Erskine Bridge closed!

The ruling was under the auspices of the SFA, it has no bearing in Law whatsoever, it was a report to the SFA, not a legal case.

The ruling suited the SFA so why exactly would they go to a court of law (which would be in breach of UEFA rules) to challenge a ruling which helped them avoid answering a lot of difficult questions?

 

i'm talking more about the names on the trophies, the history.

I do find it quite amusing that celtic fans laughed when they were sold for a pound and appear somewhat angry or suspicious when the were sold for 5.5million

 

please log in to view this image

 

You are a filthy scummy bastard.

 

That history belong to Rangers , the cheating part too.

Alleged fraud should make us all suspicious

 

Here we go again. Corporate entities "own" history now.

They owned that history but sold that history to that other company because that company was going titsup so now they own that history.

 

i don't know if it suited them, they were all for title stripping at the negotiating table with dear old chuckles last summer

£5.5 million is suspiciously cheap but £1 isn't?

 

What?

Let me get this straight. Is the "they" in bold trophies?

 

Jesus ****

Yes £5.5m is supiciously cheap compared to £1 with an estimated £160,000,000 (or however much it was) debt.

That's only confusing if ****s deliberately re-tell it to make it seem confusing.

 

They are not happy about this.

 

You can't buy and sell nor own history you ****wit

 

I never said that you could.

Mindyfail #9497

 

they would be rangers, do you know of any trophies bought for a pound?

jesus **** indeed, funny how all the comments regarding rangers being worth a pound etc didn't have a wee * stating the real story, which by the way, was never that amount (the £160m you mention btw). the initial ebts were only £30 odd million, around £3.5m a year. which grew to £50m in the papers or by hmrc penalties and interest then craig whyte stated that it was £75m when interviewed for sky sports news at administration time. it then became £100 odd million which was always a "worst case scenario" with all the debts combined. likewise the initial outstanding tax money whyte withheld was either £7m or £9m which found itself up at £18m or so either by penalties/interest or journo hacks or maybe even the good old seville calculator?

 

I see little has changed.

please log in to view this image

Mindy on the dancefloor

 

Sorry

I must have misunderstood when you posted

I was unaware that you were being sarcastic and actually agreed with "Timmy"

 

This sums the whole thing up for me.

So, you're not happy when anyone doesn't mention a paragraph of exposition behind the £1 purchase but you're happy to use it (and I'm being deliberately laboured about the point here because parameter consistency isn't a particularly hot point on this whole subject) as a PURELY QUANTATIVE VALUE when comparing it with another headline number? Staggering.

I'm not going to get into the re-telling of the size of the debt (via narrative tools such as using the word "phantom" when referring to the tax bill or suggesting that the tax bill was itself a non-entity until big bad Craig Whyte witheld PAYE - money which he witheld to keep Rangers running).

The UTTT is still outstanding.

If Rangers hadn't gone bust, that tax bill (full amount, penalties, the lot, "worst case scenario") would have to be listed as a liability. To do otherwise is fraud.

Anyway, cheers Chapper, it's been needlessly extensive as ever.

 

You made it so, i merely pointed out...

 

You huns are thick as ****

Suck it up

 

I never mentioned title stripping, nor was that what I meant. I was talking about the SFA ignoring their own rules and letting a New club into the league without following the proper procedures. If LNS said Rangers were the "Same" club and not a "New" club then that helped the SFA avoid answering a lot of difficult questions.