RANGERRAB 3,259 Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 What information do you regard as "deliberately inaccurate"? The fact that we have been exonerated in the BTC doesn't mean it wasn't accurate information at the time. I have said in another thread that I think there is a possibility that we might recover some TV & prize money but obviously not transfer fees that were due, albeit by oldco, because you can't expect the Clubs to repay that. Also our playing in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th tiers has indeed cost us money but perhaps not as much as might be thought as ST numbers and attendances were high for the last two seasons at least albeit at lower prices. And what of the Clubs in the lower reaches who have benefited; the corollary of us getting money back would be that they would lose money. Are they to unbuild the new terraces etc that they have put up? Of course we lost sponsorhsip and European money etc but how would you quantify that? The big issue would be the cost effectiveness of any such action; care would need to be taken to ensure that the lawyers weren't the biggest earners. Negotiation seems the best way forward to me. Oh come on BH every man and his dog in this country had Rangers guilty of anything and everything and we had to accept our 'punishment' for this. Now the BTC is almost over(does anyone think HMRC will win this now?) the case against Rangers has all but collapsed.And there hasn't even been the hint of a suggestion of an apology from these ten clubs or Rhegan's SFA to say they got it wrong. Badly wrong IMO. The information these ten clubs based their decision on was nothing more than deliberate false speculation from the east end. Rangers were guilty of 'cheating' and 'playing players we couldn't otherwise afford' by cheating the tax. Who can forget Michael Kelly screaming down a mic on BBC news night he wanted titles stripped? Remember too KIllie abstained from this vote. a wise decision now methinks 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted July 26, 2014 Author Share Posted July 26, 2014 Oh come on BH every man and his dog in this country had Rangers guilty of anything and everything and we had to accept our 'punishment' for this. Now the BTC is almost over(does anyone think HMRC will win this now?) the case against Rangers has all but collapsed.And there hasn't even been the hint of a suggestion of an apology from these ten clubs or Rhegan's SFA to say they got it wrong. Badly wrong IMO.The information these ten clubs based their decision on was nothing more than deliberate false speculation from the east end. Rangers were guilty of 'cheating' and 'playing players we couldn't otherwise afford' by cheating the tax. Who can forget Michael Kelly screaming down a mic on BBC news night he wanted titles stripped? Remember too KIllie abstained from this vote. a wise decision now methinks Not arguing with any of that but those are not the reasons we had to go to the SFL. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,259 Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 Not arguing with any of that but those are not the reasons we had to go to the SFL. What were the reasons then? The oldco/newco is not an arguement. Hibz did that in 1991 when their old parent company went bust and Farmer transferred the club to his newco. I maintain all along it was deliberate lies aimed at destroying Rangers and the clubs voted accordingly It is now time for retribution. The board must seek damages for lost revenues and also players who walked away denying the club transfer fees 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted July 26, 2014 Author Share Posted July 26, 2014 What were the reasons then? The oldco/newco is not an arguement. Hibz did that in 1991 when their old parent company went bust and Farmer transferred the club to his newco. I maintain all along it was deliberate lies aimed at destroying Rangers and the clubs voted accordingly It is now time for retribution. The board must seek damages for lost revenues and also players who walked away denying the club transfer fees As I understand it, it was the newco argument primarily if not wholly and I don't know the facts of the Hibs case so I won't argue with you. I don't think you will get very far with the players argument because they were legally entitled to walk away from newco but I agree that some of the lost revenue is another matter. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,259 Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 As I understand it, it was the newco argument primarily if not wholly and I don't know the facts of the Hibs case so I won't argue with you. I don't think you will get very far with the players argument because they were legally entitled to walk away from newco but I agree that some of the lost revenue is another matter. Hibz got transferred from Forth Holdings to Farmer's newco. It's listed in wikipedia. My arguement regards the players was that the oldco was never insolvent (the BTC victorys and not owing ticketus anything). A newco need never have been created. Whoever was responsible for the newco needing to be created should be pursued the costs of the fees lost for the players who left. HMRC? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.