Bertent

Tiger Woods

True, but if you control the media you control what is perceived as fact and it is perception that sponsors pay for.

How does sponsorship equate to an asset sale? The club needs income and playing in a footballing backwater limits the potential sources. Save the RADA performance for an event that truly does undermine the clubs traditions.

What is unscrupulous about wanting a properly funded team?

I am for real, the media arent doing so bad with controlling perception of our image and plight currently. Or do sponsors not react to the press? Just because fans wish for something doesnt make it a reality.

What makes it a good brand? The reality is that companies far greater than Rangers are loosing sponsors hand over fist as marketing budgets are slashed to improve shrinking bottom lines. We really have to take some of the emotion out of this and look at it from investors point of view. Given the entrenched bigotry of the Scottish media how do you think their input on Rangers paint our image?

You dont even know the sponsor so how can it be controversial, unless you are against exploiting that source of potential income.

Guess youd have to ask those fans he had the meeting with, guess someone hasnt been able to keep quite. However: "But SPL rules state that, with board approval, clubs in administration may replace players whose contracts expire. "If you are correct, that is an avenue open to the club," Green told BBC Scotland on Sunday. Sounds like the BBC sowing ideas rather than a statement from Green.

No shes out buying tampons

We have nothing to compare him against. The silence from the other camp, is disappointing at best, suspicion raising at worst. Green has said nothing that worries me at this stage. The failure of the BKs to highlight specifically what worries them is also telling.

So again Ill ask is witholding of PAYE against the law. Cause to a non tax expert like me, adding penalties for non payment look remarkably like a punishment.

Speaking as someone who had such a kicking last year, it is exactly what happens. Some companies play the long game, and some business owners get away with what they can.

But you said there was no criminal penalties/acts, now you are saying well they are, but.... Ray, post all the gifs you want, but the fact is you have an interpretation of an article based on your own prejudices. Quite what motivates you or has led you to express that opinion in the ways you do is open to others to guess. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/thelibrary/tax-paye/paye-securities.htm#2

The lack of clarity and openness from Mr King and his cohorts is surely worth an investigation from the Bevvied Blogger.

The point of a CVA is to allow a business to continue. To continue a business has to obtain finance and be profitable. If things were as you suggest no one would ever vote for a CVA. However most creditors realise there is potential to recoup further money with a ongong business than take a one off from a pay out in liquidation.

ecurity for PAYE (Pay as You Earn) and/or National Insurance contributions (NICs) Following legislation in Finance Act 2011, from 6 April 2012 HMRC will be able to ask employers to provide a financial security, backed by a criminal sanction for non-compliance, where they identify a serious risk of failure to pay PAYE and/or certain NICs.. No need for me to resort to insults when a copy and paste from the HMRC. Carry on Ray, Billy Smart has an opening.

Leggos blog today sees him attack Andy Kerr. Is he the latest to don a suit and pick up a violin case? What Leggo fails to mention, and I cant think why, is if this CVA fails the liquidation will be immediate. I would have to assume that the Blue Cashlites mouthpiece is either pished again, or has been tipped the wink that the real rangers men will swing in and get the club on the cheap. But what puzzles me is how these real rangers men are going to avoid the penalties that he states quite freely will happen to Green, after all a liquidation is non negotiable.

My you are hysterical this morning, but if you check the HMRC website youll see that the deliberate witholding of tax is classed as criminal. Or are you using the "that was whyte" defence that has been sooooooo effective up till now.

Having a share issue is the ONLY option, time some folk realised that, or in lala land do they still pray for a benefactor wholl just part with cash but take no actual involvement with the club.

Instead of frothing at the gash how about reading the story. Can you point me to where he said hell take the transfer ban? Also have we paid our VAT yet, cause I could have sworn that for weeks every post on the subject says we should get a reasonable punishment. Now with a few choice bits of editing and selective quotes its pitch fork time.

shame he couldnt rite his tax returns rite

The value of the HMRC claim was raised, a bit different from a fresh claimant being added at this stage, especially as the claimant has had access to the creditors list

More or less the same thing.

I would guess that the £20 mill will only be required if we are still functioning as an SPL club. Personally unlike some I do believe turkeys vote for xmas, especially when manipulated and have massive egos and a warped perspective where having the ability to finish second in a one horse race is the new grail. Some folk will always be small time parochial provincial giants.

Either I can no longer read English or the Tag line doesnt match the text