He's not involved with any of them, sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Besides, he's too busy warding off irate Hibbies in StennyGate.:cb
Printable View
He's not involved with any of them, sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Besides, he's too busy warding off irate Hibbies in StennyGate.:cb
I don't think this has been posted yet, I'm sure there are some folk on here who can't stand Campbell for perfectly understandable reasons, but it's a good deconstruction of their "same club" s***e (it's also almost entirely politics-free).
there are some on here, that don't like him, so much that we cant call him by his first name, 2nd name, or even both of his names:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaHiberņa
:hilarious Doesn't surprise me, I take it you just keep it pally and call him "the Rev"?Quote:
Originally Posted by monktonharp
:fishin:
Like everything else said about the subject, though, it's an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaHiberņa
That one Rangers voted on another Rangers is fact though.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm not a big fan of his but this is a good article. I was astonished at Doncaster's statement & even more astonished that no one asked the question, " if the The Rangers are the same club why did they have to apply to be accepted into the 4th tier of Scottish football"? As the author says, there was no football or SFA punishment which brought about their demotion, if they were the same club they would have remained in the top tier.Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaHiberņa
As much as it pains me to say it, I think we have to accept it's the same club. The legal aspects of it are obviously questionable but football isn't about legalities, it's about the passion. And obviously that passion (loyalty, etc.) is in the hearts and minds of the supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
If the same had happened to Hibs (when we were almost killed off by the Mercer take-over) I doubt there would be a single Hibs supporter out there that wouldn't have viewed a "new" Hibs entering the lower leagues as "their" team?
In the case of the SPFL, it suits them to view The Rangers as the "same" club as they can not only hold them to their footballing debts (a move which goes against the legal stance) but they can also carry out any disciplinary actions as "further" punishment (eg the 25 point penalty for a second administration).
I don't like it, and Doncaster should have been made to squirm during the interview, but I think we have to (inwardly) accept it.
No we do not. Here is a article written by a Jambo. Posted on all places a Celtic website. It makes for a good read.
http://celticfanzone.net/neil-doncas...idding-no-one/
If this thread is going to descend into a Same Club/ New Club debate, then I think I'll give it a miss for a while............
:wink:
Me too..... my bit is said. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
From that article.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Lofarl
"I dont understand why Hearts and almost every other club in Scotland are trying to live within their means when they should be actively pursuing the purchases of Messi, Ronaldo, Costa, etc in order to break world records, then go bust and shed the massive debt before repeating the exercise all over again."
What a difference a year makes eh? Utterly vomit inducing.
What exactly gives the Jambos the moral high-ground over their cousins on this one? That their creditors accepted f-all meaning that they achieved a CVA rather than being liquidated?
Or, the usual, total delusion, and that they have no right to pontificate to anyone.
Sorry to go off-topic but FFS that got me going!
:top marksBeat me to itQuote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/e.../12204364.html
Ashley gets another Sports Direct Loyalist on the Board
I'm seeing that SPFL were unaware of The Rangers' potential winding up order from HMRC, due to falling behind on payment of of PAYE and NI payments, but nonetheless has said (already) they are satisfied that The Ibrox club has not breached any rules, and that a "default event" has not occurred. Well, that was quick.
Livingston however were docked 5 points and fined Ģ10,000 by the SPFL after they volunteered information to the governing body that their former CEO failed to disclose bonus payments made to players which were not subject to taxation.
If true, this stinks to high heaven. But no surprise.
Maybe....just maybe...there wasn't any winding up order. Maybe the SPFL have actually researched the facts and discounted the Twattersphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by emerald green
Sadly, they might be right this time.
I actually agree with you in a sense, you support a football team, not a legal entity. So while it is a different club in legal terms, the "spirit" of the old club, the bit that really matters, is clearly the same (ie they're still c***s). Winding them up, is however, just too much fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Sorry...Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Sadly, you may be right too. It was just something I read online. No doubt the truth of the matter will emerge eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
In other news, Dave King takes on Simon Pia as his media adviser. ......😈
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...e-loan-4921022
BBC news just before 7 tonight reported again that part of the loan from Easdale was to meet a tax bill & that a winding up order had been issued by HMRC. They used words such as 'confirmed' in their report & didn't seem to have any doubts re the accuracy of their source/comments. I agree however it doesn't make sense unless HMRC are all over Newco as a result of last misdemeanours & the big tax case dispute. The other scenario of course is that Newco are telling porkies!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
One thing we have learned from Rangers 2012 and the Yams was if they are scrambling around to find the money to pay HMRC there will be a list of other creditors as long as your arm with no chance of seeing their money.
Glasgow Business Rates, police charges, gas and electricity and all the usual small businesses will be one like kippers once again.
Its also on BBC website. Sorry can't copy from IPad.Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
Yet they're still talking about a "National Insurance" debt. That part is nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
Oh for a world where journalists get their stories right.
Will there be many debts to small businesses? Surely any small business worth their salt would insist on cash up front when doing business with an institution with a track record like theirs, same club or different club? They've not exactly been short of cash until now.
Any small business offering that shower of crooks credit facilities pretty much deserves to be shafted.
I read this argument on a Hearts-related thread as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
I can't agree. It's a new company, with new owners, directors and staff. Why would a small business, which doesn't have the luxury of being able to pick and choose its customers, refuse to deal with them?
If one of your clients phones you up tomorrow and says he has just had an order from The Rangers for Ģ 20,000 worth of goods, and says , What should I do ? I need to get payment in 30 days for my own cash flow. :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'd tell him to get the cash up front, of course. ...and demand some vouchers for Sports Direct.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
That's now, though. My point was that, for the first couple of years of the new regime, there was no commercial reason not to trade with them. To take that view just because of what Oldco did would have been plain daft IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm with the Leopards don't change their spots point of view. Maybe it should be lepers if we are talking about the PBS as well. :greengrin
Rangers reject the offer from the Yank. Interesting times ahead. There is 4 different parties wanting control and no one is willing to let their share go. They are in a real mess again.