The Misinformation From Media / Shettleston's etc

JW1988

Well-Known Member
It has started already.

English has popped up already with ''the revised bill is 68m so I'm not sure an error from HMRC caused Rangers to go under''.

This is showing blatant disregard of the facts.

20+ million of this 68m figure related to the wee tax case (which Whyte agreed to pay on the Purchase Agreement with David Murray) and the deliberate non payment of PAYE, NI and resulting penalties and interest accrued from Whyte's deliberate act.

The remaining ''liability'' :rolleyes: relates to a bill for 10 years of EBT's which Murray was (rightly) on the face of it contesting as it was wrong. The interest and penalties are looking like being written off as they were incorrectly applied to an inflated bill. The bill will be reduced to 20m, which over a 10 year span only amounts to roughly 2m per season. But we pjoor overspent on players we couldnay afford n at :rolleyes:

Another 2 key points:

1) Murray actually offered a settlement of 10/12m which was rejected.
2) The Whyte portion of the liability simply doesn't happen without the phantom bill in the first place!

Be prepared to fight the misinformation that's coming out bears.
Can you give me a breakdown of what he alleges we owed v what in actual fact we could have owed?
 

Gary

Well-Known Member
Shettleston is blue in majority IMHO. Dont know why its tagged Catholic.
Because people outside Glasgow think the "east end" is a tim area while singing about the Brigton derry boys in the same breath.

Even the area around Parkhead is more Rangers. I get the rhyming slang but some people seem to take it seriously.
 

jayd1872

Well-Known Member
Shettleston is blue in majority IMHO. Dont know why its tagged Catholic.
I'm curious. Is Shettleston a bluenose-free zone these days? Somebody needs to enlighten me.
It's nothing to do with the religious demographic of the area. "Shettlestons" comes from "Shettleston Harriers" who are one of the oldest and most successful athletics clubs in the country.

It's cockney rhyming slang for "tarriers" ;)
 

Gary

Well-Known Member
I had an idea but wasn't entirely sure. People could've been forgiven for thinking that it was linked to deprivation and voting SNP.
To be fair, that time they won by 75 votes and the last time there was a local election here the conservative guy won it for the first time ever...

A good way to figure out how the area leans is schools and pubs.
 

TCWNS1872

Well-Known Member
To be fair, that time they won by 75 votes and the last time there was a local election here the conservative guy won it for the first time ever...

A good way to figure out how the area leans is schools and pubs.
I take it that you're relatively local mate? As I posted earlier, I've known several bluenoses from Shettleston in my time.
 

Gary

Well-Known Member
I take it that you're relatively local mate? As I posted earlier, I've known several bluenoses from Shettleston in my time.
Yes mate, most of my family are from here and I still live local. Areas in the east end like Shettleson, Parkhead, Easterhouse etc. have huge Rangers support.
 

Neilstonger

Well-Known Member
It's nothing to do with the religious demographic of the area. "Shettlestons" comes from "Shettleston Harriers" who are one of the oldest and most successful athletics clubs in the country.

It's cockney rhyming slang for "tarriers" ;)
Surely it’s Glasgow rhyming slang for tarriers. We don’t need to borrow from the cockenees as we have our very rhyming slang. Eg:

Hampden roar
Ronson lighter
Honey pears
Sour grape
Jungle Jim
Dirty bheast
Hamilton Accie.

The last one not very PC but the rest are perfectly acceptable in polite society.
 

Walters80

Well-Known Member
Let’s not forget here also that documents relating to this case were either stolen or illegally leaked to the tax case nonce going as far back as 2010.

Utterly incredible that absolutely nothing has come of that as it’s a clear breach of the data protection act.
 

govwalker

Well-Known Member
Surely it’s Glasgow rhyming slang for tarriers. We don’t need to borrow from the cockenees as we have our very rhyming slang. Eg:

Hampden roar
Ronson lighter
Honey pears
Sour grape
Jungle Jim
Dirty bheast
Hamilton Accie.

The last one not very PC but the rest are perfectly acceptable in polite society.
But when we say the last one. It's a shorterened version of their country of origin. The PC brigade have fcked the rest of us with all this bollocks. It's a term of endearment rather than anything else racial etc.

Ie I'm going for a Skinny Malinky lol.
 

Bishy Bear

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I’ve posted this in another thread but here seems like an appropriate place also. The oldco currently owes creditors £63m excluding any HMRC liability. Therefore if we assume that the tax liability is only £20m then the total owed would be £83m. Unfortunately it’s too little too late and the oldco will be liquidated. You can take that to the bank. There’s no fairytale ending.
 

Neilstonger

Well-Known Member
But when we say the last one. It's a shorterened version of their country of origin. The PC brigade have fcked the rest of us with all this bollocks. It's a term of endearment rather than anything else racial etc.

Ie I'm going for a Skinny Malinky lol.
I hope you enjoyed your Tom Kite.
 

chosen few

Well-Known Member
I think we all need to be patient and see how this plays out, let's hear what bdo and Mr King have to say, I would much rather hear from them than some bitter brain dead tarrier who knows feck all about complex financial matters.
 

HandsomeHead

Well-Known Member
The media have spent nearly a decade pushing a particular narrative and taking a moral higher ground. They're not going to change. They will look to discredit The Times report and come up with reasons why we remain "guilty".
The problem now is that we already have folk on here creating a new narrative around this £20m figure as if it was firstly gospel and secondly a piffling amount.

When you add the £18m debt we owed to Lloyd’s at the time, we still had a pretty significant financial millstone around our necks and it isn’t by any means certain that the bank or Murray would have acted any differently when faced with that lesser amount.

I think some are in danger of getting carried away here as if we’ve just been told the whole thing was a huge mistake and we don’t owe a penny.
 

pepsimax73

Active Member
Mate, they simply do not understand facts. These are the same fans that refuse to not only discuss but acknowledge their rabid clubs paedophile history. "they're died" is one of their catchphrases amongst the rest of them that make no sense. They're hatred of Rangers has literally eclipsed their own support for their filthy club.
Aye "it's all about the Rangers"
 

hms

Well-Known Member
A tarrier barrier defence of epic proportions is being built, one like this hasn’t been assembled since, wait, it’s already ring fenced the piggery.

Hoilcom deflector shield set to maximum
 

DylanGer

Well-Known Member
The buck stopped with Murray

Sadly the sale to Whyte and that bastard's actions added another massive problem.

I get the outcry about the amount but if Murray hadn't put him and his future first and sold off an institution to a criminal then I suspect things would have been a lot better for us.

We are not going to get a time machine and Murray ultimately did the real damage to us.
 

Jase

Well-Known Member
Cut out the faux outrage guys. Who honestly thought it would be any other way.

Until Rangers start getting after these chunts it will be like this. It goes way past misleads and in some cases, downright lies. The little subtleties of ignoring feel-good stories about us or burying them amongst the tampax ads compared to the treatment afforded to negative stories.

Our PR leaves a lot to be desired.
 

shug1971&outlook.con

Active Member
The problem now is that we already have folk on here creating a new narrative around this £20m figure as if it was firstly gospel and secondly a piffling amount.

When you add the £18m debt we owed to Lloyd’s at the time, we still had a pretty significant financial millstone around our necks and it isn’t by any means certain that the bank or Murray would have acted any differently when faced with that lesser amount.

I think some are in danger of getting carried away here as if we’ve just been told the whole thing was a huge mistake and we don’t owe a penny.
The fact that this level of debt is manageable for a massive football club employing many international footballers obviously escapes your tiny mind. This was an orchestrated attempt to end our club
 

WalterLoyal

Well-Known Member
The Rangers hating scum in the media have reacted exactly as I would have expected. According to Peter Martin it's a non story and is purely down to creditors trying to get more money. Spiers and English have also came out with their usual bollocks as expected.
 

WalterLoyal

Well-Known Member
The problem now is that we already have folk on here creating a new narrative around this £20m figure as if it was firstly gospel and secondly a piffling amount.

When you add the £18m debt we owed to Lloyd’s at the time, we still had a pretty significant financial millstone around our necks and it isn’t by any means certain that the bank or Murray would have acted any differently when faced with that lesser amount.

I think some are in danger of getting carried away here as if we’ve just been told the whole thing was a huge mistake and we don’t owe a penny.
Complete bollocks. We were a club who had reduced our debt from around £32m to £18m in the space of two-three years. During that period we had success both on and off the park. We were cutting costs, reducing debt, but also being successful on the pitch.

We were playing regular European football and had a squad packed with international footballers worth a lot of money. The likes of Davis, McGregor, Whittaker, Naismith and Jelavic would all have commanded good fees. There is absolutely no way liquidation would have happened if it was only a £20m tax bill hanging over our heads.

It's also important to remember part of the reason Lloyds were putting us under so much pressure to reduce our debt was because we had a potential huge tax bill hanging over us.
 

Rickymck

Well-Known Member
The problem now is that we already have folk on here creating a new narrative around this £20m figure as if it was firstly gospel and secondly a piffling amount.

When you add the £18m debt we owed to Lloyd’s at the time, we still had a pretty significant financial millstone around our necks and it isn’t by any means certain that the bank or Murray would have acted any differently when faced with that lesser amount.

I think some are in danger of getting carried away here as if we’ve just been told the whole thing was a huge mistake and we don’t owe a penny.
The £18m was serviceable debt and due to our success in 3 years was massively down from what we had. 2 champions league qualifications would have taken this under 10 million easily. Now when HMRC finalise the figures we will see what the tax bill could have been and anything like the figures quoted then a deal could easily have been done to pay this back, in fact over a period of the 6 years this has been going on, selling a couple of decent players (something we were good at) would cover this. Now the story is and always will be why HMRC pursued us so vigorously and banded around crazy figures that clearly spooked Lloyd's Bank to force a sale before they lost their money? The negative press and scaremongering definitely had an effect on scaring off investors and if HMRC are willing to be sensible about this now someone needs to ask why not then?
 

DylanGer

Well-Known Member
Complete bollocks. We were a club who had reduced our debt from around £32m to £18m in the space of two-three years. During that period we had success both on and off the park. We were cutting costs, reducing debt, but also being successful on the pitch.

We were playing regular European football and had a squad packed with international footballers worth a lot of money. The likes of Davis, McGregor, Whittaker, Naismith and Jelavic would all have commanded good fees. There is absolutely no way liquidation would have happened if it was only a £20m tax bill hanging over our heads.

It's also important to remember part of the reason Lloyds were putting us under so much pressure to reduce our debt was because we had a potential huge tax bill hanging over us.
[/QUOTE

.
This is 100% correct but the massive problem came next was the sale to Whyte. This will be the key problem seeking any recourse because what he did next was corporate vandalism and he did it in our name. We won't get away with that and we didn't even though he did
 

HandsomeHead

Well-Known Member
The fact that this level of debt is manageable for a massive football club employing many international footballers obviously escapes your tiny mind. This was an orchestrated attempt to end our club
Precisely, so why would it have mattered whether the bill was £100m or only 20?

Lloyd’s were oddly desperate to rid themselves of us when the bill was still unknown. Lots of us remarked on this at the time. They were infinitely more concerned about Murray’s wider MIH portfolio and he was happy to let them take over the running of Rangers as we’d exhausted our usefulness to him by that point.

Muir and McGill were evidently on commission to sell the club by any means necessary so as I see it there’s still a chance events may have unfolded exactly as they did.

This was at the height of the economic panic remember - the bottom line was everything.
 

nemessis

Well-Known Member
Just caught the end of STV news and they where interviewing folk in st enoch square and they had to find some bead rattler saying the club died and wee haven't a pot to piss in, why can't these fcukers get it the law, the SFA and the heads of footballs governing bodies say it's the same club really pisses me off
They are brainwashed into believing it some of them actually think its true, same as the paedo ring their brains don't register that as being vile, despicable, and criminal.
 

Twosignals

Well-Known Member
Hark, do I hear the Leprechaun mention anything about the derisory payment/settlement from Chelsea and Arsenal for Tax, Nope, there again that was HMRC England? Funny how HMRC Scotland look at it differently, should I be surprised, again Nope!
 

EH47

Well-Known Member
They are brainwashed into believing it some of them actually think its true, same as the paedo ring their brains don't register that as being vile, despicable, and criminal.
Some of the dribbling idiots will tell you they did not have a massive paedophile ring operating within their club for at least 50 years.
 
Top