Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.

[Parklife]

11 minutes ago, theweestevie said:

https://exposingtherhats.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/a-report-definitely-not-a-blog/

A good way to be taken seriously is not to call your blog "exposing the rhats". 

[theweestevie]

1 minute ago, Parklife said:

A good way to be taken seriously is not to call your blog "exposing the rhats". 

Yeah not my blog just in case you were wondering

Name aside, I do think it raised a few good points about the SFA knowing that Craig Whyte had a directorship ban and they did nothing. I believe they also knew that Whye had not paid income tax and national insurance long before the administration event. With the situation at Hearts where they were failing to pay players and tax HMRC set up an alert system with the SFA which identifed issues such as failure to pay tax. Another argument for the corruption/incompetence angle.

[ShedTA]

10 minutes ago, Parklife said:

A good way to be taken seriously is not to call your blog "exposing the rhats". 

[ShedTA]

7 minutes ago, theweestevie said:

Yeah not my blog just in case you were wondering

Name aside, I do think it raised a few good points about the SFA knowing that Craig Whyte had a directorship ban and they did nothing. I believe they also knew that Whye had not paid income tax and national insurance long before the administration event. With the situation at Hearts where they were failing to pay players and tax HMRC set up an alert system with the SFA which identifed issues such as failure to pay tax. Another argument for the corruption/incompetence angle.

Theres also the small matter of 200 rangers supporters picketing the BBC because they ran a less then complimentary documentary about craig whyte. so while its correct in that the SFA failed as they are completely incompetent its a bit rich really to claim it was all their fault.

[Parklife]

10 minutes ago, theweestevie said:

Yeah not my blog just in case you were wondering

Name aside, I do think it raised a few good points about the SFA knowing that Craig Whyte had a directorship ban and they did nothing. I believe they also knew that Whye had not paid income tax and national insurance long before the administration event. With the situation at Hearts where they were failing to pay players and tax HMRC set up an alert system with the SFA which identifed issues such as failure to pay tax. Another argument for the corruption/incompetence angle.

It's strange that Rangers fans are raging that Whyte was declared fit and proper. Yet are happy having a convicted fraudster and tax cheat declared fit & proper and running their club.  

[theweestevie]

9 minutes ago, ShedTA said:

Theres also the small matter of 200 rangers supporters picketing the BBC because they ran a less then complimentary documentary about craig whyte. so while its correct in that the SFA failed as they are completely incompetent its a bit rich really to claim it was all their fault.

Yeah I am not saying that it was the SFA's fault, there were faults with everyone involved. The ultimate responsibility falls with David Murray, I was just brining some additional arguments to add to the blog you posted.

[ShedTA]

6 minutes ago, theweestevie said:

Yeah I am not saying that it was the SFA's fault, there were faults with everyone involved. The ultimate responsibility falls with David Murray, I was just brining some additional arguments to add to the blog you posted.

fair enough.

[theweestevie]

10 minutes ago, Parklife said:

It's strange that Rangers fans are raging that Whyte was declared fit and proper. Yet are happy having a convicted fraudster and tax cheat declared fit & proper and running their club.  

There are a lot of Rangers fans that weren't/aren't happy with King. I think the key is he is a Rangers fan and would not destroy the club from the inside like the previous board (though some could argue he had a hand in the downfall prior to the sale to Whyte).

Questions need to be asked what the "fit and proper" test is. Do they just check to see if they can do the times crossword in less than 4 hours and without the internet?

[Parklife]

6 minutes ago, theweestevie said:

Questions need to be asked what the "fit and proper" test is. Do they just check to see if they can do the times crossword in less than 4 hours and without the internet?

There's criteria on which to judge whether a person is fit and proper or not (in the SFA's Articles of Association - i've posted them on here a few times). 

The wording leaves the folk assessing someone free to completely ignore the criteria if they so choose. Which is pretty much what they did when they declared King F&P.  

[sbcmfc]

I don't really think the SFA are corrupt, there are conflicts of interest, making it up as they go along, and general incompetence.

[Stu101]

22 hours ago, sbcmfc said:

I don't really think the SFA are corrupt, there are conflicts of interest, making it up as they go along, and general incompetence.

Think this is pretty much spot on.

[ShedTA]

On 09/05/2016 at 3:26 PM, sbcmfc said:

I don't really think the SFA are corrupt, there are conflicts of interest, making it up as they go along, and general incompetence.

Unfortunately if what is in the report is true it points far more towards a corrupt organisation than an incompetent one.

[RenfrewBlue]

On 09/05/2016 at 1:23 PM, Parklife said:

A good way to be taken seriously is not to call your blog "exposing the rhats". 

I don't think he intends being taken seriously somehow. 

The last sentence was the best. Actually made me laugh out loud. 

[Parklife]

5 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

I don't think he intends being taken seriously somehow. 

The last sentence was the best. Actually made me laugh out loud. 

I didn't even click the link

[RenfrewBlue]

3 hours ago, Parklife said:

I didn't even click the link

You should. It's a short article and reasonably funny. 

Better than that dry mince from the Tax Justice League, or whatever they're called. ? 

[ibelieve!!!]

5 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said:

I don't think he intends being taken seriously somehow. 

The last sentence was the best. Actually made me laugh out loud. 

Why does he think the MSM should publish his blog, sorry report?

[RenfrewBlue]

25 minutes ago, ibelieve!!! said:

Why does he think the MSM should publish his blog, sorry report?

Sweet Jesus! Do you have no sense of humour?  

All of that report (not a blog) is meant to be amusing and not taken seriously. 

[Stu101]

On 06 May 2016 at 4:25 PM, ShedTA said:

Agreed. This on the other hand...

http://www.theoffshoregame.net/475-2/

 

 

Anyone know what the stuff was on twitter last night about this- some correction or something that had the usual Celtic bloggers up in arms? A lot of it seems to be deleted/removed this morning.

[Debian]

RANGERS have served notice to cancel the contracts relating to their merchandise agreements with Rangers Retail Limited.

Ibrox shareholder Mike Ashley controls Rangers' retail output through his Sports Direct chain but supporters continue to boycott the Rangers Megastore and Ashley's shops in protest.

A club statement read: "The Rangers Football Club Limited has today served notice on Rangers Retail Limited terminating the IP Licence and Rights Agreement with that company with immediate effect.

"The Club now needs to speak to its commercial partners to agree the next steps flowing from the termination and will make no further comment on this matter whilst discussions are ongoing.

"The Club will endeavour to communicate further with its supporters and customers for Rangers Kit and other Rangers products as soon as it is in a position to do so."

http://m.heraldscotland.com/sport/14500395.Rangers_serve_notice_to_cancel_licence_agreements_with_Rangers_Retail_Ltd/

 

[Fairbairn]

10 minutes ago, Debian said:

RANGERS have served notice to cancel the contracts relating to their merchandise agreements with Rangers Retail Limited.

Ibrox shareholder Mike Ashley controls Rangers' retail output through his Sports Direct chain but supporters continue to boycott the Rangers Megastore and Ashley's shops in protest.

A club statement read: "The Rangers Football Club Limited has today served notice on Rangers Retail Limited terminating the IP Licence and Rights Agreement with that company with immediate effect.

"The Club now needs to speak to its commercial partners to agree the next steps flowing from the termination and will make no further comment on this matter whilst discussions are ongoing.

"The Club will endeavour to communicate further with its supporters and customers for Rangers Kit and other Rangers products as soon as it is in a position to do so."

http://m.heraldscotland.com/sport/14500395.Rangers_serve_notice_to_cancel_licence_agreements_with_Rangers_Retail_Ltd/

 

Posted this on the other thread.  As positive as this sounds I wouldn't imagine this is the last we'll hear of it given the infamous 7 year notice period.  I can only assume the board must think they have something pretty cast iron if they are saying the agreements are cancelled with immediate effect.

[thewolf_1980]

The statement is understandably coy however unless there is just cause for terminating the contract, there would surely be penalties. Maybe the board have decided to bite the bullet and pay it off now in the view that, once terminated, the fans would keenly buy the merchandise again and that would contribute to any due penalty payments. Another court case beckons...

[Fairbairn]

3 minutes ago, thewolf_1980 said:

The statement is understandably coy however unless there is just cause for terminating the contract, there would surely be penalties. Maybe the board have decided to bite the bullet and pay it off now in the view that, once terminated, the fans would keenly buy the merchandise again and that would contribute to any due penalty payments. Another court case beckons...

Unless I suppose Ashley has decided to cut his losses. With Newcastle relegated, the scrutiny from the Football League and the Sports Direct shares price plummeting (not to mention his recent embarrassing defeats in court) he's maybe just decided it's not worth the grief.

[thewolf_1980]

3 minutes ago, Fairbairn said:

Unless I suppose Ashley has decided to cut his losses. With Newcastle relegated, the scrutiny from the Football League and the Sports Direct shares price plummeting (not to mention his recent embarrassing defeats in court) he's maybe just decided it's not worth the grief.

I admire your optimism but unfortunately the last few years have rid me of any I had left! I would love you to be right but the world of Rangers is never that simple.

I do have some hope in that if this was a unilateral act by our board, they would surely know that this would be a hugely litigious and costly move so they are either very confident that they will be successful or they are simply 'testing the water' following Newcastle's relegation and the English FL's supposed investigation. The notice served can promptly be withdrawn again, I'd imagine. Either way, it's a ballsy move.

[Parklife]

24 minutes ago, Fairbairn said:

Unless I suppose Ashley has decided to cut his losses. With Newcastle relegated, the scrutiny from the Football League and the Sports Direct shares price plummeting (not to mention his recent embarrassing defeats in court) he's maybe just decided it's not worth the grief.

I don't think Ashley cares about "grief". When it comes to his business dealings, i think he cares about only pounds and pence. 

[Angus_Young]

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

I don't think Ashley cares about "grief". When it comes to his business dealings, i think he cares about only pounds and pence. 

Indeed. You just need to read the recent reports about how Some of his employees are treated to get a flavour for that. 

Sooner we are rid of him the better, but I can't see it being done smoothly.