Comment on JPP: Perverting Justice? by Allyjambo.

    Homunculus 14th October 2018 at 16:50  


    I think what UTH is alluding to is, if they'd managed a CVA or found a buyer, they would have, at a later date, had to face the EBT tax bill which didn't 'crystalize' until after the Supreme Court ruling.

    Allyjambo Also Commented

    JPP: Perverting Justice?

    1. View Comment
    2. Homunculus 14th October 2018 at 21:48  




      14th October 2018 at 19:09  

      Allyjambo 14th October 2018 at 17:10  

      I think what UTH is alluding to is, if they'd managed a CVA or found a buyer, they would have, at a later date, had to face the EBT tax bill which didn't 'crystalize' until after the Supreme Court ruling.


      That is what I meant, or if they had managed to get to the CL group stages they might have struggled on. However the tax bill would have hit at some point. 


      Surely at a CVA the debt owed to a creditor is the debt at that time.

      They put a claim in and the administrator accepts or rejects it. If the CVA is agreed and the appropriate payments are made by the administrator then that is a clean slate. That is the whole point of trying to save the company and getting it back operating again. That was certainly the intent of the Enterprise Act as I understand it. To save companies and jobs.

      The idea that someone could come back in and claim a huge debt, relating to the pre CVA period seems counter intuitive to the intent of Parliament.

      I am more than happy to be told I am wrong on this, it is really not my area. Every day is a school day for those willing to learn.

    3. ______________________
    4. I do not think the intent of parliament was to provide businesses with a way of shedding debt currently going through the courts by going into administration before a final ruling is made (on the contingent debt). At the same time I think it would be equally wrong for a contingent creditor to be able to vote and block a CVA when it might later be found to be owed nothing. I suspect that in a case where a CVA is achievable, but a contingent liability exists, that the purchaser of the company would have to accept the contingent liability as part of the deal. It would then be up to the purchaser to decide whether or not he considers the risk worth it. Like you, Homunculus, I have no knowledge on the matter, but, if I am wrong, then however it might work, someone would surely be unfairly disadvantaged.


    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    Darkbeforedawn 14th October 2018 at 20:01


    …The other group that were in for the club (Paul Murray and his partner) I believe would have lived within their means and done what I and other fans wanted – build a foundation out of youth prospects, coming through the leagues with a bit of humility accepting what we had done, apologising for the mess and making some friends along the 'journey'. By the time we were back in the top league we could have built up a nice bit of money in the bank and without the huge chip on our shoulder and 'everyone is out to get us' mindset I'm sure there would not be the same hatred towards us now, and certainly not the financial basket case we are! So yes, that's why I hate Green and hold him second only to Murray for the problems of recent years…



    A very good post, DBD, but this part is very much something that didn't happen, and it didn't happen because the people involved did not come up with enough money to satisfy the CVA (they were a long, long way off) and, as far as we know, did not offer anything in the event the CVA failed. They only wanted the real Rangers football club, and, as men (in your opinion) were not steeped in the same level of spivery as Charles Green, and so did not have the crass dishonesty to come up with fanciful claims of continuation.


    It was Bill Miller, the American, who first came up with the 'incubator' idea, but, from memory, his idea was to buy the 'club' before the CVA was refused. Even his idea was fanciful and was built on his own experiences of the American Football franchise system. It was, of course, the support that you suggest would have (eventually) accepted an impoverished club that chased him away.


    As things stand, there is no evidence that anyone other than Charles Green was going to buy the club's assets in the event of no CVA, and with the media and everyone surrounding Rangers accepting that no CVA meant no Rangers, it took a liar of the highest degree to push the media to change their minds without explanation.


    Charles Green came up with the £5.5m for the club's assets, no one else came close to that figure, nor did they offer their cash upfront – even for the club as a going concern. So the idea that someone else would have been able to cobble it all together, convince those they had to convince that it was the same club, then keep enough supporters onside to finance a team and the upkeep of that crumbling stadium can only be wishful speculation.


    Whether or not we accept the idea that Charles Green 'saved' Rangers, he was the only man who came up with enough money, at the most critical moment, to buy the assets and to continue with a club playing out of Ibrox. Had he not done that in the manner it was done, then a process of buying the assets (advertised as the assets of RFC(IL) would have taken place and, if dealt with properly, it could have taken months, or even years, to complete, and there would now be no club playing out of Ibrox claiming to be the continuation of your beloved club.


    By the way, the name Brian Kennedy has hung around as a potential buyer almost from the off, and continues to be named from time to time as an incoming Blue Knight, but has never put hard cash on the table, and even if he had, there is no evidence to suggest he would have done a great job, just ask the Stockport County fans, who see him only as an asset stripping publicity seeker!


    In short, Charles Green was the only man in a position to continue (almost seamlessly) with a football team at Ibrox, and for anyone who believes that Rangers still play there, it must surely be considered that he did 'save' the club.

    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    RyanGosling 14th October 2018 at 12:29 2 0 Rate This Allyjambo / Upthehoops, I think you’re both mistaken. There may still be some Rangers fans who see Mr Murray in a positive light, but I don’t know a single Rangers fan who thinks of him positively and everyone I know sees quite clearly how he is the author of Rangers downfall.



    Ah, but do they hate him for it? For they surely hate everyone else they see as culpable in their club's demise.


    Having had no 'Rangers' supporting acquaintances for quite some time now, I have no way of knowing how one would talk now of Murray (the last one I knew, at the time of LNS agreed that the decision not to strip titles was wrong but would not hear a word said against Murray 'because he was doing what was best for Rangers at the time') but from what I can gather from social media any criticism of him would always have a 'but' in it. A 'but' recalling all the trophies won, mitigating his guilt (it would never be 'guilt'), leaving all those others to take the hatred that really belongs to Murray!

    Recent Comments by Allyjambo

    Bad Money?
    John Clark 21st July 2019 at 14:29 



    Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 09:59

    '…that no action can be taken against a dead club..'


    Oh, I don't know about that, Aj.

    The history books could/should show that Rangers FC of 1872 died an utterly dishonourable death, not occasioned by the run-of-the-mill  business failure that even perfectly honest businesses can suffer but a death caused by its serial cheating both of the Football Authorities and of HMRC over  a number of years.

    Post-mortem expulsion from Scottish Football is entirely possible and appropriate.

    And of course the absurd pretence that TRFC Ltd is the same club as that monstrous cheat of a club should be forthwith abandoned, and Scottish Football put back on the path of Sporting truth.


    Which kind of backs up what I was saying, JC. The 'club' will be unaffected, just as the vile Jimmy Saville was/is by his post mortem revelations (pardon my distasteful analogy, but it's the most lucid one I could come up with). The supporters, of course, won't be unaffected by such things as change of history, but they're not what those blocking Resolution 12 are concerned with (other than in some cases being supporters of the deceased club, but still more concerned about their own part in the deception and/or cover-up).

    In short, I believe those involved in blocking a proper investigation/inquiry are solely concerned with the effects the revelations might have on them, such as job loss, reputation loss, jail time?, and even own club revenue.

    They are, each and every one of them, self-serving barstewards.


    Bad Money?
    JC and Auldheid.

    Isn't it so disappointing. depressing even, that we now know that those charged with running our clubs are prepared to use underhand methods to defeat their own supporters and shareholders in an effort to prevent an investigation into the likely wrongdoing of, not only of one member club (now defunct), but the SFA as well?

    I very much doubt that the clubs and SFA are worried about the effect an investigation would have on Rangers(IL), they know, after all, that no action can be taken against a dead club and the current club is protected by the very fact it is a different club. It is, particularly in the case of the SFA, the fear of what might come out about their own, personal, actions and blind eye turning that causes this reluctance to seek justice. That and the realisation that a proper, fully publicised, investigation would blow the continuation myth right out the water as an explanation would have to be made as to why the current club is not responsible for the actions of the club we know is dead but those running the game wish to pretend is still living and playing at Ibrox.

    Of course, anyone involved at Rangers at the time the (potential) fraud took place might feel the effects of any fallout, maybe even a criminal investigation.

    Bad Money?
    Darkbeforedawn 19th July 2019 at 22:50

    20 minutes or so before the M'well v Morton kick-off, I heard James McFadden come out with the 'when Rangers dropped down the divisions' observation.

    Off all people McFadden could never be accused of helping our Rangers. He has despised us for as long as he has been a player. At times there are folk who just don’t get involved or see it as either being pro or against new club idea. It’s a case of “if it smells like Rangers and looks like Rangers then it it’s rangers”. And there are a large large number of Celtic fans who are the same. There will always be a large number who will never accept it, but likewise a large number who don’t get involved or care. I don’t think it’s fair to assume every person who states what you proclaim as a lie is in some sort of conspiracy. I’ll stick up for Fad for as much as I know he hates Rangers I will never forget the memories of that night in Paris.


    I'd suggest your comments, highlighted in bold, while probably true, are as a direct result of the lying propaganda pushed by the SMSM and, in particular, the BBC, that John has just written about.

    Continually publish a lie and more and more people will accept it as the truth, or, at least, stop pushing against the lie. And the continuous and unremitting need to repeat the lie, particularly when there is no obvious cause to mention it, is proof that it is, indeed, a lie.

    Bad Money?
    John Clark 19th July 2019 at 21:55


    John, in what context did McFadden find the 'need' to utter the following in the build up to a Motherwell v Morton match?

    "20 minutes or so before the M'well v Morton kick-off, I heard James McFadden come out with the 'when Rangers dropped down the divisions' observation."

    I'd be interested to know if he found cause to mention Hearts or Hibs relegations, or Dundee United's, and so on, or was he caught up in a discussion about the relegation of West Coast football clubs like Morton? I'd hazard a guess at no, he didn't and wasn't. I'd even say I am sure there was no link between either of the clubs involved in the broadcast and the apparent link to mentioning 'Rangers' in a way that suggests the current club, that started life in the fourth tier of Scottish football, is one and the same as the one currently languishing in liquidation.

    There can be little doubt, regardless of McFadden's own honesty, that he was working from a script, perhaps a loose one, that the BBC provides it's commentators with to ensure that the word 'Rangers' is always mentioned, either in a positive way or just to push the 'continuity' propaganda. No doubt Celtic were mentioned at some point, too. You know? just to provide that BBC 'balance'.

    Bad Money?
    More p*sh from Ibrox facing media.

    'Steven Gerrard Rejects Approach To Manage Newcastle And Rebuffs Mike Ashley To Stay At Rangers'

    That's a headline in the Daily Mail. Now anyone who thinks Mike Ashley would put himself in a position to be rebuffed by anyone at Ibrox hasn't been paying attention. No details, of course, and the Mail does cover itself by 'crediting' the Mirror for the story. But…with Sky Sports in full Ibrox PR mode, making it sound like 'Rangers' are awash with cash, it's all becoming rather wearisome. Oh, and the smiles on the Sky Sports' pundits whenever they mention 'Rangers' or Gerrard…they look like they're on a bonus for saying the words!