The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
McMav said:
No it was because they had clauses that would have meant zero chance of hmrc agreeing to any cva. But keep peddling your non truths.
Click to expand...

Your not still peddling the myth that the CVA will be accepted are you? :p

Ive already proved that HMRC will not accept a CVA as Rangers have failed to keep up with the requirements for that. (paying your tax on time being the main one).
 
Metalface Mark said:
Your not still peddling the myth that the CVA will be accepted are you? :p

Ive already proved that HMRC will not accept a CVA as Rangers have failed to keep up with the requirements for that. (paying your tax on time being the main one).
Click to expand...

Dont see where I stated that. I said TBK would NEVER have got past the first hurdle as they were going to pay off all football creditors in full and HMRC would never have agree'd to that. There is more chance of Green getting a CVA as he his cva treats all unsecured creditors the same. I'm not saying he will but it would not have been thrown out within seconds of getting the proposal unlike TBK's offer.

Tell me Mark what will you do IF HMRC agree to a CVA. I know a few helpline numbers that may help you. :D
 
McMav said:
Dont see where I stated that. I said TBK would NEVER have got past the first hurdle as they were going to pay off all football creditors in full and HMRC would never have agree'd to that. There is more chance of Green getting a CVA as he his cva treats all unsecured creditors the same. I'm not saying he will but it would not have been thrown out within seconds of getting the proposal unlike TBK's offer.

Tell me Mark what will you do IF HMRC agree to a CVA. I know a few helpline numbers that may help you. :D
Click to expand...

Cool, Ill give you a shout if that ever happens then ;)

As I said though, HMRC wont accept a CVA anyway, so its pie in the sky anyway, these guys are clever guys, they know full well a CVA was never going to work from the outset, they didnt see the benefit in giving a boat load of cash to the administrators when it could be kept for newco.

McMav said:
I know he met the RFFF yesterday and if he has its in an unpaid capacity. He has also attended SPL and SFA meetings so I dare say he has been having some input for the past week or 2.
Click to expand...

Maybe Im going loopy, but the last two days Ive thought Leggo's blogs have been for the most part, reasonable, he's saying today what I said last week.

"After all, Charles Green is a noted and proven liar.

Witness the 20 worldwide investors who never were.

Witness the £20M he said he had available for Rangers, of which there is no sign.

Witness the pledge that Charles Green promised Rangers will emerge from administration, debt free.

Witness the fact is that Rangers will owe Charles Green £13.5M."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...xecutive-Stewart-Regan.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Rangers are on their own, says Regan.
 
Last edited:
The same Stuart Regan who had a tweet as afavourite that stated they would like to See McCulloch Hung. Sorry for the Head of the SFA to have that as a favourite shows he is not fit for his job. I'm sure we'll get the same excuse as Lennon gave. My Twitter was hacked honest.
 
McMav said:
The same Stuart Regan who had a tweet as afavourite that stated they would like to See McCulloch Hung. Sorry for the Head of the SFA to have that as a favourite shows he is not fit for his job. I'm sure we'll get the same excuse as Lennon gave. My Twitter was hacked honest.
Click to expand...

No he has claimed he added it to his favourites in order to be offended by it at a later date. He has claimed it is no big deal, despite publically appearing to condone the murder of a Rangers player. Hugh Dallas was sacked for less.

What the **** has a person in Regan's position doing with a Twitter in any case?
 
Gav said:
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sco...u-wont-hound-me-out-of-SFA.html#ixzz1x5Sw02ae




So FIFA aren't going to be taking any action..... the haters aren't going to be happy..
Click to expand...


Are these quotes good or bad for Rangers :confused: No deals? So has to be an expulsion or suspension?

FIFA not taking action because they have already told them this?

“We’ve advised our members that we don’t want matters taken to a civil court.If they wish to remain members of the SFA then they MUST abide by our rules.”
Click to expand...

So last statement means expulsion or suspension?

Who knows eh!
 
Indeed who knows. However I wouldn't want to be him if he does kick Rangers out as there is an element like there is in any teams support that will I'm sure be after him for it.
 
Nah, knowing the SFA it'll mean "Don't do it again or we will be very cross."
Oh and you can't let fear of the idiot/hooligan element of ANY teams fan base dictate any decision, ever.
 
Last edited:
chameleon said:
Nah, knowing the SFA it'll mean "Don't do it again or we will be very cross."
Oh and you can't let fear of the idiot/hooligan element of ANY teams fan base dictate any decision, ever.
Click to expand...

I agree. I still fully expect suspension from scottish cup 2012/2013 to be used even though along with expulsion and suspension of membership it was deemed to be too harsh a punishment.
 
I still don't understand how the new owners can buy £115 million worth of assets for £5.5 million? Surely the job of the liquidators would be to get the best possible price and create the maximum amount of money for the creditors? If the newco buys the assets and business what would there be left for the new liquidators?
 
McMav said:
Actually it was on top of the 100k fine the other sanctions available including suspension and expulsion were deemed too harsh cup ban was one of those other sanctions.
Click to expand...

"The sanctions available included expulsion from participation in the game and termination or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, which would have had a similar effect.

"The appellate tribunal observes that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club.
"The disciplinary tribunal rejected these as too severe and this appellate tribunal agrees with that conclusion."

There was never any mention of a cup ban being too harsh, for the reason it would be extremely lenient given other clubs bans from the cup for administration errors.
 
chameleon said:
I still don't understand how the new owners can buy £115 million worth of assets for £5.5 million? Surely the job of the liquidators would be to get the best possible price and create the maximum amount of money for the creditors? If the newco buys the assets and business what would there be left for the new liquidators?
Click to expand...

The old debt ridden company.
 
Metalface Mark said:
"The sanctions available included expulsion from participation in the game and termination or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, which would have had a similar effect.

"The appellate tribunal observes that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club.
"The disciplinary tribunal rejected these as too severe and this appellate tribunal agrees with that conclusion."

There was never any mention of a cup ban being too harsh, for the reason it would be extremely lenient given other clubs bans from the cup for administration errors.
Click to expand...

However as it was on top of a 100000k fine, the maximum they could award it wouldn't have been that lenient. If it's lenient then it shouldn't be an option for bringing the game into disrepute.
 
Metalface Mark said:
"The sanctions available included expulsion from participation in the game and termination or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, which would have had a similar effect.

"The appellate tribunal observes that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club.
"The disciplinary tribunal rejected these as too severe and this appellate tribunal agrees with that conclusion."

There was never any mention of a cup ban being too harsh, for the reason it would be extremely lenient given other clubs bans from the cup for administration errors.
Click to expand...

How many times has it been pointed out to you, the other clubs you refer to were not banned from the cup. They played in a cup tie with ineligible players and in doing so had the scoreline in previous tie overturned eliminating them from the cup.

1 is a ban, which is a potential punishment for binging the game into disrepute. The other is being knocked out of the cup after the fact due to breaking the registration rules of the cup competition. They are in no way similar.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom