Bluedell

So what about all the other stuff that they have been up to?

Was speaking to the Goalie last week and he's been off the drink for 18 months and is looking well.

So my thoughts explain why we are in this sorry state? I didn't realise I had so much influence So that was the reason that they didn't transfer across and it was nothing to do with the fact that they didn't want to play in the 3rd division and could get great deals on free transfers? I do have sympathy with this. It can have an impact, as it probably did last season when the mangement and presumably the players learnt that Jelavic was being sod in january. However I still fail to see why that should have any impact on this season.

Yeah, we came out of NIAR with cash in the bank so we could afford all the players during that period. The spending that we could not afford came later. However I'm not surprised that an ex-Celtic player comes out with dishonesty claims that he can't substantiate. You wouldn't expect anything better from that club.

The board room appeared fairly stable for most of the season and I fail to see any connection between the recent boardroom turmoil and the performances on the pitch.

Given I haven't watched any SPL football all season, can't say I know much about him.

Yeah, they are not going to risk their professional credibility by getting involved in a cover-up.

That's not the way these things work.

P Why would that have made any difference?

Tax avoidance is something that I have a bit of knowledge of and it can be a very grey area as was seen with the BTC. People can sail close to the wind and there is often no definitive correct answer, again as was seen with the split decision on the BTC. From the little I know about the Dave King case it seems to fall into this category. If it was clear cut then the case would have been settled a long time ago. I'd agree that there's a fairly big difference between that and deliberate fraud or other criminal activity.

So are you in favour of them being appointed?

But the fact that they are an original investor doesn't preclude them from being the Easdales, does it?

If someone can demonstrate clearly that me not renewing my season ticket is in the club's best interests then I wouldn't renew (probably) but if that's not done then I will renew. We are at the stage that everything is so unclear that I can't see any benefit in not renewing.

But only because many of us were unable to renew tickets at that point. The figure being less than 1,000 was nothing to do with Ally.

Is Blue Pitch the Easdales?

Drove down on the Tuesday. The M74 drive was incredible with every bridge full of people waving us off. We were staying in Altrincham but went into Manchester in the evening. Went for a nice Italian and then off to the Ropeworks for one of the best singsongs ever. It was totally bouncing. Next morning we went into Albert Square early to sample the atmosphere. Again the place was buzzing and there was not a hint of trouble, Stayed there for a while and then for lunch and then went to Piccadilly Square, which was just too busy so we left and went to the Lowry hotel and chilled out in the balcony over-looking the canal, sharing the bar with guys like McLeish and Watson, Alan Smith, Konterman, Numan etc. Very enjoyable afternoon. Got a taxi to the game. Funniest thing was a trail of bears leaving a chinese wholesalers laden down with beer. They had obviously drunk everwhere else out of the stuff. Great to see so many bluenoses in the ground. Afterwards we walked back into the centre and it was only then that we realised that there had been any trouble. Went back to the Lowry and tried in vain to get a taxi but no chance so had to wake up a mate to drive us back to Altrincham. A couple of days that will stay with me forever.

It wasn't as much as 6 months, was it? My recollection was that his form improved much earlier than that, Some time Mid Oct-mid Nov.

I remember him having a stinker against us 2 (I think) seasons ago, down at Rugby Park when he sold at least one of our goals. He seemed to have improved a lot when we played them last season. I have no idea how he performed this season as I haven't followed SPL in any shape or form. Overall I don't have a problem with us signing him.

In respect of the original question, HMRC didn't "allow" Rangers/Whyte not to pay PAYE. They would have started chasing it actively after a few months. There would probably have discussed payment schedules and would have possibly been promised payments that weren't forthcoming. They would initially look at the company's payment record and not sit down and analyse who the various directors are. I don't think there's some sort of conspiracy as some seem to imply.

What exactly has he been found not guilty of? Lying to the support about his discussions with Whyte? Signing a directors form to appoint Whyte as a director of 5088? As for the OP blogger, I haven't been impressed by some of the stuff he's come out with, particularly his original analysis of Celtic being a newco.

Available for kindle?

The fraud is the least of my concerns.

Not if the two aren't strictly related. There seems to be a feeling on this thread that because Whyte may have obtained his shares illegally that Rangers are absolved from anything that then happened while he was a director. That isn't the case. Let's say Whyte had bought over a car company illegally and the company then made defective motors which resulted in serious injuries to people. Are you suggesting that the car company should not be punished and the people can't claim compensation from the company just because Whyte bought over the company illegally?

The purchase of the shares and decisions by directors are 2 separate issues. If Whyte did something illegally during the takeover than he can be prosecuted but that is Whyte, the individual. It was Rangers, the company, that didn't pay the tax, and Whyte could be done in his position as director for illegal trading, but it's too tenuous a link under law to say that shareholders can sue the SFA and SPL for something that the company did. I know that you can see that one lead to the other, but they are distinct and different actions.

No. The fact that an individual did something illegally to acquire shares does not absolve the company of any subsequent actions. The owning of shares and decisions by directors are 2 separate things.