Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

RoryMac · 27-02-2012 04:14PM

Eirebear wrote: »

And where did i insinuate that?

I never said you did! Jelle clearly did and then you rode in to the rescue with the quote below which is why I think you should clarify what you meant when you said "however it should not be turned into a chant from the stands in my honest opinion"

Jelle1880 · 27-02-2012 04:17PM

RoryMac wrote: »

I never said you did! Jelle clearly did and then you rode in to the rescue with the quote below which is why I think you should clarify what you meant when you said "however it should not be turned into a chant from the stands in my honest opinion"

I never said the song is about child abuse.

I merely pointed out the irony in singing about ice cream and jelly (Which I'm sure is simply another way of saying 'Having a party'), and the history with it at Celtic Boys Club.

Eirebear · 27-02-2012 04:21PM

Ok, i get you now -

I don't believe it's sensible at all, and i'm not riding to Jelle's rescue at all.
All i satetd was that personally, i find the tactic of pulling opinions based on other forums where members may "lurk" and observe is a little bit creepy.

I don't agree with the chant, and i don't particularly agree with Jelle's defence of it.

However i also don't particularly enjoy the whole "mask is slipping" bull****, and the practice of "telling tales" on here isnt something i particularly agree with either.

Jelle1880 · 27-02-2012 04:22PM

I'm fairly sure I mentioned that I don't sing BJK either.
That doesn't mean I won't keep quiet about a disgusting part of Celtic's history, just because 'It's point scoring with the memory of abused kids'.

Which it's not, but I assume that's the easiest way to get rid of it.

RoryMac · 27-02-2012 04:24PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

To show the irony of Celtic fans singing their little ditty.

There's no denying that there's a history with the ice cream and jelly thing, so to sing about it is moronic at best.

Mind you, you won't see me at Ibrox chanting 'Big Jock Knew' or the likes, but I won't shy away from stuff like this to show the hypocrisy of some Celtic fans.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

If there's one person who's dodging, deflecting,... it's you (And every Celtic fan who's confronted with it, it seems. I have yet to see one who would actually condemn what happened, rather they talk about 'How it's in bad taste to talk about it' and attack those that have the audacity to bring it up).

This is not about scoring points, but about showing how stupid the song is.
Or are you denying the fact that Alan Brazil was indeed given 'ice cream and jelly' by Torbett ?

Are you really failing to see the idiocy of singing that song when your club has a disgusting history regarding it ?

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I never said the song is about child abuse.

I merely pointed out the irony in singing about ice cream and jelly (Which I'm sure is simply another way of saying 'Having a party'), and the history with it at Celtic Boys Club.

It's pretty clear to me what you meant with the above quotes

RoryMac · 27-02-2012 04:27PM

Eirebear wrote: »

Ok, i get you now -

I don't believe it's sensible at all, and i'm not riding to Jelle's rescue at all.
All i satetd was that personally, i find the tactic of pulling opinions based on other forums where members may "lurk" and observe is a little bit creepy.

I don't agree with the chant, and i don't particularly agree with Jelle's defence of it.

However i also don't particularly enjoy the whole "mask is slipping" bull****, and the practice of "telling tales" on here isnt something i particularly agree with either.

Fair enough EB, it looks like we got our lines crossed. I've no time for the "mask slipping" stuff myself and as far as I know have never made a comment like that on here but I do feel Jelle's statements crossed a line.

Madam · 27-02-2012 04:28PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I'm fairly sure I mentioned that I don't sing BJK either.
That doesn't mean I won't keep quiet about a disgusting part of Celtic's history, just because 'It's point scoring with the memory of abused kids'.

Which it's not, but I assume that's the easiest way to get rid of it.

So sad your so bitter tbh - I wonder are you a teenager?

Jelle1880 · 27-02-2012 04:28PM

Yeah, where do you see that I meant the song is about child abuse ?
Those that sing it will only do so because they'll be having a party should Rangers go under.

But the history with Brazil is obviously lost on those who sing it, that's what I meant.

I'm not in the least bitter by the way, but if you think so then that's fine.

Madam · 27-02-2012 04:36PM

Fair enough, I don't have to like what you say but I'd defend your right to say it - within reason;) I just think it's a strange mind which puts a song about Jelly and Ice Cream together with child abuse - maybe I'm just naive!!

PauloMN · 27-02-2012 04:43PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Yeah, where do you see that I meant the song is about child abuse ?
Those that sing it will only do so because they'll be having a party should Rangers go under.

But the history with Brazil is obviously lost on those who sing it, that's what I meant.

I'm not in the least bitter by the way, but if you think so then that's fine.

No, it's not lost on anyone. The point is that the whole notion of child abuse doesn't even come into it - except into the minds of sick f**kers. Only a sick f**k could make any connection like that.

You think Celtic fans shouldn't sing that because some sick f**k Rangers fan has somehow managed to make some warped connection between the Jelly and Ice Cream song and child abuse??

Jesus wept.

PauloMN · 27-02-2012 04:48PM

As for the general "mask slipping" view - I have a different view. I think it's pretty pathetic that people would have a different persona on different forums. Why bother? Aside from everything else, you'll be sussed out eventually.

I just don't get this idea of one person being a complete dick on one forum and being a nice guy on another one.

premierstone · 27-02-2012 04:51PM

PauloMN wrote: »

I just don't get this idea of one person being a complete dick on one forum and pretending to be a nice guy on another one.

FYP

Eirebear · 27-02-2012 05:06PM

PauloMN wrote: »

As for the general "mask slipping" view - I have a different view. I think it's pretty pathetic that people would have a different persona on different forums. Why bother? Aside from everything else, you'll be sussed out eventually.

I just don't get this idea of one person being a complete dick on one forum and being a nice guy on another one.

It's not particularly that though.

If i was to watch an old firm game in Pub A, a Rangers pub known for it's more hardcore regulars and leniance towards certain songs then i am more likely to lose my temper, shout things, join in songs - get carried away.

If i was in Pub B, a mixed pub with supporters from both sides, then i'm more likely to join in the banter, have a laugh and generally be well behaved.

I'd say that's fairly commonplace for the majority of people here - and i don't mean simply the outrageous stuff, i remember screaming in front of a TV at John Hartson that he was a "Big fat baldy, ginger, ugly, timmy, welsh bastard" after he scored against us, as my mates buckled with laughter as i'm not known for that kind of outburst.
I certainly wouldnt have done that in mixed company - and i know my celtic supporting mates would have similar anecdotes.

However should there be a Celtic supporter hiding in the corner of Pub A, who then proceeds to use the hartson rant as some way of proving that i am indeed a scumbag to other Celtic supporters whilst in my company, i would rightly be offended.

Its similar when it comes to forums, i'm not a member on FF but i know it is a bit more hardcore than the forums i use - the idea that people are lurking in the background and reporting back to this forum, a mixed forum that the users both use is a little bit childish in my opinion, and as i said before, slightly creepy.

Now people don't see any issue with it, that's fine - these are simply my own opinions on it, i've already said i'm happy to agree to disagree on this one.

I've spoken at great lengths about the lack of respect on this forum, maybe it's down to the fact that many of you don't actually know anyone from "The Other Side" and as such are happy to play up to the sterotypes that you hear on the Gallowgate or on Paisley Rd, i don't know, but this is just another part of it for me.

KeithAFC · 27-02-2012 05:10PM

So what are Celtic fans offended with now? Offended by everything, ashamed of nothing it seems these days. IRA chants, perfectly fine it seems.

Madam · 27-02-2012 05:13PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

So what are Celtic fans offended with now? Offended by everything, ashamed of nothing it seems these days. IRA chants, perfectly fine it seems.

Oh Gawd! Here we go again - around and around we go where it stops no one knows:rolleyes: Tedious and boring!

A Dub in Glasgo · 27-02-2012 05:15PM

Whyte will not give up Ibrox assets

The (Glasgow) Herald wrote:

CRAIG Whyte will not give up his position as preferred creditor with first claim on the assets of Rangers despite admitting he used more than £20 million of supporters' season ticket money to help complete his £1 takeover of Rangers.

Administrators are investigating whether his floating charge over assets such as Ibrox and Murray Park is valid as he did not use his own money, as he had asserted.

Whyte, now in Monaco, admitted on Tuesday that when he bought Sir David Murray's majority shareholding in Rangers in May 2011, he used money raised through selling off three seasons' tickets to Ticketus to pay off the £18m the club then owed to Lloyds Banking Group.

A close associate of Whyte has told The Herald that despite an "absolutely brutal public filleting", the Motherwell-born venture capitalist has no intention of walking away from Ibrox and intends to fight any attempts to prise away his hold over the assets.

Some observers believe his stance has sparked a battle for control of Rangers, stemming from the prospect of the club becoming more valuable free of debt if it emerges from administration and a more sellable commodity in the longer term.

Former club director Paul Murray met administrators on Friday to discuss his Blue Knights initiative to take control of the club, and it is known others have a keen interest.

However, Whyte believes his take-over deal remains legitimate. He points out he is underwriting the ticket agency's investment through his offshore company Liberty Capital and is "on the line" for £27.5m in guarantees and cash.

"If you are asking whether Craig Whyte will give up, the answer to that is no," said the associate. "He believed, and he still does, that what he has done is the right course of action and it will save Rangers."

Club sources fear the dispute over the validity of Whyte's security can only be resolved in the courts and could lead to lengthy and costly legal challenges.

Whyte's hold over the club stops Ibrox and Murray Park being sold to clear potential debts of nearly £65m for the benefit of the tax man if Rangers went into liquidation. That would change if his security or floating charge inherited from the Lloyds Banking Group was deemed invalid. Rangers' tax debt includes a liability of £49m plus interest if they lose "the big tax case".

Former Rangers chairman Alastair Johnston wrote to the administrators, citing a written promise from Whyte, which said breaking the purchase terms would automatically extinguish the £18m Rangers debt which the financier took over from the bank. He believes an interpretation of the terms of the purchase agreement means the payment of the Rangers debt should not be secured against other assets, like future season ticket sales.

Whyte's associate told The Herald: "There are other people that need to be looked at. What I am suggesting is that anyone that thinks Craig Whyte was able to manoeuvre himself into the position he did, was able to do the deals he did on his own in isolation, without anyone else being involved or anyone else being aware, is kidding themselves.

"He is being described as such a deceitful crook and that his punishment should be that he should walk away and have a £27m bill for his trouble. It is kind of beyond the realms of reality."

An insolvency practitioner, experienced in dealing with handling football clubs in administration said: "To me it is quite simple. Mr Whyte has taken £24m out the club. Whether he is guaranteeing that money or not it doesn't matter. To me this means he has no right to that security over the assets."

A Rangers banking source told The Herald: "It is a matter for the authorities to investigate whether the security is valid. We think it will take the courts to decide the validity of the security."

A spokesman for the administrators said: "We are looking into all aspects of the validity of the transaction and the circumstances, so that would include the validity of the floating charge."

Rangers fined by stock exchange

Rangers have been fined £50,000 by the PLUS Stock Exchange for failing to disclose Craig Whyte's previous disqualification as a director when the businessman completed his takeover of the club in May last year.

Whyte was disqualified in 2000 for seven years but Rangers did not announce this until November 30, six weeks after the Insolvency Service had confirmed the fact in a BBC documentary.

PauloMN · 27-02-2012 05:23PM

Eirebear wrote: »

It's not particularly that though.

If i was to watch an old firm game in Pub A, a Rangers pub known for it's more hardcore regulars and leniance towards certain songs then i am more likely to lose my temper, shout things, join in songs - get carried away.

If i was in Pub B, a mixed pub with supporters from both sides, then i'm more likely to join in the banter, have a laugh and generally be well behaved.

I'd say that's fairly commonplace for the majority of people here - and i don't mean simply the outrageous stuff, i remember screaming in front of a TV at John Hartson that he was a "Big fat baldy, ginger, ugly, timmy, welsh bastard" after he scored against us, as my mates buckled with laughter as i'm not known for that kind of outburst.
I certainly wouldnt have done that in mixed company - and i know my celtic supporting mates would have similar anecdotes.

However should there be a Celtic supporter hiding in the corner of Pub A, who then proceeds to use the hartson rant as some way of proving that i am indeed a scumbag to other Celtic supporters whilst in my company, i would rightly be offended.

Its similar when it comes to forums, i'm not a member on FF but i know it is a bit more hardcore than the forums i use - the idea that people are lurking in the background and reporting back to this forum, a mixed forum that the users both use is a little bit childish in my opinion, and as i said before, slightly creepy.

Now people don't see any issue with it, that's fine - these are simply my own opinions on it, i've already said i'm happy to agree to disagree on this one.

I've spoken at great lengths about the lack of respect on this forum, maybe it's down to the fact that many of you don't actually know anyone from "The Other Side" and as such are happy to play up to the sterotypes that you hear on the Gallowgate or on Paisley Rd, i don't know, but this is just another part of it for me.

I see your point about the pubs, or keeping the head down in public - for self-preservation if nothing else.

I'm not really taking about that though. I'm specifically taking about internet forums, where people can appear as one thing in one forum, and much more extreme in another one. Some will claim that the rules of different forums allow different things, but then why post on a restrictive forum if you can't be yourself?

Interesting that you don't have a FollowFollow account (well I kinda knew that from you mentioning it before). Why do you not post there? As for lurkers, the only problem with it is that I couldn't really be arsed with the time it takes - I spotted one thing before on FF (which was actually posted on KDS - I don't use FF at all), and saw the poster name was the same as one here. Aside from that one instance, I've never bothered, but I've no problem with it. If you say something on the internet, it's public - end of story. You can't use the "well I was in this pub" etc. line - that's the difference I see with the pub/location analogy.

As for the Gallowgate...

you obviously don't know me anyway, not really my scene tbh.

The lack of respect thing.... I honestly don't know, I see your point, but lately I've just thought to myself "f**k it, what's the point". I always would have considered myself reasonable in the most part with my posts, probably lose it a bit the odd time

, but overall. But things - and posters - around here are different to a few years ago EB, and you know that as well as I do - and I find it harder and harder to put up with some of the crap spouted here at times.

Eirebear · 27-02-2012 05:34PM

PauloMN wrote: »

I see your point about the pubs, or keeping the head down in public - for self-preservation if nothing else. I'm not really taking about that though. I'm specifically taking about internet forums, where people can appear as one thing in one forum, and much more extreme in another one. Some will claim that the rules of different forums allow different things, but then why post on a restrictive forum if you can't be yourself?

Interesting that you don't have a FollowFollow account (well I kinda knew that from you mentioning it before). Why do you not post there? As for lurkers, the only problem with it is that I couldn't really be arsed with the time it takes - I spotted one thing before on FF (which was actually posted on KDS - I don't use FF at all), and saw the poster name was the same as one here. Aside from that one instance, I've never bothered, but I've no problem with it. If you say something on the internet, it's public - end of story. You can't use the "well I was in this pub" etc. line - that's the difference I see with the pub/location analogy.

I find it fairly similar, a pub is a public place too - atmospheres on forums differ and people adapt to that.
That saying, i don't believe that Jelle is being hypocritical here - he has explained his reasons for posting what he did and although you or i may not agree with it, "The Mask Slipping" isnt exactly right in this case.

PauloMN wrote: »

As for the Gallowgate... you obviously don't know me anyway, not really my scene tbh.

lol, not mine either

PauloMN wrote: »

The lack of respect thing.... I honestly don't know, I see your point, but lately I've just thought to myself "f**k it, what's the point". I always would have considered myself reasonable in the most part with my posts, probably lose it a bit the odd time , but overall. But things - and posters - around here are different to a few years ago EB, and you know that as well as I do - and I find it harder and harder to put up with some of the crap spouted here at times.

I agree with what your saying, the place has changed a lot - i'm obviously just a bit more stubborn than you.
I try to be as close to the person i am in real life on any forum i use, i'm an argumentative bastard in the real world too.

PauloMN · 27-02-2012 05:37PM

Thank god you fixed those QUOTE tags, I was getting confused as to who said what there!

bobbysands81 · 27-02-2012 05:54PM

To think I got an infraction for posting this

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I always find it weird that these threads about the English team seem to be far more popular than threads about the Irish one.

Is that there many of our English friends posting on here or is that there many Irish people that take an interest in them?

Each to their own though so fill your boots.

yet this sh1te posted by you gets ignored by the mods.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

If there's one person who's dodging, deflecting,... it's you (And every Celtic fan who's confronted with it, it seems. I have yet to see one who would actually condemn what happened, rather they talk about 'How it's in bad taste to talk about it' and attack those that have the audacity to bring it up).

This is not about scoring points, but about showing how stupid the song is.
Or are you denying the fact that Alan Brazil was indeed given 'ice cream and jelly' by Torbett ?

Are you really failing to see the idiocy of singing that song when your club has a disgusting history regarding it ?

bobmalooka · 27-02-2012 06:26PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

It was a joke. In bad taste I admit. I apologise.

KeithAFC wrote: »

So what are Celtic fans offended with now? Offended by everything, ashamed of nothing it seems these days. IRA chants, perfectly fine it seems.

would you make up your mind on how you feel about this lord trollington

PauloMN · 29-02-2012 09:15AM

I see the RST wading into this issue over pre-paying for tickets:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/02/29/old-firm-ticket-row-celtic-fans-will-not-be-shut-out-of-ibrox-say-rangers-administrators-86908-23769127/

A statement from the Rangers Supporters Trust said: “If the Celtic board want to persist with their juvenile antics we suggest Rangers solve the problem by refusing to handle tickets for Parkhead and reduce the allocation Celtic fans receive for the Ibrox fixture to the bare minimum allowed for under SPL rules.

“Celtic are playing to the lowest common denominator in their support by demanding Rangers pay up front for tickets and yet refuse to do the same.”

Would like to see how many of them would pay £300k in advance to a company which could potentially cease to exist before that game. We demanded money up-front because Rangers are fecked. It is absolutely correct for Celtic to protect our club and the shareholders by not throwing £300k into a failing company like them.

They should nick whatever they can from the Rangers charity box like they are planning to, and leave it at that.

Ohh the dignity....

Jelle1880 · 29-02-2012 09:18AM

It's the charity itself who proposed this, but don't let that get into the way of your point.

PauloMN · 29-02-2012 09:30AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It's the charity itself who proposed this, but don't let that get into the way of your point.

Irrelevant. I think it disgusting that a company which is screwed because of over-spending for years, non-payment of taxes, PAYE and NI is deemed to be a suitable charity case, and I'd seriously question a company accepting donations from a charity.

Dempsey · 29-02-2012 10:05AM

Celtic would be foolish to advance them money whilst in administration especially when they've made no attempts to pay several other clubs gate receipts. I'm sure that Celtic are more aware of the SPL rules than RST so **** them and their proposed sanction. It would just be more Rangers supporters watching Celtic win the title at Ibroke, i think every Celtic supporter could live with that!

Oh, me wanting my club to protect itself against an insolvent company makes me apart of the lowest common denominator in the Celtic support......whilst they take charity money! You couldnt make it up!

Jelle1880 · 29-02-2012 10:14AM

If I'm correct clubs are supposed to pay within 7 days of a game taking place.

So if Rangers aren't out of admin by then you think Celtic should just keep the money ?

And you wonder why we rather sell tickets to our own fans.

Dempsey · 29-02-2012 10:21AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

'Whilst in administration' ?

So if Rangers aren't out of admin by the end of March you think Celtic should still not pay them, despite the rules stating that there is a limit of 8 days to pay ?

And you wonder why we want to sell those tickets to our own fans.

You wont be out of Administration by the end of March, you have too many court cases to process first.

When are the other clubs going to get the money that you owe them? Seems the limits didnt apply for them. Why will it apply for you?

PauloMN · 29-02-2012 10:22AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

If I'm correct clubs are supposed to pay within 7 days of a game taking place.

So if Rangers aren't out of admin by then you think Celtic should just keep the money ?

And you wonder why we rather sell tickets to our own fans.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Paying after the game has taken place is fine, never has been an issue. It's paying £300k up front to a failing company that Celtic (rightly) have an issue with.

Pompey Magnus · 29-02-2012 10:22AM

Dempsey wrote: »

Celtic would be foolish to advance them money whilst in administration especially when they've made no attempts to pay several other clubs gate receipts.

Rangers being in administration should have nothing to do with it, if Celtic aren't required to pay for the tickets up front then they would be silly to do so, I'd rather the money to be in Celtic's bank account making interest for as long as possible as opposed to in another team's account.

If Whyte decided to stump up early without needing to then more fool him.

Dempsey · 29-02-2012 10:25AM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Rangers being in administration should have nothing to do with it, if Celtic aren't required to pay for the tickets up front then they would be silly to do so, I'd rather the money to be in Celtic's bank account making interest for as long as possible as opposed to in another team's account.

If Whyte decided to stump up early without needing to then more fool him.

But it does, who pays Celtic if they decide liquidation is the best course of action between now and then?

Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Comments