-
Posts
1,321 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mountain Bear
-
-
I'm not sure but that's a terrible slur on a knight of the realm...
I'm not suggesting he shouldn't be punished, just that 2 years seems excessive. He already lost his job (Thistle sacked him) I'd have thought a 6 month ban with a further year suspended to be applied should he fall foul again is more appropriate. This is assuming he's not some sort of addict, in which case some sort of assistance might have been more beneficial.
I wouldn't argue with that John.
He may have been made an example of which would be tough on him personally. I believe it's a big problem in football these days though.
0 -
What's the relevance of that ?
No serious athlete can perform at the peak of their ability whilst using cocaine.
They're selling supporters short, setting a poor example to those who idolise them and failing to show respect to the Clubs that employ them.
By all means try and help them, but it's quite right IMO that they should face serious repercussions.
0 -
Am I the only one who thinks a two year ban is a little harsh? It's not performance enhancing after all, at least not his football performance.
I wonder if his off-field behaviour was the reason behind his release, at the time I was baffled why we didn't retain him, he left us to join a club two leagues higher.
How many lines of coke do you think Sir Chris Hoy took when he was preparing for the Olympics?
0 -
I don't want go all SNP on you brahim . But it might be worth letting us vote again unless you're adding our revised pledges
The Gersnet dinner is something I'm happy to participate in more than once in a generation...
Would be good to see some of our many newer contributors make it along too.
0 -
At the time of the CVA/liquidation vote, HMRC were recorded as being owed £21m, which was over the 25% needed to reject and such proposals.
The vote took place in 2012 and HMRC blocked it, and I can't see another vote taking place (why would it?) and I can't see HMRC changing their vote.
King claims to have taken expert professional advice on this. He may even have spoken to HMRC, who knows?
There's likely to be more BDO litigation to come, so the creditors' pot may increase in size and as I said earlier, a large portion of them would settle for less than 100% of what they're owed to make this happen.
Perhaps HMRC would relent if they thought they could recover everything due to them from the Whyte era?
Maybe I'm letting my heart rule my head here and I'm sure there are many obstacles to overcome, but I'm optimistic that something may eventually come of this.
0 -
What a relief it is to be discussing liquidators, the BTC and OldCo again, after all the football related posts recently! [emoji38]
0 -
Great to see him score a cracker of a goal and then acknowledging that corner of the ground before the restart.
0 -
Just watched the Manager's post match interview and he wasn't happy at all with the performance. Sounds like the players weren't either. Good.
An "inquest" after a lacklustre 3:0 home win is a very positive sign IMO.
0 -
I thought the football creditors £3m got paid?
And the question is without including the BTC could HMRC have blocked the CVA? Ticketus were prepared to do a CVA IIRC
Good point Rab. BDO had £3m shown against football creditors in their latest report.
I suspect they've frozen the totals as at the time of the liquidation, rather than showing what's currently outstanding, because I do recall that NewCo had to pick up the OldCo footballing debts at the time.
0 -
I think that you're mistaken on point 1. As far as I'm aware the liquidation process was nothing to do with the BTC so the appeals don't really come into it. It was more to do with the other amounts due and HMRC refused to accept the deal. I'm therefore not sure how you can claim they will "certainly" accept 50p-60p in the £. HMRC held 38% of the debt which is enough to prevent such agreements. HMRC don't seem to be acting like a normal creditor in this, possibly as a deterrent to others.
HMRC are listed by BDO as an unsecured creditor re £94m, so if they won the EBT case, it would put an end to any realistic hope of resurrecting Oldco.
I agree that the Craig Whtye era portion of the HMRC debt (£15m?) might be more of an issue re a creditors arrangement, but I'm sure the vast majority of Ticketus £27m, the Directors £20m, ordinary shareholders £10m, Debenture holders £8m, Trade Creditors £7m and football creditors £3m would all sign up.
In fact I'm sure some of them would waive their entitlement. As you know taking companies back out of liquidation doesn't happen often so I'm not sure what % of the outstanding debt HMRC would need to be able to block a deal.
0 -
I don't see the need to make any comment at this point.
It could be giving us false hope. Announce it once it's finalised, but say nothing until that point, as there's no need.
There are two massive dependencies:
1. HMRC run out of appeals and accept their claim failed.
2. Any material risk from other legal claims over Oldco is removed.
As far as I can tell these things could take a while, but are quite likely to come to pass eventually. Beyond those dependencies, it's just a matter of simple arithmetic. Creditors will certainly do a deal for 50-60p in the £, especially as Club Deck Bondholders would form a pretty high proportion of the outstanding debt.
I'd actually been wondering about the possibility based on what BDO had been saying in their latest correspondence to Bondholders, so I don't think we should be too critical of DK for mentioning the possibility. You're right that there's no need to say anything now, but it's certainly not just moonbeams.
As for all the new club nonsense, my answer is, and will remain, that there only two opinions which matter on that subject, one is that of the Rangers' support and the other is that of the football authorities. Others can, and probably will, say what they like.
0 -
That was a superb read. Thanks and congrats to all involved.
0 -
McCoist undoubtedly deserves criticism for his signings, tactics, seeming inability to motivate his team and for focusing on a meaningless unbeaten run in league 2, when he should have been blooding youngsters for the final 8 games. I'm also disappointed that it took so long for him to reach a settlement with the current Board.
I'm reluctant to go much further than that, unless someone can shed more light on the murky world of power struggles, black-ops style PR, illegality and greed that was Ibrox in recent years.
I don't know how long he worked for nothing during the admin period (he has said in the past that it was "months") and I don't know how much of that loss and subsequent pay reductions, he eventually recovered.
However, if it was indeed Ally who forced Green to stand up to those who wanted to strip us of titles, then for that alone he would deserve our enduring gratitude.
I suspect that history might judge him a little less harshly than most Bears do at the moment.
0 -
I'm not sure our squad is big enough to go to the final stages of all 4 competitions, but hopefully the League will be sufficiently comfortable to allow us to prioritise the Scottish Cup.
Getting Euro football back would be a massive boost for the Club and the support as TannochsideBear said.
0 -
Voted for 30th Jan, but the 16th would be ok for me too.
0 -
Attendance was 44050
A decent attendance obviously and the reduction from the Hibs game can be partially explained by there only being a handful of Raith fans taking up the whole corner, but I'm surprised we were a few thousand Bears short of a sellout in the Clubdeck.
The football we're watching deserves a full house every game. Especially at 3pm on a Saturday.
0 -
Anyone got a spare drone?
0 -
none of his previous employers have been known for having especially good commercial sense
We're hiring the individual not his previous employers.
0 -
I'll vote when I can get to a PC, but it wouldn't be the same without BH and 26th Dec isn't an option.
Something to look forward to in Jan would be good.
0 -
As long as they're holding back sufficient cash to avoid being diluted in any forthcoming share issue, then great.
0 -
we'll start at the bottom of the stairs on Saturday night
I climb Munros to keep me fit for the Club Deck stairs!
0 -
The answer for the opposition is easy...do the same Rainbow Flick against us in return.
0 -
Cheap at half the price. I remember some nugget having a go at aj when he was opposing Whyte for having a Starbucks coffee because that's what toxic wanted.
They're as mad as a box of frogs.
0 -
For the first time in ages I noticed the Rangers Supporters Loyal's usual suspects on Twitter today, telling anyone who'd listen (not many), that we'd been lied to and that Gilligan and Murray were taking £5k per week in expenses between them.
Still peddling the rubbish that's being fed to ill Phil and seemingly oblivious to the progress being made on and off the park.
Bizarre folk with bizarre agendas.
0
Rangers players have urine tests every day...
in Rangers Chat
Posted
There are plenty of professions where breaking the law would not only lose you your job, but bar you from practicing / performing it elsewhere.
Each case should be judged on its merits, but I'm happy that the Scottish football authorities seem to be taking a stand on this.
If the FA take a different view in exactly the same circumstances, it's not double standards, just a lack of standards on their part.