Still a Battle for Survival


Tour of TRanger’s trophy room: Guide: “These are the trophies Mr …

Comment on Still a Battle for Survival by midcalderan.

Tour of TRanger’s trophy room:

Guide: “These are the trophies Mr Green’s company purchased”

Tourist: “Where are the trophies you won?”

Guide: “We’ve not won anything yet”

Tourist: “Can I get my money back. I feel I’ve been mislead?”

midcalderan Also Commented

Still a Battle for Survival
Do you think this statement by Green is an attempt to force the SFA to withdraw the licence to play football. In a few year’s time, he will be able to claim that it’s not his fault Ibrox is now a block of flats, the Albion car park is now a supermarket and the housing estate which now stands at Murray Park is a very nice place to live.

Still a Battle for Survival
Correction: “save”. Should have come home earlier.

Still a Battle for Survival
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
September 7, 2012 at 23:17

Good Evening,
Calming influence. Let’s safe our energy until the results come out.

Recent Comments by midcalderan

A Question of Trust (Updated)
Henry Clarson says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 17:52

beatipacificiscotia says:

Friday, February 1, 2013 at 17:21

The number of thumbs down I got for suggesting something that might help Rangers just shows how anti-Rangers this board is.
My impression of this board is that it is anti-corruption.
It so happens that a great deal of evidence has been gathered that one particular Scottish football club has played an enormous part in corrupting Scottish football. Nobody who is anti-corruption would want to see that club benefit from the havoc which it has caused, especially when that club still refuses to give the slightest indication that it recognises its culpability or feels any remorse.
They will have been given the opportunity to exculpate themselves. Do you think they will have grasped it? If they do, could we all move on? I think we could.

The Real Battle Begins?
TheBlackKnight TBK says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 12:22

“CHARLES GREEN has expressed his anger and dismay at the timing of the verdict of the First Tier Tax Tribunal as it has massively affected the current status of Rangers.”
I thought Charles was trying to convey that if Mr Red and Mr Black had not messed HMRC around from 2004, this matter could have been resolved many, many years ago.

He also suggests – quite rightly – that RFC could have avoided administration and liquidation had they cooperated with HMRC and in getting the case to FTTT. Without these extraordinary delays he would not have been able to purchase the valuable assets of RFC at such a low price, gain control of TRFC and rightly or wrongly, go on to make what he anticipates to be a substantial profit.

I think he forgot to include in his statement, “Mr Black and Mr Red, I thank you both for bringing about this chain of events”.

The Real Battle Begins?
theglen2012 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 00:05

Do I, or anyone with half a brain think that the EBT’s were set up for anything other than paying players higher wages than the club could possibly afford? No. Clearly not. But, the point is, 2 persons with much greater legal acumen then I have decided that, on the evidence provided, it cannot be proven that that is the case.

TG2012, thanks for the interesting post. Whilst I agree that the verdict for the time being is no doubt a tax related victory for RFC, please correct me if I’m wrong but from the dissenting judges’ comments at Page 67, Para 35, I thought Mr Black may have admitted in evidence that was precisely the reason why EBTs were used.

“As for Mr Black, he denied that the scheme was for tax avoidance in cross-examination, though he went on to describe the scheme as ‘a method of us acquiring, especially football wise, better players in a more cost effective manner than we would be able to do so’; that the club had been ‘very ambitious at that time’; and ‘it was seen as a correct and proper way for us to proceed’; that Rangers ‘have been very successful, because we’ve been able to attract players of a certain standard that, perhaps, we may not have been able to otherwise’ (Day 5/126).”

Keep posting.

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
john clarke says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 00:30
0 0 Rate This
Agrajag says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 00:01
‘..Irony doesn’t really work if you have to explain it.’

Had me going for a while, as well!-
Are you related to Henry Kissinger JC? Really need to go now, my boss is on patrol.

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
Agrajag says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 00:10

midcalderan says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 00:05

I give up. The blog policeman wins.


You said ” Differences of opinion is why we have …”

I replied “Nonsense”

It was intended as badinage, sorry if it offended you. Clearly we have a different sense of humour. No “blog Policeman” about it, just a bad joke.
You may wonder why I’m still online. The night watchman let me into his hut to use his computer. We’re obviously on a different level of intellect but but have looked up the the meaning of the words you’ve used, I can now laugh at your joke.

About the author