+- Sports Babble - sports forum (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Football (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Scottish Football League (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+---- Forum: Scottish Premiership (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+----- Forum: Rangers (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=131)
+----- Thread: RIFC (/showthread.php?tid=130)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
RE: RIFC - edgie - 15-03-2017
(15-03-2017, 16:24)hibeejim21 Wrote: Rangers ended up in a lower division by the entry into a contract which allowed them to join the SFL in the third division.
Why would the SAME club have to enter in to any contract to allow the to join the SFL?
Think this also knocks out the same club argument on its bum
New club as stated in a judgment from a court of the land
RE: RIFC - hibeejim21 - 15-03-2017
(15-03-2017, 18:35)edgie Wrote:(15-03-2017, 16:24)hibeejim21 Wrote: Rangers ended up in a lower division by the entry into a contract which allowed them to join the SFL in the third division.
Why would the SAME club have to enter in to any contract to allow the to join the SFL?
Think this also knocks out the same club argument on its bum
New club as stated in a judgment from a court of the land
This was a liquidation,not a relegation.
RE: RIFC - edgie - 16-03-2017
agreed
Now silly question time, will the media now actually come out an mention that David "glib and Shameless" King is the only person in history to have failed the SFAs fit and proper test.
He is not on the board of the rangers football club (sevco Scotland as was), but is the chairman of the holding company RIFC .
Now that the take over panel have slated him and issued the worst punishment they can, will the media actually call him or the SFA out on it??
I wont hold my breath
RE: RIFC - hibeejim21 - 16-03-2017
Supreme court was interesting today. Sounded like BDO conceded to HMRC that they could go after the players for the tax.
RE: RIFC - edgie - 17-03-2017
its ok Jim the side letters indemnified the players, said that the CLUB would pay any tax if HMRC came calling, since TRFC are seeing its self as the same CLUB I'm sure the dignified directors will pick up the cost.
DBO just want to move as much of the liability away from them self's on to the players.
If it works Old co would only be libel for the employers NI and not the who lot
RE: RIFC - edgie - 29-03-2017
So the directors all play musical chairs
But no issues and not a response to the Take over panels decision, or Kings conviction in SA, or to the various court cases over the summer, Just tiding up the structure.
I'm sure we all believe that, well I'm sure the blue noses believe it, the have with everything else coming out of Ibrox
RE: RIFC - hibeejim21 - 14-04-2017
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-39598397https://www.ft.com/content/b934f388-2069-11e7-a454-ab04428977f9
http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/images/uploads/judgments/SDI_Judgment.pdf
Between this and SDs court case sevco are in really,really deep merde. But thats what happens when you let yourself be run by a convicted criminal,fraud and a glib and shameless liar.
RE: RIFC - edgie - 18-04-2017
i honestly am really shocked at Kings behaviour
Ignoring the TOPs decision was just stupid, I can see no upside from it
The speed of the TOPs acton in asking for a court order is unprecedented, they have never ever ever acted like this. Their judgment was slating of King as is the Judgment in the case ves SD
But still rangers fans support him, the lies mount up
No nomad as promised
No 30 million front loaded over 5 years
No transparity
Sacking the managers and claiming he resigned
How many chances will they give the man and why ??
As far as I can see only because hes a Real Rangers man...no other reason, if any one can shed any light on that I would be grateful
RE: RIFC - hibeejim21 - 21-04-2017
If sevco is such a great business why wouldn't king and the other directors not grab every share they could at this bargain price?
Oh aye.
RE: RIFC - edgie - 21-04-2017
I see the Whyte case is now open and running
Walter smith on witness stand some quite intresting comments I see
"Smith asked about managers contract notice period. Replies "both times I was sacked I didn't get any notice"
Ok One Everton the other ???
also
"Findlay asks if "prudent clubs will budget for being knocked out in the first round of a cup competition"
"I was never overly-burdened by the financial issues" Smith replies
Smith says: "for the Champions league especially you can look for your club to be making money over the season"
Findlay "If you are knocked out in a preliminary round the Champions league money is gone"
Smith agrees. "
and
"Findlay suggests to Whyte "there was a tremendous financial burden on Rangers"
Smith says "the banks allow it to happen"
Findlay suggests one way the debt could have been managed was to "cut costs" of playing budget
Smith says he would "point out the consequences of that action" ie, less success on the field
Smith says success on the field gives the club a chance to bring in other sources of finance"
Findlay suggests "speculating to accumulate is a dangerous business in football" Asks what happens if expensive player gets injured
Findlay says Leeds United "tried to buy success" and are now in the Championship in England
"They had successful seasons" Smith replies
"Throwing money at it doesn't guarantee success" Findlay suggests "it's a stupid idea" he adds
"It's a gamble" Smith replies
Findlay to Smith "In 2011 did you know financially how bad things were at Rangers
"Not exactly" he replies.
Findlay asks if Smith knew the banks were "about to pull the plug on Rangers" witness says he was aware bank had placed person on board
Smith agrees a "Donald Muir" was on the board but did not know who appointed him. "
Reads to me it wasn't my fault honest
Edit: Re the Donald Muir stuff on the board, it was front page news at the time
https://stv.tv/sport/football/130876-rangers-announce-board-changes/
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/walter-smith-the-bank-is-running-rangers-1040150
He wouldn't be lying under oath surely ???
the great cardigans memory must be playing up I see
"Smith agrees he did know of EBT issue by March 2011. Smith says not aware of discussions over Rangers entering administration
Smith says no discussion of administration by directors while he was present. Only at meeting to report on football matters
Minutes state "Mr Smith says the prospect of administration would be a shambles"
Witness says no recollection of discussion"
Donald Findlay ripping a huge hole in Walter credibility as a witness