Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.
Correct Score Competition Entry
21 Apr 2017 13:44:22
I don't understand this craig whyte trial. If he gets found guilty of everything he has done, will be get money or in any way will we benefit from it.
21 Apr 2017 14:29:26
The club will benefit in no way . The crown has already accepted no one gained or lost anything ( Murray or whyte) .
The whole trial is based on whyte taking over the club without having the funds to do so . Ellis was whytes backer who provided evidence/ proof the money was there to fulfill the requirements . Ellis then pulled out and left whyte with no option but to secure loans from ticketus to pay off the bank . If borrowing money to buy a business or house is fraud? Most business owners borrow money to complete transactions . I. e. The glazers ( Man Utd) .
Imho this is just a witch hunt to ensure someone gets blamed for what happened in 2012 . Will be interesting to see who is named and shamed and who knew what .
21 Apr 2017 19:37:39
Del laws in Scotland and England are different so that could be the reason why he's In court
It's the fact he lied about where the money was coming from and this is why he committed fraud
21 Apr 2017 22:11:32
Another problem that prevails is that if cw did not clear the £18 million debt, with clear funds, it must have been ticketus. So where does this leave the £1 sale, as this was an integral part of the deal with dm?
16 Apr 2017 08:32:09
Dave King's ignoring of the Takeover Panel is a tactical mistake.
This is a battle he doesn't need to fight.
If he knows that Ashey et al will not accept the low offer then he should just mmake it and move on
16 Apr 2017 12:51:17
Setting up the offer will cost him £500k + in fees and advisors.
I personally would prefer that the £500k is given to Pedro to improve the squad so in my book it is a gamble worth taking.
He may lose in which case his reputation has taken another dent but £500k is a lot of dosh to waste if there is another option
16 Apr 2017 19:19:34
BR65 I don't mind an optimist but then there are those who no matter the evidence, the case, the staring you in the face obviousness of an example still spin away. First off, the expense of a prospectus will be King's and King's alone, this is not Rangers money, so you are wrong there. Secondly if you wish the CEO of your company to be only the fourth person in history "cold shouldered" by TAB, then good for you, you must be exceedingly proud, add it to the trophies or frame it in the blue room.
That even this late in the day you can dress this up as anything bar an embarrassing disaster for the club says more about you than reality. What was the sinking of The Titanic in your mind? "A minor boating incident? " The Charge Of The Light Brigade? "A robust, pressurised, exercise for Russian cannon? " BR65 are you Sean Spicer?
16 Apr 2017 20:57:36
Gazo, I simply choose to take the route of the optimist rather than a doom-monger.
The people running out club are not stupid, they have made mistakes of course and on occasion crossed the line but they do have the interests of the club at heart.
This above all for me means that the fans owe them their support, particularly when you consider the shambles that the paid their money for.
The club is undeniable on the upwards slope both financially and on the pitch compared to the last 5 or so years.
Again, I call for you and the other purveyors of constant hacking and criticism to put forward an alternative. Whyte, Green, Easdale etc have all gone. Ashley has no interest in Rangers being successful. Brian Kennedy has been hovering for years without putting his hand in his pocket. The fans are nowhere close. To raising the level of cash required
Who is the white knight waiting in the wings to take over from the current board. I don't see anyone on the immediate horizon in which case there is no point sniping from the sidelines
16 Apr 2017 23:35:03
does king have £11m to offer?
16 Apr 2017 23:47:44
There probably isn't a white knight in the wings BR65, certainly not with Ashley still milking the club but that surely doesn't give Dodgy Dave carte blanche does it?
And as for backing him on the basis of "best of a bad bunch" that is no argument at all. You called this action doomed to failure below, on what basis? You called it a sham, TAB and the court of session? Might I suggest the person perpetrating the sham is closer to home if you'd only allow yourself that blinker free clarity.
This undeniable slope you refer to is still on a downward trajectory only the gradient is easing (I'm talking annual, signed off accounts, not 6 monthly ones) and sure while say £3m is better than £7m it still leaves you miles off FFP good health and all this while, in your own words, you'd sooner see £500,000 spent on a Michael O'Halloran MK 2 than see your CEO take on board the ruling of TAB. Wow.
I can't give you a name as a successor, but I can give you a cure for many of the club's past and future ailments, get rid of spivs the second you know they are spivs, you have the power, it's called an AGM and live within your means, you are already aware of the alternatives to doing that.
17 Apr 2017 14:01:10
Gazo, it's all about opinion and hypothetical scenarios - I just hope that I am right and all of you doom-mongers are well wide of the mar because my guy is not the "best of a bad bunch" as you put it, he is the only one on the horizon who has the interest and wherewithal to fight for the club at the moment
17 Apr 2017 16:32:54
BR65, there is nothing hypothetical about a SA court calling him a "Glib and shameless liar", nor is it hypothetical that SARS fined him (again) only three weeks ago. He did all he could to keep the takeover panel at arms length and then completely ignores their ruling, none of that is hypothetical or opinion.
He is what he is and it's nothing to do with doom-mongering but convince yourself of that if it allows you to embrace the fallacy that this guy is to be trusted, you could argue David Murray had Rangers interest and wherewithal at heart, how did that pan out?
17 Apr 2017 16:56:16
Again Gazo. and your solution is?
17 Apr 2017 17:28:16
Vote him out, did you miss that from my last paragraph 2 replies ago? If he is in any way dodgy, and let's face it he is, then get shot of him. Don't buy into lip service garbage about overspends, especially around season ticket renewal time, live within your means, cut your cloth to suit, stop obsessing with 10 in a row, all of these things are to the club's detriment and see you further and further away from ever meeting UEFA's criteria. Okay BR65 does any of that make sense or is golden boy still the way ahead?
17 Apr 2017 18:44:10
Gazo, we all know which team you support and where your allegency is. Don't lecture us on appropriate behaviour, suggest you research and study the dark history, including recent history, of your own organisation and refrain from the patronising advice and wisdom. Nothing to do with 10 in a row, although perhaps you should give some thought to the 5 asterisks.
17 Apr 2017 19:27:43
BR65 and Fd, don't rise to the bait offered by gazo. Like brenda and lawless, he is living for the moment. Although I disagree with your thinking on dk, I am not an outsider enjoying his day.
Have no doubt, the eastenders will soon plummet from grace, as they have forgotten the basics, be decent on the way up as you will suffer on the way down.
17 Apr 2017 22:23:30
Haha Fd, the asterisks started for winning the big trophy, you know, that one David Murray near bankrupted you to never win, the second hand, unoriginal, 5 asterisks was merely a feeble attempt to cover the fact that you don't have that wee gold one we have, did you know that history? Enjoy your delusion Fd that all is well with your finances and board, and much as we'll happily keep our wee gold star we are closing in on your 5 red ones too, what will you be left to boast about then, most League Cups?
18 Apr 2017 09:47:44
Fd, I was wrong about the origins of the stars, apologies, I knew Juventus were the first club to do it and thought it was UEFA endorsed. It turns out any club can do it for whatever reason. Might I humbly suggest a wee brown one for the monumental achievement of winning the Petrofac Training Cup at the fourth time of asking.
Also on the subject of the five stars you currently have, we are two seasons away from perhaps being able to add that too, do you think you are two seasons away from adding our wee gold one? Thought not.
18 Apr 2017 11:58:50
You are obsessed 😂
18 Apr 2017 14:29:11
Peter if I was you I'd focus on trying to spell correctly, "profits of doom" really? :)
Comedy gold, for which I thank you. :)
18 Apr 2017 14:32:58
Rangers maybe should be the first club to have capital L next to the star. 5 stars and liquidated.
18 Apr 2017 16:24:33
Ha ha ouch! Oh how you schooled me Gazo😂😂😂
Do u boys spend as much time chatting about your own club? There must be some banter to be had about when you cash in the £40 million on Dembele, which one of your 23 midfield players you want to send on loan next season or is Dave king top of the chat over there too? Seriously I'd love to know 😉
18 Apr 2017 23:12:11
Regarding Dembele, I have no idea what we will get for him, suffice to say it would be enough to fund a prospectus and offer for the entire outstanding shares that King seems so keen to avoid. Which brings us nicely back on topic. :)
20 Apr 2017 12:00:56
Why would there be an L? We haven't been liquidated yet.
13 Apr 2017 19:32:58
The takeover panel have today initiated proceedings in the court of session in Edinburgh under section 955 of the companies act 2006 seeking an order for David king to comply with the rulings
This is serious bad news for Rangers.
13 Apr 2017 20:39:45
Not so bad for the club - its DK they are after.
It's all a sham if you ask me - DK knows that he would buy very few shares at 20p because they are worth much more so no-one will sell at that level.
The issue is the costs involved in setting up the deal - +£500k.
King probably is gambling that the courts will see the nonsense in the proceedings, give him a token fine and a slap on the wrists
13 Apr 2017 22:28:11
BR65, I would not be that confident, dk is riding a rocky path at the moment, and fighting the world and its uncle. His biggest problem is his ego and will be his ultimate downfall.
Let's hope we are on sound footing when that day comes around, and it will.
15 Apr 2017 09:57:53
BR65 the court will enforce the takeover panels instruction to make an offer for the other shares. Failure to do so will result in a contempt of court ruling which is far more serious than a slap on the wrist. This is seriously bad news for king and the club.
15 Apr 2017 16:35:19
I'm not sure the court will enforce this as it is doomed to be a failure.
The court will not force an indirect financial penalty but may impose a fine.
Everyone knows that DK will not be sold any shares at 20p so the whole exercise would be pointless and not achieve the goals required by the TO panel.
15 Apr 2017 17:25:57
Br65 the court will enforce this if it is doomed to failure or not .
Who is to say no one will sell at 20p? Put a different spin on it for a second?
The tab ruling states they all acted In concert to gain a 34% controlling interst. What if out of spite to hurt king in the pocket, Mike sells his shares . He doesn't make anything gets off them! That would be 43%! Now take into consideration the eastdales shares ( not sure the amounts) or the 10.4% owned by the faceless shareholders who had their voting rites took away? Laxey, blue pitch and margarita holdings I think? That would be over 51% forcing a full buy out without any normal shareholders having to sell
This could end up a very costly financial nightmare
16 Apr 2017 12:54:36
Not so sure that would be a nightmare scenario. If the Easdales and Ashley and the other "faceless" shareholders sold out to DK at 20p the share value would soar as the club could be put on a solid course for the future.
DK would issue more shares to attract further investors and float on the market.
He personally would take a £11m hit but only in the short term as he could sell most of those quickly once Ashley et al have gone.
The reality is though that the rebel shareholders are not going to go away that easily
16 Apr 2017 14:47:01
The big issue is if king is given the cold shoulder, then issues will be raised in relation to Rangers ability to raise cash on official markets.
The cold shoulder is basically the inability to raise cash, borrow or lend, or the suitability of the cold shoulder holder to steer a share rights issue.
The fact that king refused to carry out the order proves he is unable to under right the offer due to lack of disposable funds, the man clearly is all mouth no substance.
16 Apr 2017 14:50:19
BR65, Is it not time to think things through and stop being so blinkered in you backing of a man that does NOT deserve your loyalty, to his lost cause.
16 Apr 2017 15:30:38
billyb, I'm not at all blinkered about King.
Given the choice between Dave King and another wealthy and honest individual with the best interest of the club at heart I would happily shift my support, however, although we hear the odd murmur about this guy or the next, I see nothing concrete to suggest there is a knight in shinning armour waiting to lead the club forward.
In my opinion, DK has done most of what he promised in his 5 year plan. No overnight miracles were promised, the £30m (now £50m) was not promised in year 1 or 2 but over the period.
He has stood up to Ashley's rape of the club via the retail contract
Give me a viable alternative that will do a better job and I'll happily go along with it
16 Apr 2017 15:40:56
Br65 did you actually read my post or think yours out before replying?
Hypothetical as I said! If Ashley, the eastdales and the " faceless " do sell? It would take king and the 3 bears over 51% stakeholders! This would trigger an automatic buyout!
It could cost between 11/ 13 million . The share price will not increase automatically.
If Mike wins his damages claim? Another 5 million?
If warbs n Co win their compo claim? Possible another 2 million .
That's around 20 million before a ball is kicked! Where is this money coming from? As it stands Ashley still has the retail deal sown up for the next 5/ 6 years so no income there.
Then there is the nomad situation which is needed to even get the shares listed!
16 Apr 2017 16:59:39
Yes the court will enforce this. I guarantee you that there will be shareholders biting King's hand off at 20p a share once all the facts around the company are exposed within the prospectus. The only positive coming out of this is that King will finally be chased away from our club.
16 Apr 2017 16:58:12
Delbhoy, Hypothetical indeed but you have chosen every negative situation apart from a fire at Ibrox that burns the stadium down when no-one renewed the insurance policy!
If if if isn't really worth writing if you only choose negativity that is not based on balanced reality
I'm pretty sure there are enough wealthy Rangers fans who would step in once the Ashley, Easdale group are out of the way.
Unfortunately I'm not naive enough to highlight every single positive possibility that would see us win the league next year. not really a possibility is it?
16 Apr 2017 17:16:22
Br65 yes they are all negative possibilities . But the is the negative position dave king has placed the club in .
Persistent court cases! Negative publicity!
What happened to the promised choice of nomads? Why delist the club when he promised transparency?
As for issuing more shares? If he is forced into a buyout? Will he further dilute his own shares and their values? I think not mate
As for wealthy rangers fans riding in to save the day and invest? Where have they been for the last 5 years?
Who is going to invest in a loss making club? How will the soft loans be repaid if king and Co are forced into a total buyout? They won't accept diluted shares on ones they already own!
A don't know if the 3 bears can turn this around alone? But king has brought more negative publicity to the club than I can write on here mate
17 Apr 2017 00:10:55
But he has done much more for the club than Ashley, Whyte, Green or the Easdales did so by comparison we are in a better place. The glass isn't always half empty
The profits of doom on here need to relax a little and eat some Easter eggs
13 Apr 2017 13:53:10
In the media today that the 30 day deadline Dave King was given to make an offer to buy out all other Rangers shareholders by the Takeover Appeals Panel has passed without any action from him. Do any of our regular posters who also know a bit about the world of finance know if there are serious consequences for the club re this? Already seen Celtic bloggers saying it's because he couldn't prove he's got the funds to do it and he"ll be banned from the board by the SFA . Given the source hopefully it's just sh*t stirring bo***cks but I'd like to hear from people who actually care about the club what they think.
12 Apr 2017 21:31:13
I see today is david king last day to make a offer for all other share looking very unlickley
That he is going to make this offer.
wonder what the consqunces off no offer made buy king will have on the club.
13 Apr 2017 08:23:29
Chances are there will be no consequences of it at all. This whole thing about buying shares was a farce. The Takeover Panel have no authority at all, and at best they could fine King (non-enforceable) .
King has done the right thing tbh as it would have been rejected by all.
13 Apr 2017 10:01:08
Another blow to the reputation of the club and one that will make more investment from new sources even more unlikely.
Well done, Dave.
13 Apr 2017 16:46:40
onlyshowaround. your ignorance of finance is only surpassed by your blind defence of all things King. the takeover panel have issued a statement today stating that due to kings reluctance to comply they have issued a writ to the court of session compelling king to comply as per section 955 of the companies act 2006.or is it another conspiracy and the high court will just rip it up and let king off? after all you have just told everybody it is a farce e tab have no real authority. aye bloody right. this will not end well for king ergo will not end well for Rangers.
13 Apr 2017 17:28:57
This will not worry King as although he has to make a bid it will be rejected as he will offer the minimum.
13 Apr 2017 18:30:12
Andy1872.if it doesn't worry king then why has he not done it then and complied with the order thus averting another costly case in the court of session. or is it because he has to offer around 11 million if all take up his offer . unlikely I agree with you however if a fair amount do accept he will have to fork out real money. does he have it?
13 Apr 2017 18:50:00
your spot on naz, to me this is just another bad move from king
that could backfire on him as they can get a court order to force him to make the offer.
this just shows disregard for the clubs reputation and shows that king is lacking the funds to move our club forward.
if he had funds he should have made the offer and saved all the bother regardless if folk sold or not.
13 Apr 2017 18:40:54
Andy1872 it will cost king around 2/ 3 million to put the prospectus together . As far as I'm aware he also needs a nomad which has proved a problem since he came in! 13/ 14 million has also got to be put into an escrow account to prove the money is available should the share buyout to be successful. How many people may cash in at the origional 20p to get their money back? Will Ashley and the easedales sell just to hurt king in the pocket? So this actually could be worrying and costly for Mr king
08 Apr 2017 13:16:46
After listening to Kings interview a couple weeks ago I thought maybe just maybe Ashley would back down a little regarding replica kits etc as king stated he is working on new deal in place for pre-season but if anything Ashley seems to be turning the screw, I cannot comprehend why these judges cannot see we are getting scammed and put an end to this. Also Green getting off Scott free in the sunset with our cash.
08 Apr 2017 13:53:49
Judges see legally binding signed contracts and adjudicate accordingly it doesn't matter if we are getting scammed as you said the deal was done and we were grateful for it AT THE TIME . king should have negotiated and pled the Rangers case instead of going full tilt on the attack and putting Ashley's back up. kings bluster at suing Ashley is getting us nowhere and costing the club thousands in litigation that we can ill afford all he did is appease the fans with ill thought out rhetoric. there's a saying he should have remembered " don't poke the bear" Imo he has now crossed the point of no return with SD And it is Rangers who will pay the price for his bullish attitude. Ashley has the signed contracts and the money to see it out to the bitter end.
08 Apr 2017 15:37:03
Can't disagree with anything you've said Johnny but it is also true that Green had a legal responsibility to the shareholders of RFC to get the best deal and the deal he struck with Ashley does not honor that. There is cause to debate here and the recent acceptance that Mike can continue with his litigation does not mean that its done and dusted for this argument. There is a ways to go yet.
By the way, why the cheeky H in your name eh? :)
08 Apr 2017 16:34:18
Because my name is John not Jon why else would there be an h in Johnny or are you just someone looking for them in every non ( I love king ) posts. as I said green signed it and agreed the board at the time were probably grateful for any retail deal at the time. if the shareholders were hard done to why not act then rather than wait till green has gone. it would have been ratified at the time by shareholders
08 Apr 2017 21:39:48
Look lads the contract has always been legally binding, albeit it did not show us much benefit. However, king with his approach and his advocates advice has led "the protest boys" by the nose, and has cost us several millions.
As I have said for a long time, this situation should have been negotiated to a mutually better situation for both parties, but king thinks he can out-muscle a far superior businessman than him. Now he must accept the pickings that ashley gives him.
Duccablue, it is done and dusted and dk must eat humble pie.
09 Apr 2017 03:27:18
The high court has still to issue it's resolution.
09 Apr 2017 11:49:50
Duccablue. If there was not a case to answer the review judge would have dismissed the case to ensure high court time was not wasted.
Get real bears, king will lose, and Rangers will pay the penalty, both compensation and costs.
10 Apr 2017 05:06:29
King may lose. its not a certainty though. You understand how courts work right? Two QC's present their arguments and, in this case, a judge will offer his resolution. Ashley has won nothing yet.
10 Apr 2017 11:44:48
Clutching at straws ducca, the blame lies with the directors that signed on behalf of us, not ashley.
They are guilty of not carrying out their responsibility to protect their fellow shareholders' interests, and should have been pursued through the courts. All ashley done was to screw a great deal for his company.
10 Apr 2017 12:26:07
duccablue. you are wrong in saying Ashley has won nothing yet. he was suing Rangers for beach of contract and damages and king went to court in an attempt to stop Ashley bringing the action to court and lost. therefore if king lost then Ashley has won the right to have his claim of breach of contract and damages to be heard in the high court he may not win his case but the fact that king and rangers could not stop the action does not bode well for the final outcome and could well cost rangers a substantial amount of money in damages or even just to defend the action. either way I feel king will use this as an excuse for NO MAJOR spending next season and once again Ashley is the big bad Geordie denying us money. as I said earlier if king had sat at the table with Ashley instead of bullish bluster and threats we might have came out of this in a firmer footing. but king goes all out to get the fans behind him and uses the blame game against anyone but himself to justify not Fullfilling his pre take over fantasy promises
10 Apr 2017 18:04:13
How could anyone suggest Ashley is not the big bad Geordie? He orchestrated the board to sign whatever he proposed even though he only held 9% of shares and no matter how many sweet nothings DK whispered in his fat lug he was never going to give us more than our 7p from every pound. Remember he made us sell Lewis Macleod for less than a million then made us spend a chunk of it on 5 Diddy loan players from the Newcastle stiffs. He never once did anything that benefited our football club
10 Apr 2017 21:53:27
PH, There is no doubt we were shafted by ashley, but maybe you should look at why the directors, of Glasgow Rangers, signed on the dotted line.
11 Apr 2017 13:02:14
Billy, I have no idea why those muppets signed these deals, but my best guess is as I mentioned already they were doing what Ashley told them to do and not what was in the best interests of our club. David Somers, Charles Green, The Easdales, none of them challenged any of the deals Ashley offered.
11 Apr 2017 22:29:16
PH, To sign such a contract, with the onerous conditions for our club, they should have been held to scrutiny by dk and the board. This should have been our point of attack and not the contract, as the terms will be watertight. That is why I have always firmly believed that king got his tactics all wrong, when dealing with ashley.
If he had taken this route I, again, firmly believe that ashley would have had to compromise with us. Ashley, obviously had the original board over a barrel, but it is difficult to speculate, as that could potentially end you up in court.
12 Apr 2017 03:52:57
My understanding is that this is about withdrawing the name and image rights. King hasn't ripped up the contracts as such but has exercised the clubs right (as he sees it) to deny rangers retail the use of the name and crest. Ashley is seeking to overturn that position and confirm he (rangers retail) retains the right to use them. If he is successful then talk of awarding compensation will be looked at.
12 Apr 2017 21:05:25
My understanding is that dk etc. are attacking the conditions of the contract and their validity, due to the returns received by the club, instead of attacking the signatories for the conditions they accepted.
07 Apr 2017 19:46:20
Mike Ashley has won his case against dave king really the retail contract and the case can now go ahead to the high court for resolution. thoughts?
07 Apr 2017 23:29:26
I know it's not what you want to hear but a company can't just tear up contracts that a previous chairman has signed because they don't like the terms of the contract , it really is that simple.
09 Apr 2017 16:26:16
A company can do as they choose with contracts but it is breach of contract and in the absence of a sensible negotiation for better terms the courts will now decide the remedy. I support DK approach rather than continue to be deliberately destroyed by MA. Can we not see that MA has zero interest in the future prosperity of Rangers
06 Apr 2017 22:47:17
Regarding TV income; surely Rangers could get a better deal if they brokered their own deals? Possibly a chance for the Old Firm to work together?
I'm also thinking that Rangers and Celtic should be more involved in any future negotiations as the Old Firm are the basis of any deal! Other Clubs can say what they want but realistically its the Old Firm who pull in the Buyer whoever it is and therefore we must be more involved.
We must utilise our product to its full potential and one way of doing this would be to organize a small pre-season Cup competition abroad involving the Old Firm and 2-4 other teams. I know it may be difficult to pull off but if it can be done then why not!
We need to do something regarding pre-season and the money is there! We need to utilise every source of revenue as we are being suffocated financially! A Club our size has huge potential and a competition like this if negotiated correctly could be a minimum £1 million annually.
Do the thing in America who have a huge audience to sell to Old Firm fans there! What's stopping us? could probably get more from 1 weeks work than a Club gets for winning the League!
A TV Deal, Sponsorship, Advertising, and all that goes with it! Something like this could grow and after a few years. Teams in America would want to be invited!
And if I hear the argument that it may be too much for the players; Bull! We use the squad it's a Friendly Cup! There's an idea in there somewhere yeah?
06 Apr 2017 23:01:35
And why should Celtic help you out? Celtic already get invited to these tournaments and if I'm not wrong turned a few down . They don't need the money 😋.
07 Apr 2017 23:35:53
Not a chance in hell, why would we, it's bad enough having to play against you 4-6 times, as for the tv contracts they should be shared out as fairly as possible between all the clubs, Celtic and rangers would be nothing without the other teams to play against, as a matter of fact the more financially stable you are, the bigger slice of the tv pot you should get as a reward.
08 Apr 2017 14:00:49
Thought something like a pre-season Cup in America involving the Old Firm would be great for both Clubs! Excellent for promoting the Brand of Both and I know Celtic are financially stable but the money to be made is surely something that can't be ignored and like I said it could become an event in the calendar if prompted correctly.
Both have huge fan bases and the amount of money major Company's
spend on time for their adverts is incredible! If something like this could attract numbers on the box its ludicrous to ignore and even madder to think by doing it is helping the other out. Its the best thing to do financially for both. We have this Global Fan Base, but do not use it to its full potential!
08 Apr 2017 17:04:26
@andy1872 as previously stated above . Celtic already get invited to all the international cup preseason tournaments . We do not need your club to bring this money in . We have options every close season . Last seasons paid all of brendans salary for the year and some of Scott sinclair fees .
04 Apr 2017 11:54:42
Any word on the tax case? I thought there was a two day hearing a few weeks back?
05 Apr 2017 16:42:07
beginning of march but i'm not sure what the outcome was
but i wouldn't be surprised if its thrown out and all our years in the duldrums where for nothing
05 Apr 2017 20:43:23
I think you're right James and the appeal will be thrown out.
06 Apr 2017 15:35:59
If the appeal is thrown out that means the current ruling will remain, ie the EBTs were illegal. That was the latest legal ruling on it. The current appeal is by BDO who are trying to argue the EBTs were legal as that will reduce HMRC's massive tax claim and leave more cash in the (very small) pot for the other 250 or so creditors. Whoever 'wins' the case, our years in the doldrums are still down to SDM who relied too heavily on the use of EBTs thus exposing us to the risk of years of legal battles with HMRC, which is exactly how it turned out. All our troubles go back to his tax strategies.
06 Apr 2017 19:44:22
Impossible to argue with that.
07 Apr 2017 15:56:35
Yes Paulineblue72, I totally agree, and with whyte's fraud trial due to start this month, we will, again, be in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. I firmly believe that the revelations that will unfold in the fraud trial will rock us to the foundations.
The trial is forecast to last 3 months+, and finished just in time for next season. I nteresting times ahead.
01 Apr 2017 10:02:56
Is it true Dave King is buying the channel Dave? 40 million for it? My oh my if true what chance do we have of having any money for transfers?
01 Apr 2017 10:47:32
Of course it's true, just like the Donald is going to buy up Disney.
01 Apr 2017 17:30:49
ha ha, check the blooming date
Rangers Finances 2
Rangers Finances 3