Mike1

why?

the CLUB is not responsible, it was oldco / MIH

as soon as we had to have a newco, none of the old stuff mattered, except when SFA made Green accept oldco sanctions

just realised, it's not oldco who's the defendant in the BTV, isn't it Murray's MIH? oldco has nothing to do with the BTC

NOT THE CLUB BUT THE COMPANY!!!

don't you get it, the oldco has no money and what cash they did have Duff & Phepls spent - HMRC will get nothing, neither will any creditors, HMRC have made this a test case to go after other EBT companies

the BTC and the SPL tribunal are looking at different parts of the same thing - one does not affect the other

the oldco is still in administration, it will soon be in liquidation, it is not yet liquidated

wtf?

double dumb ass

Ah, man! Aluko, I hate it when people tell me I'm being a nit-picking dickhead. take a rep my son, and I shall say no more!

Hi Oleg, you know what I was going to apologise and hold my hands up that I must have been wrong, but then I read the article on your link, which you edited out of your re-quote: - "Lord Nimmo Smith's inquiry on behalf of the SFA into the takeover of Rangers by Craig Whyte found that he was not a fit and proper person to be involved in Scottish football. Subsequently, an independent SFA judicial panel imposed fines and a 12-month transfer embargo on Rangers for bringing the game into disrepute in the period that followed Whyte's May 2011 takeover for non-payment of taxes and for not paying money owed to member clubs. Rangers' appeal against the ban was unsuccessful, with Lord Carloway approving the original decision, but they won their appeal at the Court of Session." Nimmo Smith wasn't on a panel, he led an inquiry into Whyte, then there was a separate panel deciding on evidence provided, which gave the infamous transfer ban, which was upheld by Lord Carloway's appeal tribunal, which was sent back to him by the Court's Lord Glennie as it wasn't within the rules. If you are going to make statements of fact take a second to check your facts - making wrong statements makes the Rangers support look idiotic and prejudiced. There are many reasons to complain about the Nimmo Smith tribunal, but starting with something he didn't do makes any subsequent comment have very dodgy ground. You might as well have said that the SFL enquiry into Rangers EBT's is biased because they have already pre-judged us when they tried to get Green to sign up to title stripping. But wait a minute that was the SPL, not the SFL wasn't it? Slight changes in facts changes the point of the article. Get the facts right from the start and the rest of your comments can be read, understood and agreed with. Get it wrong and why bother reading the rest of the post as it is just a one-eyed, non-factual comment. I usually look forward to reading your stuff, but in future I guess I'm going to have to check your facts before I get invested in the text.

The only problem with the above post is it starts from a wrong premise: it was Lord Carloway, not Nimmo Smith who was put down by Lord Glennie. Your whole post becomes a piece of bollocks, because you couldn't be arsed checking one simple fact.

Must admit, I've never heard say Daleks before. What's the context?

new to the terminology - what's the bjk camp?