ritchies75 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16984191 Rangers owner Craig Whyte has been told to pay a disputed bill of ?86,127 to a roofing firm after a sheriff described his evidence as "wholly unreliable".One Stop Roofing Supplies claimed Mr Whyte's company Tixway UK had breached an agreement to pay for goods bought by another company, ?Snowcast UK. Mr Whyte, 40, disputed this and said he was a creditor of Snowcast. In a written ruling, Sheriff Nigel Ross stated: "I reject the evidence of Mr Whyte as wholly unreliable." The case centred on the business relationship between Mr Whyte, Chris Keating - who owned Snowcast UK before it folded - and One Stop Roofing Supplies, which is run by Robert Jenkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16984191 Rangers owner Craig Whyte has been told to pay a disputed bill of ?86,127 to a roofing firm after a sheriff described his evidence as "wholly unreliable".One Stop Roofing Supplies claimed Mr Whyte's company Tixway UK had breached an agreement to pay for goods bought by another company, ?Snowcast UK. Mr Whyte, 40, disputed this and said he was a creditor of Snowcast. In a written ruling, Sheriff Nigel Ross stated: "I reject the evidence of Mr Whyte as wholly unreliable." The case centred on the business relationship between Mr Whyte, Chris Keating - who owned Snowcast UK before it folded - and One Stop Roofing Supplies, which is run by Robert Jenkins. That Sheriff's statement could really hurt Whyte, if it helps prompt the Procurators Fiscal into investigating the suggestion of him having committed perjury in the case highlighted by the BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 That Sheriff's statement could really hurt Whyte, if it helps prompt the Procurators Fiscal into investigating the suggestion of him having committed perjury in the case highlighted by the BBC. Couldn't have happened to a nicer man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girvanjambo Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-16984191 Rangers owner Craig Whyte has been told to pay a disputed bill of ?86,127 to a roofing firm after a sheriff described his evidence as "wholly unreliable".One Stop Roofing Supplies claimed Mr Whyte's company Tixway UK had breached an agreement to pay for goods bought by another company, ?Snowcast UK. Mr Whyte, 40, disputed this and said he was a creditor of Snowcast. In a written ruling, Sheriff Nigel Ross stated: "I reject the evidence of Mr Whyte as wholly unreliable." The case centred on the business relationship between Mr Whyte, Chris Keating - who owned Snowcast UK before it folded - and One Stop Roofing Supplies, which is run by Robert Jenkins. So that bill, in effect, is ?86,126 more than he paid for Rangers F.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartbeat Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 So that bill, in effect, is ?86,126 more than he paid for Rangers F.C. Sheriff stated that every other bit of evidence given by others totally contradicted his. Seems an honest enough guy to me, rancers have nought to worry about they are in good hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I am just loving this thread. It gives me a warm glow inside, even if it turns out all well and dandy for Rangers in the end ( which no feckin doubt it somehow will ). I know that it is shallow but knowing that one of the old firm are suffering whilst we are in turmoil eases and distracts the pain Me too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 "It is not possible to ascertain whether he is not telling the truth or is simply unable to recollect the true position, and has convinced himself that this arrangement is something that he would not have entered into. "Either way, his evidence is contradicted by virtually every other piece of evidence" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 "It is not possible to ascertain whether he is not telling the truth or is simply unable to recollect the true position, and has convinced himself that this arrangement is something that he would not have entered into. "Either way, his evidence is contradicted by virtually every other piece of evidence" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 but surely all this is trifling, piffling, peanuts? Whyte is a billionaire who used to live in Monte Carlo isn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 but surely all this is trifling, piffling, peanuts? Whyte is a billionaire who used to live in Monte Carlo isn't he? Nope! - he used to live in Monaco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Allegedly the guy in the armed siege in Glasgow is the Rangers chairman Craig Whyte, apparently he went mental after he was told he couldn't pay for his pizza in installments cos it said Four Seasons on the menu! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Allegedly the guy in the armed siege in Glasgow is the Rangers chairman Craig Whyte, apparently he went mental after he was told he couldn't pay for his pizza in installments cos it said Four Seasons on the menu! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teuchterjambo Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Right - I have to admit I have had a bad week at work and tonight I have had a few anti stress beers and damned good they were ! So.... I come home and have a look at Kickback and one of the first threads I look at has 17 pages about Glasgow Rangers ! Jeez oh guys and gals catch a grip - I know that this is for football related topics but if you want to spend so much time debating the weejia scum just go on one of their web sites and join in the bile fest. I really don't care about whatt happens to them or their brothers in arms over at Parkhead because that's what they really are - symbiotic twins who live of each other in their own common interests at the expense of all the rest of us and Scottish football in general. Get a grip folks - there are more important things - the famous Heart of Midlothian for starters. Rant over - Goodnight and I hope tomorrow brings you dreams of Gorgie !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Right - I have to admit I have had a bad week at work and tonight I have had a few anti stress beers and damned good they were ! So.... I come home and have a look at Kickback and one of the first threads I look at has 17 pages about Glasgow Rangers ! Jeez oh guys and gals catch a grip - I know that this is for football related topics but if you want to spend so much time debating the weejia scum just go on one of their web sites and join in the bile fest. I really don't care about whatt happens to them or their brothers in arms over at Parkhead because that's what they really are - symbiotic twins who live of each other in their own common interests at the expense of all the rest of us and Scottish football in general. Get a grip folks - there are more important things - the famous Heart of Midlothian for starters. Rant over - Goodnight and I hope tomorrow brings you dreams of Gorgie !!!! Er, if Rangers disappeared from the planet it would be the biggest opportunity ever to revamp Scottish football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 but surely all this is trifling, piffling, peanuts? Whyte is a billionaire who used to live in Monte Carlo isn't he? Smoke and mirrors. Someone elses money - 1st rule of the shyster code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Independence Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Right - I have to admit I have had a bad week at work and tonight I have had a few anti stress beers and damned good they were ! So.... I come home and have a look at Kickback and one of the first threads I look at has 17 pages about Glasgow Rangers ! Jeez oh guys and gals catch a grip - I know that this is for football related topics but if you want to spend so much time debating the weejia scum just go on one of their web sites and join in the bile fest. I really don't care about whatt happens to them or their brothers in arms over at Parkhead because that's what they really are - symbiotic twins who live of each other in their own common interests at the expense of all the rest of us and Scottish football in general. Get a grip folks - there are more important things - the famous Heart of Midlothian for starters. Rant over - Goodnight and I hope tomorrow brings you dreams of Gorgie !!!! I love to read about the demise of one of the Bigot Brothers. Having supported Hearts for over 50 years , believe me that both OF teams are the disgrace of Scotland! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I really don't care about whatt happens to them or their brothers in arms over at Parkhead because that's what they really are - symbiotic twins who live of each other in their own common interests at the expense of all the rest of us and Scottish football in general. ....and if one dies, what happens to the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 ....and if one dies, what happens to the other? Gets a chat show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Gets a chat show. ....or Question of Sport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adayinmay Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I had a thought. If Rangers go into administration (which is more than likely) then they will not be allowed to vote on SPL matters whilst in administration. As most issues can be veto-ed by Celtic and Rangers siding together hence the 11-1 rule would this not be the time for all the other clubs to put their agendas and proposals on the table? Any issue would have to be passed as Rangers could vote. Increase league size to 18 Equal share of TV revenue. Change voting structure to majority vote. Now is the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I had a thought. If Rangers go into administration (which is more than likely) then they will not be allowed to vote on SPL matters whilst in administration. As most issues can be veto-ed by Celtic and Rangers siding together hence the 11-1 rule would this not be the time for all the other clubs to put their agendas and proposals on the table? Any issue would have to be passed as Rangers could vote. Increase league size to 18 Equal share of TV revenue. Change voting structure to majority vote. Now is the time Have to hope the other club owners show some spine. But they have been sorely lacking that in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I had a thought. If Rangers go into administration (which is more than likely) then they will not be allowed to vote on SPL matters whilst in administration. As most issues can be veto-ed by Celtic and Rangers siding together hence the 11-1 rule would this not be the time for all the other clubs to put their agendas and proposals on the table? Any issue would have to be passed as Rangers could vote. Increase league size to 18 Equal share of TV revenue. Change voting structure to majority vote. Now is the time Do you know how the rule is worded? Would 10-1 be enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1874M Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Do you know how the rule is worded? Would 10-1 be enough? Yes, this has been discussed briefly in the media. I'm certain, as was mentioned we'd need to hope other clubs votes aren't bought somehow by one of the uglies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Deeds Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Have to hope the other club owners show some spine. But they have been sorely lacking that in the past. The other teams can't even agree on whether a 10 team or expanded league in better. Expect club like M'well to help Celtic veto everything until Rangers are back in the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I love to read about the demise of one of the Bigot Brothers. Having supported Hearts for over 50 years , believe me that both OF teams are the disgrace of Scotland! I'm 100% with you in everything, including the 50 years + and your avatar !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Do you know how the rule is worded? Would 10-1 be enough? It's 83% so 10 out of 11 would be enough. But unfortunately there has never been any evidence that anything like 10 Scottish clubs would stand up to the OF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebeto Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Killie have already said they cant kive without Rangers so they would vote for the best of Rangers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Does anyone think Vlad would vote for newco Rangers? Would the sheep ultras accept their board voting for newco Rangers? Would the Pars or the vermin vote to relegate themselves? Put it this way, vote for this measure and non-gruesome clubs would sign their own death warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Rightly or wrongly there is already chat within Celtic support of boycotting any club that votes to admit a Rangers newco into the SPL. If these clubs are worried about losing OF attendance money should Rangers go under then Celts fans want to ensure they would face the threat of an equal drop in attendance levels if they vote to keep cheating Rangers in the SPL. Whether such a widespread boycott would be effective or long-lasting is debatable but they certainly seem to be very angry/intent on such a scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Anybody who thinks that this will be decided under the glare of publicity needs professional help. The SPL will only announce the final outcome of their decision making process. I'd be absolutely amazed if they mention what the margin of any vote was, far less which Clubs voted which way. I'd recon that the only way we might know, and the SPL might say publicly, is if any decision is unanimous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VALDOS Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Rightly or wrongly there is already chat within Celtic support of boycotting any club that votes to admit a Rangers newco into the SPL. If these clubs are worried about losing OF attendance money should Rangers go under then Celts fans want to ensure they would face the threat of an equal drop in attendance levels if they vote to keep cheating Rangers in the SPL. Whether such a widespread boycott would be effective or long-lasting is debatable but they certainly seem to be very angry/intent on such a scenario. I would be utterly amazed if this were to ever happen, most fan boycotts last just about long enough to take a dump, if the the regular traveling support give up their tickets there will be equal numbers waiting to pick them up.Celtic know this whole scenario involving Rangers would be equally destructive to themselves, lawell and co are bricking it. I heard a Celtic fan on Jabba's phone-in the other day going on about how it should only be right that any team changing their name start with a clear history(ie. no titles)..........did he no think to tell the "Bunnet" the same thing when he changed the name of Celtic..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 The boardroom saga continues with Dave King sacked by the Whyte knight (at least according to Monday's Record) http://twitpic.com/8j3zfy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 The boardroom saga continues with Dave King sacked by the Whyte knight (at least according to Monday's Record) http://twitpic.com/8j3zfy :interesting: He is certainly getting rid of anyone who doesn't agree with him. Definitely a case of either circling the wagons or it's my baw and your no playing!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 :interesting: He is certainly getting rid of anyone who doesn't agree with him. Definitely a case of either circling the wagons or it's my baw and your no playing!!! Then again it is a wise move by Whyte, King is a snake in the grass. Someone who has recently made it clear that he still wants to be owner of Rangers. It is also clear that he is leaking info to the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Does anyone think Vlad would vote for newco Rangers? Would the sheep ultras accept their board voting for newco Rangers? Would the Pars or the vermin vote to relegate themselves? Put it this way, vote for this measure and non-gruesome clubs would sign their own death warrant. Relegation and promotion are automatic according to the rules. The Pars or Hibs wil be relegated - the only question then is who if anyone makes up the numbers in the SPL. The SPL Articles of Association are odd on this. You need 83% (10 out of 11) to introduce a new club other than by the normal promotion rules. I suspect Rangers would still get in. But it only takes 66% (8 out of 11) to change the rules on admission of new clubs. Rangers Newco are home and dry, alas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Then again it is a wise move by Whyte, King is a snake in the grass. Someone who has recently made it clear that he still wants to be owner of Rangers. It is also clear that he is leaking info to the press. Very true, ousts another non believer and potentially brings in another Andrew Ellis style figure into his ever decreasing circle of trust. Is it true Whyte is only 40?? Must have had a tough paper round if that was the case!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Rightly or wrongly there is already chat within Celtic support of boycotting any club that votes to admit a Rangers newco into the SPL. If these clubs are worried about losing OF attendance money should Rangers go under then Celts fans want to ensure they would face the threat of an equal drop in attendance levels if they vote to keep cheating Rangers in the SPL. Whether such a widespread boycott would be effective or long-lasting is debatable but they certainly seem to be very angry/intent on such a scenario. Typical Celtic fans, they only know how to hurt other teams. They see clubs are worried that they would suffer financially if Rangers go under and decide they will hurt the clubs more to punish them for letting Rangers back into the league. That will only keep more resentment from non-Old Firm clubs towards Celtic. A better idea is rather then use the stick, use the carrot. Push for a change in the way the league is structured, particuarly the tv deal distribution to compensate for losing the Rangers. So it may mean that Celtic (and second place) will get less tv money, the top two current get 32% of the revenue in the SPL, the bottom six gets 34.5%. The TV money matters less to clubs like Celtic or Hearts then teams like St Mirren, ICT or Dunfermline because for these lower clubs it is a larger proportion of their revenue then for clubs like Celtic and Hearts were ticket sales produce a greater proportion of revenue. So the SPL distribution of revenue matters to these clubs, so for example if you were to change it so that 1st and 2nd would get 25% of total money (so 7% less then now) 3rd to 6th got 34% (so about the same as now) and the bottom six recieved 41%, if the figure of ?17m a season is used as that what the new tv deal is (though I know without Rangers it will be less) the top two will get ?1.2m less a season and the bottom six will gain that ?1.11m which averages out as ?200,000 extra to each club in the bottom six (though I imagine it would be weighted so bottom will get less of that figure and 7th will get more.) If you were to take the idea that Rangers coming to play added 1,500 extra tickets sold at ?30 each, will bring you addition revenue (if your bottom six and lucky enough to play them twice at home) of ?90,000 a year so an increase of spl prize money to ?200,000 would easily compensate that. So if Celtic fans want to keep Rangers out, they need to lobby their board to push the changes with many sweeteners for clubs to see the financial benefit of Rangers not being allowed back in. It means Celtic will have to sacrifice somethings. And the fans will have to push the board as I cant see the Celtic board wont do anything else but accept Rangers back in so that duopoly can be maintained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Celtic fans hate Rangers. Celtic's board needs Rangers. Which one has the voting rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Relegation and promotion are automatic according to the rules. The Pars or Hibs wil be relegated - the only question then is who if anyone makes up the numbers in the SPL. The SPL Articles of Association are odd on this. You need 83% (10 out of 11) to introduce a new club other than by the normal promotion rules. I suspect Rangers would still get in. But it only takes 66% (8 out of 11) to change the rules on admission of new clubs. Rangers Newco are home and dry, alas. Massive meh! I thought it only needed 2 No's. That said, the other fundamental issue is the phoenix company. If it is Rangers AFC playing at Ibronx in the SPL, HMRC will go after the phoenix company for the tax debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Massive meh! I thought it only needed 2 No's. That said, the other fundamental issue is the phoenix company. If it is Rangers AFC playing at Ibronx in the SPL, HMRC will go after the phoenix company for the tax debt. It does only require two no votes to block the admittance of a new team under the existing rules, but as FA says, the rules on admittance can be altered with a 66% vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Hardcastle Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 It does only require two no votes to block the admittance of a new team under the existing rules, but as FA says, the rules on admittance can be altered with a 66% vote Agreed I would accept rangers new co back in the SPL if voting system was to change... that way it will stop the old firm having control. It would be a step forward IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swavkav Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 with the huns going into admin, do we still get our cash for Wallace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Winstone Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Then again it is a wise move by Whyte, King is a snake in the grass. Someone who has recently made it clear that he still wants to be owner of Rangers. It is also clear that he is leaking info to the press. :interesting: stand point JIG...you are clearly a fan of those who stand by the CEO...no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 :interesting: stand point JIG...you are clearly a fan of those who stand by the CEO...no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Winstone Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 :'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Can someone who knows help me out here ? It has been said that if HMRC win the case then Whyte will simply fold the company and transfer the assets to Newco. Apparently he can do this because he has a 'floating charge' over Ranger's assets. But surely he can only extract what Rangers actually owe him ? Which is what precisely ? I also thought that HMRC's claim - which predates his acquisition of the club - would rank at least pari passu with his ? I'm confused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3,750
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.