were hardly the smoking guns' we were led to believe.
 
You're criticising a programme for being poor because all it does is present all the information of the Rangers mess in one go...

Can't be bothered to spell it out to you any simpler than if anyone had not done something wrong, when presented with these allegations they should clearly be able to come to the BBC and deny them on record. Everyone took the typical line and refused to respond once presented with evidence they are lying or has really proven the rules (all eyes on Souness and his random pay out for selling Rangers a player)
 
steve1873 said:
Lol. The only people that refer to it as such are Celtic supporters. Similarly many Rangers fans call it the Daily Rebel.

When the chief sportswriter is Hugh Keevins it can hardly be accused of being pro Rangers.

Although in fairness that article by Keith Jackson probably sums up the standard of sports journalism in this country.
Click to expand...

No, pretty much fans of all clubs call it that, you should go on a multi team forum like Pie and Bovril more to get other teams viewpoints.
 
Metalface Mark said:
Good news Steve, Green has done a deal with the taxman.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/0...-he-s-done-a-deal-with-taxman-86908-23873933/

Shame it cant be true, HMRC has never agreed to a CVA on any football club.
Click to expand...

That is because in England there its the football creditors rule. Hmrc just failed to get that removed in the courts this week. They will not agree a cva when a group will get paid off in full leaving whatever pence in the pound to be shared out. There is no
FCR in Scotland so this time they can agree, I'm not saying they have but they might. IMO this would have been a stumbling block for tbk cva as they planned to pay off football debt in full.

Plus don't forget we are The Establishments team.
 
Last edited:
McMav said:
That is because in England there its the football creditors rule. Hmrc just failed to get that removed in the courts this week. They will not agree a cva when a group will get paid off in full leaving whatever pence in the pound to be shared out. There is no
FCR in Scotland so this time they can agree, I'm not saying they have but they might. IMO this would have been a stumbling block for tbk cva as they planned to pay off football debt I'm full.
Click to expand...

No, the HMRC have never agreed a CVA with any football club in Scotland either. They have always refused, its got nothing to do with the football creditors rule in England.
 
The problem is that HMRC will only agree to a CVA if the CVA includes for all payment of back taxes, not a pence of the pound deal on taxes as well. If D&P agree to this it means there's no money left in the pot for the other creditors (Ticketus), so they'll vote to reject as well.

Edit: The Football Creditors Rule actually protected clubs from HMRC in England & Wales - not having it in Scotland means that HMRC are treated on an equal footing.
 
pingwing said:
You're criticising a programme for being poor because all it does is present all the information of the Rangers mess in one go...

Can't be bothered to spell it out to you any simpler than if anyone had not done something wrong, when presented with these allegations they should clearly be able to come to the BBC and deny them on record. Everyone took the typical line and refused to respond once presented with evidence they are lying or has really proven the rules (all eyes on Souness and his random pay out for selling Rangers a player)
Click to expand...

You clearly paid attention eh!

The Souness deal was inferred to be an alleged bung for BUYING a player from Rangers. Try keep up. The payment could have been for anything and other than the timing (a month or so prior to the deal I believe) there is nothing to suggest any wrongdoing.

What allegations would anyone need to deny? None of the players did anything wrong. Duff & Phellps have denied the allegations and inferences made, or are you ignoring the written statements given which explain that due to legal advice they cannot appear on the program - which shows Daly's "phonecall" to be nothing other than a sham.

So other than that, what "evidence" was given?
 
Jokester said:
The problem is that HMRC will only agree to a CVA if the CVA includes for all payment of back taxes, not a pence of the pound deal on taxes as well. If D&P agree to this it means there's no money left in the pot for the other creditors (Ticketus), so they'll vote to reject as well.

Edit: The Football Creditors Rule actually protected clubs from HMRC in England & Wales - not having it in Scotland means that HMRC are treated on an equal footing.
Click to expand...

No, the football creditors rule gives ehhh... football creditors first dibs. Meaning they are paid in full, meaning that for HMRC to accept they would have to accept to certain creditors getting a better pence in the pound deal than themselves.

It only prevents football clubs from HMRC if HMRC hold less than 25% of the total debt and cannot vote against the CVA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom