frost

I doubt it's as simple as that, there were negotiations for a while, that's how the registration embargo got delayed afterall, then a 'take it or leave it' offer was made about 24 hours before our first match of the season. We could have gone off and looked for a membership elsewhere technically, however unlikely it was to work.

 

I said in theory because while I and the rest of us think we had a right to it, after liquidation of the old company I don't think we did legally.

The embargo was ruled ultra vires by a Judge it wasn't delayed, Green pissed in the Judge's eye and capitulated to the sfa/spl.

We didn't have any right to the membership in theory though.

 

They gave conditions we had to accept if we wanted it.

Strangely I was under the impression that our unbroken history gave us every right to membership, now you tell me we had no right in theory.

it was never going to come to us being out of football, never.

Far to practical and sensible, doesn't suit the dramatic script though.

Now we have a licence , now we have membership to the SFL now we have a great deal of leverage , before we had nothing , they had us over a barrel but if you and fans like you want to remember things differently then thats your perogative.

 

I didnt fancy being put out of football completely for at least a year and dont think Green had much option , infact I actually think he showed some real balls by taking us down to the 3rd

We are where we are Green made his decision after pissin in the Judges eye no point crying about it, we will now never know what the outcome would have been if he had the balls to use the sky leverage, but we do know the outcome of him not using it.

Fans like me don't believe the sfa/spl would have committed financial suicide, right at this moment their finances are in a parlous state, obviously you do so we agree to differ.

You almost sound like you're defending the likes of Rhegan...

What I won't defend is someone who allowed us to be raped and kicked from pillar to post when he could have called their bluff in the very beginning, what exactly do you think he is going to do now if they decide to strip us of titles.

He has already had a court rule in our favour and pissed in the Judges eye.

Green signed any influence we had away, he is now trying to pin the blame elsewhere, he bottled it pure and simple anyone who thinks he is now going to start fighting back after surrendering his and our bullets needs a reality check.

I'd say he did it to protect our future as a football club, you are aware they had our key to playing football in their hands?

 

Calling out the corruptness won't cost us anything, can only help.

I see it a lot more simple than that why he couldn't or didn't is his problem, no Rangers would have simply meant the death of Scottish football if you think the sfa/spl would have went down that route we will agree to disagree, Green blinked first simples.

Green has no say over the signing of any tv deals sky or otherwise, the SFL made that decision after they sold the tv rights to the spl, Green had the power and gave it away to protect his lenders.

We are where we are get used to it, talk is cheap but cost us plenty.

Our sharp operator of a CEO held the fate of Scottish football and ours in his hands and he folded like a cheap suit.

Despite Green's bolshie words he capitulated on everything worth fighting for, anyone who thinks different should consider who has facilitated the continuance of the corrupt sfa/spl.

Green could have stopped much of our pain in its tracks, all he had to do was deny any camera's other than our own entry to Ibrox, no Rangers tv agreement no spl and a bankrupt sfa.

Unfortunately his heart wasn't as big as his rhetoric, he had an investment to protect.

One swallow a summer does not make, or even a manager with 1000 times the resources of his opponents, best to just enjoy.

Another for the mix ?

@rangerstaxcase

RTC Exclusive: Charles Green is the subject a new tax inquiry- separate from the Zeus investigation.

Do the liquidators have the power to declare the sale as an act of gratuitous alienation or is that a matter for the courts alone? I'm not being facetious it's a genuine question.

May be of interest I have just been directed to it.

http://bit.ly/QX1iH6

And they failed? Doubt it's too much to worry about, they're just annoyed by their own fuck ups.

Yes they failed Hodge said it had no bearing on the administration, and then very strangely and publicly contradicted himself by not releasing D+P from liability and saying he would judge the matter further after seeing the IPA report and other input from the liquidators.

If someone wants to stop the IPO they'll need to do it soon though.

 

My point was the liquidation process may take years.

The process had an attempt to stop it yesterday by CB, will they and ticketus join forces to facilitate or hinder the liquidation process only time will tell.

It could take years for it all to conclude fully, are we really meant to live in fear and not move forward on this off chance?

That is the point, are we going to be allowed to move forward i.e. have IPO's before all is settled or unsettled. It is all fine and well people saying it won't affect us or Green, the liquidators may come to a different conclusion and Hodge could also after considering the IPA report along with the liquidators observations.

HMRC also said the liquidation process was to look at individuals and let Rangers make a fresh start. So Duff and Phelps may get in trouble but there's no need at all for that to damage us.

There is no need for or any wish for anything to do more damage to us in this whole sorry mess, that doesn't mean it can't happen hoping doesn't make salient points under investigation go away.

I know it's a bit of a cliche amongst us but I think you're letting enemy propaganda give you a bit too much fear on this. Yes in theory it is possible but it's highly unlikely as bluedell says.

One of Hectors own and one of our own both the same has said to several of us, that the liquidators will be looking at specific areas one being this much publicised water tight contract that D + P entered into with Green to the apparent denial of any other party, also the destination of the unauthorised removal of over £2 million from the accounts by D + P and where those funds were returned from when the matter was rectified.

The fact that Hodge has not released D + P from liability is concerning if not exactly worrying, always better to stick to what we know rather than what the mhanks wish for.

I only hope that the removed and returned funds have not been on a carousel via Green or his people.

There do appear to be questions that need answered by D&P but that's for them to deal with as I've said above. It won't affect us. A conflict of interest would not invalidate the transfer of the club and no judge is going to reverse anything. If anyone else (eg TBK) had an issue then they should ahve raised it at the time. All anyone can now do is claim from D&P for financial loss.

Do you know what the powers of the liquidators extend to, I have heard many times that if they decide the assets have been undersold they can reverse the sale and use any proceeds they accrued for creditors, would this sort of power be in their remit.

That's an issue for the administrators and not us.

 

 

 

There are no grounds for this and it won't happen.

Was wondering exactly what this article infers, they seem to think there may be questions that need answering.

http://bit.ly/TVYOY4

I know there are a few financial guys who post here, can they say how this IPO would be able to be put on offer while the administrators are still not released from liability by the court are under investigation by the IPA and the liquidators have only been put in to begin their investigation.

Can the IPO proceed would it be lawful, what would happen if the IPA and the liquidators said the administrators had acted illegally or outwith their powers, or sold assets at a false price.

If the IPO goes ahead and the worst case scenario occurs that the administration was quashed and had to start again, what would happen to punters money who had bought into the IPO, would they be insured or indemnified against loss ?

We won the Motherwell match, why would McCoist try something different? That doesn't seem logical to me.

The line up against motherwell after the game started was forced on McCoist it was sheer luck, pity he doesn't appear to have learned from that slice of luck.

Ian Holloway.

Are you saying WS is not a Rangers man?.

 

If he returned to Rangers it would be as a Director not in a football capacity,I think it would be a good appointment having a football man on the board

Walter is a manager end of anyone who thinks otherwise needs to think again, as for McColl etc Rangers men ? who couldn't match Green in the steal of all time, enough said.

I wonder if when he was fronting the McColl take over what the answer to the OP would have been?

How did that turn out again ? Rangers men do me a favour.