Rangers 2011/2012.

[The Boy]

Is any team running at a profit. All teams have debts which they can't pay at once.

That's not the same as running at a loss. When that happens, total income minus outgoings (including interest and payments on debt) is a negative number. Perfectly possible to have high debts but be running at a profit.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Is any team running at a profit. All teams have debts which they can't pay at once.

Plenty of clubs live within their means.

 

[tar1984]

That's not the same as running at a loss. When that happens, total income minus outgoings (including interest and payments on debt) is a negative number. Perfectly possible to have high debts but be running at a profit.

Yep. And most clubs have bank loans / overdrafts which they are servicing. It is a bit difference having tens of millions of HMRC debt from tax fraud.

 

[Fedayn]

Because of the transparency much shouted about by the new sfa. The new sfa who hold secret panels.

Using protocoals that Rangers agreed to, you missed that lttle bit didn't you?! Rangers agreed to the way the SFA handled these decisions, they AGREED to the anonymity of the panels who impose the sanctions. All of a sudden they seem to have developed amnesia over their own agreement.... Pathetic, utterly utterly pathetic......

The same panel who have been gagged by the sfa from speaking.

You mean panel memebrs who have been speaking to the press, those panel members you mean.

 

[anchorage]

Yep. And most clubs have bank loans / overdrafts which they are servicing. It is a bit difference having tens of millions of HMRC debt from tax fraud.

Tax avoidance.

 

[anchorage]

Using protocoals that Rangers agreed to, you missed that lttle bit didn't you?! Rangers agreed to the way the SFA handled these decisions, they AGREED to the anonymity of the panels who impose the sanctions. All of a sudden they seem to have developed amnesia over their own agreement.... Pathetic, utterly utterly pathetic......



You mean panel memebrs who have been speaking to the press, those panel members you mean.

Yes the panel members who can't say why they came to their decision , those panel members.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yes the panel members who can't say why they came to their decision , those panel members.

What?. When they gave their verdict they stated exactly what rules were broken.

 

[Fedayn]

Yes the panel members who can't say why they came to their decision , those panel members.

I notice you avoided the point that Ranergs agreed to the way these hearings were held, they agreed to them, fat Sally should have moaned at his own club because they agreed to the changes. You might work it out eventually.

They are going to give their reasons, the timing of when they give their reasons is also part of the procedures that Rangers agreed to.

 

[anchorage]

Using protocoals that Rangers agreed to, you missed that lttle bit didn't you?! Rangers agreed to the way the SFA handled these decisions, they AGREED to the anonymity of the panels who impose the sanctions. All of a sudden they seem to have developed amnesia over their own agreement.... Pathetic, utterly utterly pathetic......



The same sfa who cut deals so TLB won't get the ban he deserves, the same sfa who won't protect their referees but allow a strike then lie to foreign refs as to why it's asking place. The same protocols Torbett fc threatened the sfa into imposing. As you write utterly pathetic.

 

[anchorage]

What?. When they gave their verdict they stated exactly what rules were broken.

But not why they came to that decision against Rangers when it was Whyte who done it and ran away.

 

[Deareg]

What?. When they gave their verdict they stated exactly what rules were broken.

It wasn't the one he wanted to hear so he invents his own.

 

[Fedayn]

The same sfa who cut deals so TLB won't get the ban he deserves, the same sfa who won't protect their referees but allow a strike then lie to foreign refs as to why it's asking place. The same protocols Torbett fc threatened the sfa into imposing. As you write utterly pathetic.

Yet again you fail to get it. Rangers agreed to the protocols, your club agreed to them. Now it's amnesia time and you're all crying like babies and some of your dignified fans are threatening people.


It was a big boy who did it and ran away.... Waaaa. Waaaaahhhhh.... Waaaaahhhh

 

[Fedayn]

 

[sleaterkinney]

But not why they came to that decision against Rangers when it was Whyte who done it and ran away.

Rangers is the property of Whyte and was run by him, the two aren't separate.

 

[anchorage]

Yet again you fail to get it. Rangers agreed to the protocols, your club agreed to them. Now it's amnesia time and you're all crying like babies and some of your dignified fans are threatening people.


It was a big boy who did it and ran away.... Waaaa. Waaaaahhhhh.... Waaaaahhhh

I will join in.... Whoop sniff sniff wha wha waaaaaaaaaaahhhhh.

 

[anchorage]

Rangers is the property of Whyte and was run by him, the two aren't separate.

So if Whyte murdered someone and an away the sfa would fine Rangers instead ?

 

[anchorage]

Nothing like the new strip. Fail fail.

 

[sleaterkinney]

So if Whyte murdered someone and an away the sfa would fine Rangers instead ?

What a silly comparison.

It is Rangers that broke the rules, and it should be punished.

 

[Fedayn]

Going by anchorage and his fellow fans of, (not much) Dignity FC logic, if Rangers won the UEFA Cup in 2008 the winners wouldn't be RFC but David Murray after all he was the man who fuinded the club. If Craig Whyte led them to win the Champions League-stop laughing there at the back-then the winners would not be Rangers but Craig Whyte. Rangers are currently going after law firm Collyer Bristow because of the actions NOT of the whole club but one employee, step forward Gary Withey. However Rangers are after the firm Collyer Bristow not the individual who may have acted badly. Hypocrisy? Surely not.........

 

[Pickman's model]

What a silly comparison.

It is Rangers that broke the rules, and it should be punished.

And, if I may make a foucauldian joke, disciplined

 

[anchorage]

Going by anchorage and his fellow fans of, (not much) Dignity FC logic, if Rangers won the UEFA Cup in 2008 the winners wouldn't be RFC but David Murray after all he was the man who fuinded the club. If Craig Whyte led them to win the Champions League-stop laughing there at the back-then the winners would not be Rangers but Craig Whyte. Rangers are currently going after law firm Collyer Bristow because of the actions NOT of the whole club but one employee, step forward Gary Withey. However Rangers are after the firm Collyer Bristow not the individual who may have acted badly. Hypocrisy? Surely not.........

And the rules Rangers as opposed to Whyte broke are ?

 

[anchorage]

Plenty of clubs live within their means.

More don't.

 

[Fedayn]

And the rules Rangers as opposed to Whyte broke are ?

Whyte was the owner, indee is the owner, as such it is Rangers who incure the penalties, he didn't pay tax and Rangers benefitted from that as it was used for day-to-day costs, Rangers was run on the money he didn't pay to HMRC. And how did Craig Whyte manage to ensure PAYE and NI weren't paid, did he operate the payroll himself? Did he have sole control of the paycheques and money npot going to HMRC? Laughable claim frankly

Btw, what rules did Collyer Bristow break as opposed to Gary Withey?

 

[anchorage]

Whyte was the owner, indee is the owner, as such it is Rangers who incure the penalties, he didn't pay tax and Rangers benefitted from that as it was used for day-to-day costs, Rangers was run on the money he didn't pay to HMRC. And how did Craig Whyte manage to ensure PAYE and NI weren't paid, did he operate the payroll himself? Did he have sole control of the paycheques and money npot going to HMRC? Laughable claim frankly

Btw, what rules did Collyer Bristow break as opposed to Gary Withey?

Don't call me frankly. No one at Rangers knew what was going on as Whyte threw anyone who knew what was going on out of the club.

 

[sleaterkinney]

When someone owns a club, the actions they take are on behalf of the club. Whyte is Rangers.

 

[anchorage]

When someone owns a club, the actions they take are on behalf of the club. Whyte is Rangers.

Really ? That simple.

 

[Deareg]

Really ? That simple.

There are plenty of precedents if you care to do a bit of research.

 

[anchorage]

There are plenty of precedents if you care to do a bit of research.

I know a few American precedents but in Britain we have prime ministers.

 

[Deareg]

I know a few American precedents.

The next time you are speaking to one of them, be sure to say hello for me.

 

[anchorage]

The next time you are speaking to one of them, be sure to say hello for me.

Will do.