no12

Quote:

A Members Voluntary Liquidation is a formal process for bringing the life of a limited company to an end so that the company can distribute its remaining assets to the shareholders. This can happen for reasons of retirement, intractable shareholder dispute, or simply because the limited company is no longer needed. The process can be done informally too, without the expense of a liquidation, subject to certain conditions, which is explained also. The company must be solvent, i.e. it can afford to pay all its creditors so that there is something left over for the shareholders. If the company is insolvent, it must be dealt with by another type of insolvency procedure, whether administration, receivership, voluntary arrangement, creditors' voluntary liquidation or compulsory liquidation.

The main advantage of the members voluntary liquidation liquidation procedure is that distributions made in the liquidation count as capital receipts in the hands of the shareholders rather than income, and are subject to capital gains tax rather than income tax. This is likely to be beneficial if Entrepreneur's Relief is available for liquidations of trading companies

Although Members Voluntary Liquidations are for solvent companies, the process is in many ways similar to handling an insolvent liquidation, for this reason, only a Licensed Insolvency Practitioner can legally be appointed Liquidator in an MVL.

A Members Voluntary Liquidation can also be used in a tax-efficient manner where a company running more than one business wishes to split off one or more businesses. This is known as a Section 110 reconstruction and is explained below.

End quote.

Is it likely? Well I don't think anybody would be brave enough to suggest it - it would certainly not be in the club's interest, at the moment. A more likely scenario is that we lose the appeal on the tax issue (which is apparently VERY likely, unfortunately) at which point a MVL becomes impossible as it is an available option for solvent companies only.

I have to agree, Anchorman. It is over-optimistic to expect watertight PR from a blustering bully like J.T. whose credibility mostly depends on people believing his own evaluation of himself. Some people do indeed believe it, most do not. This is one of the worst signings for the club in recent years, and that's saying something.

It is disappointing how regularly our club feels that it's short of arseholes.

What utter shite!

I am well over 40 and remember very well the tragic frequency of the bloody, bloody murders perpetrated by and on members of both communities just across the water. To pretend that Glasgow was somehow isolated and insulated from that state of affairs is naive at best. The writer here has a not-so-hidden agenda and the vast majority of real football fans don't wan't the likes of him to have anything to do with the club whatsoever. We need him to stop pretending to be a football fan and perhaps to join a battle re-enactment society instead.

Aye, in any other season in the SPL we'd be asking serious questions if we hadn't had an away win by this time.

After the events of the last twelve months it must be obvious that Scottish football needs completely restructured. Any expansion of the SPL would be an attempt to save that infamous institution and must be resisted. Any invitation to join in with a reconstruction which involves the SPL in any form MUST be rejected out of hand.

"Who do you support, Rangers or Celtic?" and I chose Rangers because I liked the colour blue. It was a free choice and there were Celtic fans at my schools who were not victimised in the slightest. I only discovered the religious element when I became older and even then I still couldn't really understand it except that I was definitely against the IRA.

Hah! That's bringing back memories - I chose Rangers because blue was the colour of my favourite jiumper.

I just dont get the point of that article at all, sorry.

 

What is it he is trying to say?

It's trying to say exactly what it does say.

If you're looking for something like "I love Rangers" or "I hate Rangers" don't bother reading stuff written by a historian.

That one's worth a big attendance.

If you want to find guilt, you have to go looking for it.

That is precisely why we find ourselves being overrun in our own Country.

We've sat back and let them do what they like.

I really don't want to be offensive in any way but a reader might be forgiven for reading this as being xenophobic paranoia.

By "our own country" I presume you mean Scotland? Being overrun? By whom and why have most of us not noticed this alien invasion?

Why on Earth would you go browsing Celtic forums?

Life's too short mate - that's no way to spend your time.

http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/148-rangers-is-there-for-honest-poverty

 

 

 

Excuse my clumsy metaphysical mutterings but would Rangers and Rabbie go well together?

I think they'd gang fine thegither. And I'm sure he'd be very persuasive in his anti-bigotry arguments.

We play in Europe AND we're Scottish, why not play in the UK AND be Scottish?

 

Like Gaelic and the imerial system, Scottish football is looking like a dead duck- sometimes it's best to leave things behind and adopt a new language, new units and possibly a new league, in order to prosper.

 

At least this time a UK league, like the monarchy, would be an extension of what we have already.

 

I live in England and everyone is in no doubt that I'm Scottish - in fact it's obviously more apparent than when I'm in Scotland.

 

My preference would be a European league but in the absence of that happening soon, if a chance came to play join a UK league then I'd jump at the chance as a "needs must".

 

My preference would also be to have my job somewhere nice in Scotland but I'm in England, working for a UK institution, making the most of it and I'm no less Scottish for it. I can't see why Rangers can't do the same - except, unlike me, they wouldn't have to move.

I can't agree with your careless abandonment of Scottish football. "But look at what they've done to us!", you may say - and fairly - but to turn our back on the great opportunity offered us of turning round the game in this country over the next six years really WOULD be walking away. Which we don't do, remember?

As for being Scottish in the UK, yes I know what it's like being Scottish but not in Scotland - having lived in several and worked in 29 countries over my working life I am well aware that it is not necessary to be in Scotland to have a Scottish identity - but I look forward to Rangers being a Scottish club in Europe again - we will get back there, stronger than ever, but running off to play in England would be a shameful way to do it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem have the notion that Rangers would "move". They wouldn't move, we'd still play home games at Ibrox but our away games would change and would mostly be in England - just like two away games this season.

 

Rangers are the greatest ever Scottish football team and I doubt joining the FL would change that - Celtic would be bound to follow suit and possibly others and the Scottish league would resemble that of Wales.

 

Swansea are considered the current best Welsh team with Cardiff second. They are not considered lesser to the champions of Wales whom most people couldn't name, me included.

 

I fail to see how we'd cease to be RFC - we're RFC no matter who our opposition are. So are quite a few other teams that start with 'R'. I can't see a single reason why that would change.

 

Football evolves and no-one would have guessed we'd be the the third division in Scotland but it doesn't change who we are, it's just part of our journey through time.

I agree with just about everything you say here BUT

It's not a question of physically moving - it's a matter of emotional and spiritual identity.

The idea of Celtic and others moving too does not fill me with glee.

I am a Rangers supporter but also a Scotland supporter. Or is that just old-fashioned these days?

Aye, it's all so predictable:

"And New Rangers reach the Champions' League for the first time!"

But if we MUST swallow our pride at least we have plenty to spare.

It could well satisfy that section of our support who imagine that revenge is sweet at any price but I, for one, would be very, very unhappy if the great team I have supported for over half a century were to move to England. It is, has been, and will be the greatest ever Scottish football team. The day it moves to England is the day it ceases to be RFC.

I get the impression now that if a team with few fans and a tiny stadium that meets the safety standards, gains entry to the EPL, they could be competitive and stay there as long as they are well managed.

 

Teams get and average of over £50m from Sky which could make gate receipts almost irrelevant once you take off the maintenance costs of the stadium as well as security and policing etc. Of course you'll also attract less advertising but if you're basic costs are minimal then you have say, £45m to spend on wages which is twice what we were paying.

 

With a good manager and scouts, you could easily be as competitive with any mid-table team downwards. This is why teams like Stoke, Bolton (now relegated) and Wigan can survive for so long and the likes of Swansea can immediately compete well.

 

Outside the top ten, ending at Everton with 33k average, there is little advantage to having 25k over 18k average gate.

 

I'm not even sure the advantage some of the larger crowds are with Newcastle yo-yoing recently. It seems the longer you stay in the Premiership, the stronger you get from the TV money which also attracts bigger crowds. - unless you spend badly, perform badly for your investment or overspend.

 

I used to think of Sunderland as an unambitious second tier club which averaged about 18k at games and did very little. Now they average £40k and are the 7th most supported club in the country - from a population of 280k and a large local rival like Newcastle. You have to wonder why a city the size of Edinburgh with almost 500k people cannot compete with that and have two clubs which aggregate less than 30k support.

 

So I think being a Premiership mainstay is all about spending your TV money wisely and it shows why so many clubs actually break the bank trying to get there and compete in their first season. If we worked our way up their system, promotion to the top tier and staying there would being incredibly difficult, even with 50+k fans behind us - especially with a philosophy which avoids another chance of our oblivion.

 

However, if we don't go down that route, we'll end up in a cash poor, football backwater full of feuding hatred, only to stagnate for the rest of time.

Well, I suppose supporters are always free to transfer allegiance to a prosperous English team but most of us know that this is not really what it's all about, don't we?

I was referring to post #7 which was needlessly antagonistic and so ironically divisive...

I'm sure others will wonder, as I do, quite how you work that out.

I don't think it's "being arsey" to point out that now is not the time to divide our support.

You mean follow the team in the UK?

Please reread the title of the thread.

Again, I say this is no time to split our support. It would be interesting to know what percentage of us would follow, follow a team in England.

Ffs what next?

I think we did pretty well for a. 3rd division team against a second.

this might be the time for fans of our club to lobby fifa and uefa as to the fact we are no longer a nation its now team gb it would be nice to see the oafs at hampden brought down a peg no more scotland,northern ireland,wales but team great britain .

It is rather revealing that you left England out of your "no more" list.

I'd say this is not the time to start such a split in our support - a very large percentage of us of us see our club as Scottish first and British second.

I suppose we shouldn't take anything for granted. After all, they are a league above us!