Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Good for the guy on Stv to highlight the contradiction in King's comments today to previous comments.

The toothless tiger yelps :hilarious

As mentioned my favourite part of King's waffle is referring to Sevco as being 'demoted'. How can you be demoted when you applied to join the league?

Mr King.

Your nasty despicable club cheated.

End of.

Now you expect us to ignore it?

Aye, right.

I don't know what's going on but I hope Mike Ashley wins.

Rangers fans must be torn as they rage at Ashley whilst wearing Donnay trainers and a No Fear tracksuit.

"Certain players may not have signed for the club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings, but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch"

Hunbelieveable. Did he not already admit a while back that they did get an unfair advantage:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GordonHFC

Can someone remind him of his statement in the daily mail on 19 June 2012 where he states they may have gained an unfair advantage.

---

Discussing that on Sportsound with the journalist who reported it.

Playing to the gallery to deflect from the current financial mess at the club.

Pretty please, Warburton to Fulham.

Fair brightened up my evening, that thought.

Meltdown along Copland Road methinks.

http://wildingmuses.blogspot.co.uk/2...-word.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That statement from King must be one of those "restrained and tempered" responses that the ibroxnoise website was banging on about due to the usual Rangers dignity!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Famous Fiver

Pretty please, Warburton to Fulham.

Fair brightened up my evening, that thought.

Meltdown along Copland Road methinks.

---

Is that a likely possibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by givescotlandfreedom

As mentioned my favourite part of King's waffle is referring to Sevco as being 'demoted'. How can you be demoted when you applied to join the league?

---

I agree 100%

But why do the media never pull them up on this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoxburghHibs

I agree 100%

But why do the media never pull them up on this?

---

Because it would divide their readership/viewership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoxburghHibs

I agree 100%

But why do the media never pull them up on this?

---

Don't want to upset the institution or it's masses.................

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/scr...g-in-excelsis/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacomoseven

And I am absolutely focused on the well-being of my own club when I say that Scottish football must punish the cheats.

Unfortunately, I fear that the Huns are too dumb to realise that the people to blame for this sorry mess are not bloggers or rival fans, but the people who have been running their club. Dave King included.

His statement suggests that the pressure is starting to get to him.

---

Utterly out of his depth, hope he keeps talking.

https://twitter.com/ChrisGraham76


Further Sevconian threats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3pm

Warburton on Fulham's shortlist.

---

If he's wise he'll get out of the mad hoose pronto. The match at ER was a sign, loaf. It's down hill from here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

https://twitter.com/ChrisGraham76


Further Sevconian threats.

---

Dave King statement:

It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers’ history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club’s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club.

As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations.

First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances.

Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club’s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue.

Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs.

This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied.

Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs.

For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.

So would anyone gain a trophy if they get stripped of them,even if the other clubs wouldn't want them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leggeto

So would anyone gain a trophy if they get stripped of them,even if the other clubs wouldn't want them

---

The yams will take them. They have a special relationship with cups and don't mind how they get their hands on them. Keeps it in the family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macca70

Dave King statement:

It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers’ history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club’s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club.

As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations.

First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances.

Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club’s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue.

Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs.

This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied.

Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs.

For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.

---

He clearly says that had it not been for the financial/tax set up, certain players wouldn't have signed but goes on to say that didn't give them an advantage on the pitch!!

What a load of lies. This is just going to turn every other club against them even more than they already are against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leggeto

So would anyone gain a trophy if they get stripped of them,even if the other clubs wouldn't want them

---

I doubt it. If the trophies were stripped then the respective competitions would show no winner I assume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bostonhibby

The yams will take them. They have a special relationship with cups and don't mind how they get their hands on them. Keeps it in the family.

---

Celtic would be claiming the titles for 2nd place too I rekon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macca70

Dave King statement:

It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers’ history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club’s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club.

As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations.

First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances.

Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club’s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue.

Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs.

This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied.

Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs.

For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.

---

Most football fans are in a unique position to make the one observation that matters.

Sporting integrity.

At today's Court hearing can anyone give a brief summary of what Rangers defence against Greens claim was based on ?

"Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs."

......Could start by releasing a statement disowning the worship of 1690 and all that - or hell might freeze over first

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leggeto

Celtic would be claiming the titles for 2nd place too I rekon

---

Queen of the South might want to claim 2008 Scottish Cup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scorrie

I doubt it. If the trophies were stripped then the respective competitions would show no winner I assume.

---

Read somewhere that if titles were stripped the new winners could face claims from player's re bonuses....On the other side could the Clubs claim for loss of money from SFA or UEFA?

Anyhow, should just be stripped of titles, and the records showing no winners in the cheating years.......(IMO)