Rangers Myths – Number 326 – “It’s Not Gratuitous Alienation If Assets Sold By Insolvency Practitioner” – Wrong!

Regular readers will know that I believe there is a very strong case to say that the sale of assets of Rangers Football Club to Sevco (insert precise Sevco entity here) in June 2012 was not for full value.

That is NOT to say that anything illegal, criminal or underhand happened. Rather Mr Green managed to secure assets worth many millions of pounds for only £5.5 million. Despite his fall from grace, he is still up for Businessman of the Year, at least in my eyes!

It is my view that, subject of course to the detailed investigations carried out by the liquidators BDO, there is a strong case for asking the purchaser of the assets to prove that an adequate consideration was paid. As readers who can recall my previous posts on this topic will know, it is not for the liquidator to show that the price was too low, but for the buyer to show it was adequate. In addition, it is not necessarily the case that the best price received after a marketing process would be “adequate” in all the circumstances.

Now, a few posters have mentioned a piece posted on an English solicitors’ website which, in their view, seems to challenge my opinion.

Adam has recently mentioned the piece three times, and seems to want a response to it. So here goes …

The piece can be found on the website of Holmes & Hills LLP here.

The most relevant part, and that quoted to signify my alleged mistake, is as follows:-

Should assets be purchased for a bargain price from an insolvency practitioner, rather than the company directly, the sale cannot then be challenged on valuation grounds.

The article does not quote the authority for that proposition. Readers will know that I generally do quote authority for what I am saying, on the basis that, if I am suggesting an interpretation of a legal principle, people deserve more than simply my word. A properly sourced and evidenced view is worth more than bald assertion.

If it was correct however, then people rightly would wonder about me banging on about gratuitous alienation. After all the assets were bought “from an insolvency practitioner”, were they not?

Two matters arise.

First of all, the sale was by the company in administration, with the administrators acting as agents for the company. Therefore it could be argued that the sale was NOT directly from the insolvency practitioner.

However the second point is far more important.

The Holmes & Hills piece is referring to Sections 238 and 240 of the Insolvency Act 1986. They read as follows:-

238 Transactions at an undervalue (England and Wales).

(1) This section applies in the case of a company where—

(a) the company enters administration,

(b) the company goes into liquidation;

and “the office-holder” means the administrator or the liquidator, as the case may be.

(2) Where the company has at a relevant time (defined in section 240) entered into a transaction with any person at an undervalue, the office-holder may apply to the court for an order under this section.

(3) Subject as follows, the court shall, on such an application, make such order as it thinks fit for restoring the position to what it would have been if the company had not entered into that transaction.

(4) For the purposes of this section and section 241, a company enters into a transaction with a person at an undervalue if—

(a) the company makes a gift to that person or otherwise enters into a transaction with that person on terms that provide for the company to receive no consideration, or

(b) the company enters into a transaction with that person for a consideration the value of which, in money or money’s worth, is significantly less than the value, in money or money’s worth, of the consideration provided by the company.

(5) The court shall not make an order under this section in respect of a transaction at an undervalue if it is satisfied—

(a) that the company which entered into the transaction did so in good faith and for the purpose of carrying on its business, and

(b) that at the time it did so there were reasonable grounds for believing that the transaction would benefit the company.

240 “Relevant time” under ss. 238, 239.

(1) Subject to the next subsection, the time at which a company enters into a transaction at an undervalue or gives a preference is a relevant time if the transaction is entered into, or the preference given—

(a) in the case of a transaction at an undervalue or of a preference which is given to a person who is connected with the company (otherwise than by reason only of being its employee), at a time in the period of 2 years ending with the onset of insolvency (which expression is defined below),

(b) in the case of a preference which is not such a transaction and is not so given, at a time in the period of 6 months ending with the onset of insolvency,

(c) in either case, at a time between the making of an administration application in respect of the company and the making of an administration order on that application, and

(d) in either case, at a time between the filing with the court of a copy of notice of intention to appoint an administrator under paragraph 14 or 22 of Schedule B1 and the making of an appointment under that paragraph.

(2) Where a company enters into a transaction at an undervalue or gives a preference at a time mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b), that time is not a relevant time for the purposes of section 238 or 239 unless the company—

(a) is at that time unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 123 in Chapter VI of Part IV, or

(b) becomes unable to pay its debts within the meaning of that section in consequence of the transaction or preference;

but the requirements of this subsection are presumed to be satisfied, unless the contrary is shown, in relation to any transaction at an undervalue which is entered into by a company with a person who is connected with the company.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the onset of insolvency is—

(a) in a case where section 238 or 239 applies by reason of an administrator of a company being appointed by administration order, the date on which the administration application is made,

(b) in a case where section 238 or 239 applies by reason of an administrator of a company being appointed under paragraph 14 or 22 of Schedule B1 following filing with the court of a copy of a notice of intention to appoint under that paragraph, the date on which the copy of the notice is filed,

(c) in a case where section 238 or 239 applies by reason of an administrator of a company being appointed otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), the date on which the appointment takes effect,

(d) in a case where section 238 or 239 applies by reason of a company going into liquidation either following conversion of administration into winding up by virtue of Article 37 of the EC Regulation or at the time when the appointment of an administrator ceases to have effect, the date on which the company entered administration (or, if relevant, the date on which the application for the administration order was made or a copy of the notice of intention to appoint was filed), and

(e) in a case where section 238 or 239 applies by reason of a company going into liquidation at any other time, the date of the commencement of the winding up.

What does that all mean?

Effectively, where a transaction takes place after the appointment of an administrator or liquidator, then the transaction cannot be challenged as being at an undervalue as, by definition, it is the administrator or liquidator completing the deal.

Keen eyed readers will have noted two things. First of all the words “gratuitous alienation” appear nowhere in the sections quoted. Secondly, and this is a slightly more concrete clue, Section 238 is headed “England and Wales”!

If one goes slightly further down the Act, one comes to Section 242. It says:-

242 Gratuitous alienations (Scotland).

(1) Where this subsection applies and—

(a) the winding up of a company has commenced, an alienation by the company is challengeable by—

(i) any creditor who is a creditor by virtue of a debt incurred on or before the date of such commencement, or

(ii) the liquidator;

(b) a company enters administration, an alienation by the company is challengeable by the administrator.

(2) Subsection (1) applies where—

(a) by the alienation, whether before or after 1st April 1986 (the coming into force of section75 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985), any part of the company’s property is transferred or any claim or right of the company is discharged or renounced, and

(b) the alienation takes place on a relevant day.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), the day on which an alienation takes place is the day on which it becomes completely effectual; and in that subsection “relevant day” means, if the alienation has the effect of favouring—

(a) a person who is an associate (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985) of the company, a day not earlier than 5 years before the date on which—

(i) the winding up of the company commences, or

(ii) as the case may be, the company enters administration; or

(b) any other person, a day not earlier than 2 years before that date.

(4) On a challenge being brought under subsection (1), the court shall grant decree of reduction or for such restoration of property to the company’s assets or other redress as may be appropriate; but the court shall not grant such a decree if the person seeking to uphold the alienation establishes—

(a) that immediately, or at any other time, after the alienation the company’s assets were greater than its liabilities, or

(b) that the alienation was made for adequate consideration, or

(c) that the alienation—

(i) was a birthday, Christmas or other conventional gift, or

(ii) was a gift made, for a charitable purpose, to a person who is not an associate of the company,

which, having regard to all the circumstances, it was reasonable for the company to make:

Provided that this subsection is without prejudice to any right or interest acquired in good faith and for value from or through the transferee in the alienation.

(5) In subsection (4) above, “charitable purpose” means any charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purpose, whether or not it is charitable within the meaning of any rule of law.

(6) For the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this section, an alienation in implementation of a prior obligation is deemed to be one for which there was no consideration or no adequate consideration to the extent that the prior obligation was undertaken for no consideration or no adequate consideration.

(7) A liquidator and an administrator have the same right as a creditor has under any rule of law to challenge an alienation of a company made for no consideration or no adequate consideration.

(8) This section applies to Scotland only.

Here is the key to the confusion. The Holmes & Hills piece would be accurate, BUT ONLY IF RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC (now in liquidation) was in England or at least an English company.

However it was a Scottish company.

Sections 238 and 240 do not apply. Section 242 does.

Nowhere in Section 242, or indeed elsewhere in the Act, do we find a Scottish equivalent of the “exemption” where assets are bought from an Insolvency Practitioner. It could be argues why this is the case, but that is not for her and now.

Instead the answer to the puzzle about whether the Holmes & Hills piece is right, or am I is simple. If we were dealing with an English company and English assets the piece is quite right.

But we are in Scotland – so I am right!

Therefore, please do not bring up the Holmes & Hills post again.

Obviously my quest to bring legal education to the masses must continue!

🙂

Posted by Paul McConville

Advertisements

334 Comments

Filed under Insolvency Act 1986, Rangers

334 responses to “Rangers Myths – Number 326 – “It’s Not Gratuitous Alienation If Assets Sold By Insolvency Practitioner” – Wrong!

  1. lord mac

    THEY ARE SAYING ON follow follow the bloggers on here could be right after all, as they have warned us before, the guy that said it must have got the hook
    as they said CAM keep us up to speed, but they don’t listen to his warnings, we give him on here, either.

  2. cam

    Had an awful dream the other night,,,,i found this new blog site called,,,Specific Thoughts on the Annihilation of RFC.
    The host was a half Irish,half Jewish welfare benefits advisor called Seamus Clancy de Greenberg who had been in a coma for 10 years and had awoken hungry for knowledge and read Downfall which had been wedged under his shoogly hospital bed.
    His only knowledge of Rangers was that they were nicknamed Der Hun,were wasteful with money and had millions of followers who called themselves “the peepul”.
    Luckily i awoke, otherwise folk could accuse me of pandering to racial stereotypical behaviour, atypical of klan like, untermensch, sub normal knuckle draggers.
    Gotta go to work now bhoys,,missing the legends game tomorrow due to working on a public holiday at premium rate!!,,,show me the money.

  3. Niall Walker

    Evidence for gratuitous alienation in favor of CG-CW by D&P:

    1. 4 month public bidding process in the full glare of the media.
    2. Bill Miller appointed preferred bidder for being the highest bid by miles.
    3. No bidders complain their bid was higher than CG.
    4. No objections to sale price by the two largest creditors in HMRC and Ticketus.
    5. One bidder offers £500,000 more after CG’s price is accepted.

    mmmm.

    • lordmac

      if you are bidding in a rigged game of cards, and you are the only one that doesn’t know the cards are marked end result you loose nial simple

      • Mark

        Craigy playing the part of buyer and seller in a transaction designed to shed mountains of debt with a minimal amount of fuss and upheaval seems dodgy as.

        Is pulling a stunt like that legal?

        • Niall Walker

          CW was not the seller, the seller was the creditors of CW and since CW did not pay 5.5 million for the assets, he is not the buyer or owner of these assets.

          Apart from that we are in total unison, like symbiotic twins.

          • JimBhoy

            How do you know that? Mark this post so when you are so wrong we can refer back…!!! Octopussy..!

            • Mark

              Never say never again?

            • Niall Walker

              I know the owner of the assets is not CW because he is not listed as a secured creditor, and will receive none oft he 5.5 million.
              I know he did not pay 5.5 million for the assets because his cheque clearly stated £137,000, and I am sure a cheque for 5.5 million would have enhanced his claim somewhat, if he had a receipt for this amount I very much doubt it would ever reach court.

              And calling me Octopussy doesn’t change these self evident facts.

          • Mark

            I just got a pair of sore bum cheeks there, what are you up to bruv?

            I understand what you’re saying , I guess it’s the premise of Craigy’s claim that puzzles me. I’m sure it’s legal and is a common way for spivs to turn a coin – it just seems like a really dodgy way to ditch debt and liabilities but have the same people in charge of the phoenix

          • Paul

            Who were the creditors who profited then?And who is the owner?

          • Niall

            “… the seller was the creditors of CW…”

            What were Duff & Phelps doing then, making the tea?

      • Niall Walker

        Lordmac,

        If it was simple to prove the game was rigged then you have failed, nothing you have said can be supported by any evidence and nothing you have said contradicts my evidence.

        • Monti

          Do you think your chocolate Niall?

        • JimBhoy

          dude the sales shark guy and P murray said they offered more and were refuted that to me suggests there was an agenda..Did you see that interview, D&p were contracted in for the show… do you think otherwise..?

          • Niall Walker

            Jim,

            I saw the interviews, you are mistaken, I believe TBK bid 6 million after the agreement had been signed and both their final final bids were less than CG.

        • lordmac

          Niall i cant see whats between your ears, but for a guy that has east fifes
          interest at heart, yet if i was to met you ILL bet i would be able to see your king billy tattoo. show through yer Armour the good thing about a con Niall the victim never sees it coming, remember we bloggers are 1 up going for the double if you cant see it, remember where you read it.

          • Niall Walker

            Lordmac,

            Let us assume for a moment I am a Rangers fan, even a raving Celtic hating bigot, how does this change the evidence I have posted, and why can’t you refute my case and why do you have to resort to a strawman argument concerning my allegiances ?

            • Adam

              Because its the last refuge of haters Niall. Its the same with all the Rangers fans who dont like the articles that Paul writes because in general they cant argue against him, so they simply take the “hate route”

            • That’s utter pish Adam & you know it.

              @Niall you are protesting long & hard, & taking an awful lot of time in your quest for…… Not quite sure what. It’s obvious what’s in it for us, but why is an East Fife fan taking so much time & effort to bring what might be viewed as bad news to Celtic fans?
              Also, are you on the bloo sites offering them your thin straws to grasp at?
              If not, why not?

            • lordmac

              i never assume anything niall, you might be the type that try and run your thoughts through us bloggers, but as you have found out, trying to make the case for RANGERS is taxing on your brain, just now you cant give in, as i think you are on the same wave level as us, and there is nothing going to stop this train from de-railing and you just need to be convinced once as “before”

        • “…nothing you have said contradicts my evidence.”

          What “evidence”?

    • Ed Paisley

      Niall
      I tend to agree with you that a successful Grat A claim is unlikely. Even if there was evidence of a conflict of interest and a closer than acceptable relationship between Duff & Phelps and Chico, there was still an open bid situation. There is no evidence that Duff & Phelps were disregarding offers or miss-informing potential bidders.
      Besides, there is no other objective valuation of the assets which can be ascertained. Yes he has the ground in the accounts at £50m or thereabouts but that is depreciated replacement cost (which is only useful for setting the insurance premiums).
      The only reasonable valuation of the assets would be a discounted cash flows valuation which is heavily weighted by European Champions League income estimates. You would need Mother Shipton and Nostradamus to help predict those outcomes.
      We know the AIM market capitalisation isn’t a reliable valuation either, and besides, the share price is dropping at such a rate it will soon be an economy measure to switch from Andrex Supersoft to Rangers Share Certificates.
      We say Rangers are a financial basket case (£1m per month operating losses) and at the same time we say Chico got the assets under value. We can’t have it both ways.

      • Niall Walker

        Ed,

        You may regret your support but it is appreciated, the Rangers story has more than enough real drama and real conspiracy, inventing fantasies is unnecessary overkill, it actually diminishes the real story by embroiling it in blatant bias. To be fair, the exact same goes on in the Rangers camp, full of ludicrous conspiracies, anything to avoid dealing with the plain truth.

        • Monti

          You can’t handle the truth!

        • Adam

          Well said both Ed and Niall. At last some realists.

        • Niall Walker

          I think people forget the hidden cost of these assets, we know there were sizable start up costs, footballing debts totaling maybe 3.million, plus I believe the newco took on the full redundancy liabilities of the large workforce, a workforce they need to cut to save losses, and finally I believe the newco has honored the debenture bondholders which is in effect a 7 million guarantee.

          Even if not all the above applies, it is still a lot more than 5.5 million.

          • JimBhoy

            think the only people who forget that cost are the rangers fans, 3-4 mill football debt..publish the accounts for the rangers fans, if it were good they would!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • JimBhoy

            I think people the hidden costs of their assholes.. what are the hidden costs of East Fyfe dude?

          • Niall Walker
            May 5, 2013 at 10:16 pm

            I believe the newco has honored the debenture bondholders which is in effect a 7 million guarantee.
            ====================================================

            You believe?

            So no evidence then, like most of your ‘beliefs’.

            • Niall Walker

              If it was critical to my argument I would double check, its not, but since you have not proven otherwise I assume my memory is fully functioning.

            • “… since you have not proven otherwise I assume my memory is fully functioning.”

              It is for the person making an assertion to provide proof to back said assertion, not for others to find proof they’re wrong.

        • Niall Walker
          May 5, 2013 at 9:57 pm

          ….anything to avoid dealing with the plain truth.
          ====================================
          You wouldn’t recognise the truth if you tripped over it.

      • lordmac

        if you where ED ,NIALL, selling your house would you put a Levey on it and the levy had to be paid before you show them around. so there you go the deal was for one set of eyes only how crooked is that
        and it was non returnable but would come of the sale price lol dream on

        • Niall Walker

          Lordmac, using your analogy, if every house bidder has to put up a levy then how does this favor one bidder over another ?

          • mick

            niall green is whytes mates so is d&ps all the other bidders were a smoke screen jabba orchestrated the media while whyte and d&ps stealthed green in with mystery backers (whyte) its fruadulent and a phoenix the met have a dossier plus green stole the assets and conned whyte to steal lot for there selfs is it not plan to see its riddled with criminality ama builder and can see it you seem well educated so why cant you bdo dont have to do anything till end this will keep the angry mob of there back to

            • Niall Walker

              Bill Miller was not a mirage, I saw him with my two eyes, he was not a mystery backer.

          • lordmac

            if it was say £5,000 a look at the books fine £500,000 non returnable
            what would you be expecting, this £500,000 will be the straw that breaks the camels back it would have to come from 5088 as this money was to be paid first as thats was the rule and should that not have happened then the sale would be classed as flawed, and the guy with the bigger offer could find DUFF@ PHELPS in the wrong about the terms the £500,000 will be traced, as that was not in the switcheroo at the time me thinks, someone paid that on behalf of sevco 5088 and they will be looking for reward money.and it was not Mr greens money that was used, its squeaky bum time as cash not declare as how it was earned
            can be made government property.

          • lordmac

            that is the point niall, you would only put up a levey, if you did not want two many to answer to your add. RANGERS have left a trail just like a snail it will be traced.

      • Budweiser

        Ed,
        What most posters on here seem to think is that BDO Grat A. will bring about a ‘ reversal of sale’. Paul never said that. He thinks that BDO might have a claim, which the newco would have to come to some sort of deal. ie pay some money [ to be negotiated ] to fend off a legitimate claim. The fact that newco claim to be ‘ financially stable ‘, cash rich, double digit bank balance etcetc and all chicos’ multiple claims about 500m potential fans ,world wide, merely enhance the Grat A scenario.
        The question is, or should be, can rangers afford to buy out a Grat A ?

        • Steven Brennan

          Budweiser
          I agree with you, it is very unlikely that bdo will find against sevco as all previous honourable investigations have returned in their favour.
          If they did ask for some cash it would likely be a small amount 5 million or so.
          If so I think they would raise that amount easily.
          Please note I said in their favour not for them, I know they were found guilty of a few things but in general they have got off the hook.
          The SFA wont even do a proper job, they are avoiding it like the plague.
          So my point is this, let the peepul get on with selling out the asbestos dome and charging up the ranks.
          We will be waiting a long time before they bother us. We all know they are doomed without bdo or anyone else, Craigie”agent” Whyte will finish his job.

      • Ed Sevco are a financial basket case & can anyone seriously deny that Chico got the assets for buttons. I can’t see how that is having it both ways!!!. surely the material assets are not the same as purchasing The Rangers “business” as a going concern

  4. arb urns

    Con te Partiro……………….

    Gratuitous Alienation is leave the building time as the saga approaches the end game. Gers are lining up the cavalry and a new ‘King’ and Knights will be in place soon….Roy the Boy should be the man and grab this by the s and c’ees. There are four routes out of this for TRFC and I would chose Gratuitous Alienation with strenuous behind the scenes establishment work, if I was them……..yep Adam it really is your get out of gaol card…… suspect it wont be the chosen route though……..

    Random is a cracking blog got loads more out than in, apols to some, thanks to others…..good luck to all in reaching conclusion…………

    oscar moment ….cam grishams…… heat packed thriller…………………………

    post it again cam……….as they say in casablanca

  5. Monti

    Another honest mistake from the officials today……..

  6. Monti

    Allan Johnston manager of the year…..:D hahahahahahahaaaaaahhhhhhaaaaa WTF?????

    • JimBhoy

      forget it mate guy does well wi wee team negates double winning manager, last 16 Europe…. Whats it all about… Love some managers have done well but did they beat Barca and other euro teams ?

  7. Niall Walker

    Paul,

    I ask you in all honesty with your legal background, is there any evidence to suggest the BDO will overturn the sale on the grounds of GA ?

    • JimBhoy

      Aye read back a couple of months…. Why an East Fyfe fan brings this up is incredible to me Jim Traynor ya fekin fat half wit..!! Niall GTF your cover has been smouldering for a while… Use an Irish sounding name, get a grip..Enjoy the \east Fyfe… Actually my Da’s team..

    • mick

      @niall the sale could be over turned and auctioned of in lots but how do you do it with sevco being floated its a mess bdo will just sit back and watch the spivs destroy the club then they wont get the blame there’s lots of angry bears about to ask for answers, paul and ecojon tried in vain to warn them last year the sale should be turned around but a feel its to late due to float the current company is about to crash so lets just see what happens next week

  8. mick

    hi every1 remember tuesday is big news day the start of the death of sevco the first sounds of the death rattle less than 50hs away hail hail what a week were in for sevco doing the death rattle lol ice cream and jelly tuesday lol

  9. Adam

    JimBhoy been at the drink again so it seems.

    As for manager of the year, Smith won the double but it was given to Strachan. Smith got to UEFA Cup Final and won the cup double but it was given to Billy Reid in the first division.

    No doubt this one will be a fix though, eh.

  10. mick

    for 4 days all the big hitters are saying tuesday high drama day lol

  11. Monti

    Watching Sportscene ( I know, I know), this programme used to be quality, is Stephen Thompson & Billy Dodds the best they can do? Rob Mclean? Oh dear

  12. mick

    @monti the stmirren and sevco alliance lol

  13. Adam

    Hey Monti. Are you still to scared to answer a simple question ?

    Do you not think its quite rude considering i answered your question of me truthfully and honestly ?

  14. Monti

    Michael Higdon player of the year????? Somebody’s at it!!!!!

  15. Raymilland

    The trees have heard enough, time for bed.

  16. Budweiser

    Paul.
    Well, the Buddies are still in the top league. It looks like bomber will have to take a new course at Dundee Uni in psychology. Having said that, it took a ten man aberdeen side, [ who also had a new manager ,and had been told they were playing for their future ] to put the final nail in the coffin. As in previous years, wee Danny might be looking over his shoulder, to try to see when the axe is falling.

    • All’s well that ends well.
      Bud, were you crappin yersel, just a wee bit?? 🙂
      glad the Saints are stayin up

      • Budweiser

        Mac Tomas.
        Yes, I must admit to squeaky bum time recently. However, I didn’t think eventually bomber could pull it off. Perhaps if he had been broughtr in earlier? Who knows? Hearts thoroughly deserved their win on sat. But given their £25m debt, they have been playing with a team , that they couldn’t afford all season, which skewes all their results. In my opinion, they should have been relegated.

  17. arb urns

    as an absolutely bloody final post………….

    for the avoidance of doubt Indie Niall started his GA postings from the position of Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland !!!!!!!!!!!!!! when ADAM pointed out to him he was blethering rubbish… he then took the position that because none of the rival bidders had complained there was no GA !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If Niall reads the first three paragraphs of this blog and I mean really reads, he might be able to spot how the CREDITORS/LIQUIDATORS of his football team could challenge the alienation.

    In a perverse way with the right behind the scenes a GA could turn out to be that blessing in disguise for TRFC IMHO of course.

    • Niall Walker

      arb,

      If the assets had been bought through Sevco 5088 for 5.5 million and transferred to Sevco( Scotand) for a pound then this is an example of GA. I simply assumed posters were discussing the legality of this transfer, I never dreamed people were still banging on about the original sale price being too low, which Adam very kindly pointed out. Nothing you have said persuades me GA took place, and the evidence I posted still stands untarnished by your post.

      • arb urns

        never assume n it makes an ass out of u and me right in the end.

        if u r at your clubs ebm today vote for ga…..roy the boy should be able to work out how to get out this mess using it

    • cregganduff

      Right Arab
      The Guy’s on the bluff again. A few days ago he was making a total asshole of himself as regards GA, now he is setting himself as the resident expert.

      • Niall Walker

        cregg,

        I have never made an asshole of myself on here on any matter, and GA is hardly rocket science, if you can read then you are an expert.

  18. Monti

    Dissgusted with the Scottish football awards last night, is the whole game broken? Celtic are the best team, we have the best players & have performed brilliantly in the champions league, we have won the league & could possibly add the Scottish cup! It is a complete joke!…..

    • cam

      just before i get to kip after topping up your benefits old bhoy,,,,how funny was that resounding big slap in the coupon for the Tasmanian devil and his bunch of diddies?
      Oaft,,,,!!!!

    • Adam

      Walter Smith League and Cup double didnt win it, Strachan did.

      Smith cup double and final of UEFA cup didnt win it. Billy Reid did.

      Celtic players won 13 of last 16 seasons prior to last night.

      Its only broken when it doesnt suit Celtic.

    • It´s not a joke, it´s a democratic process.
      Show some respect to those who won instead of whining to the moon.

    • Steven Brennan

      Totally agree I think Lee griffiths should have won.

  19. Geddy Lee

    GA. How often do liquidators reverse decisions taken by administrators ?

    Is it a realistic possibility, or just a technicality?

    Do be honest, I think the whole sorry, humiliating saga has gone on long enough. Just let them get on with it.

    The thought of widespread violence coming from the sevcovian hordes, is too depressing to contemplate.

  20. Ecojon,
    Its fine work, any Rangers fan who participated will have lost their money.

    It’s reasonably fair to say that most schemes which have at their heart a million pound win for a small investment are suspect.

    In the case you highlight a winner has yet to be found.

    The national lottery at least has the advantage of actually giving millions of pounds to the eventual winners.

    The odds against winning are astonishing.

    Of course wining a million pounds is an attractive proposition, who wouldn’t be tempted,

    if nothing else it’s a bit of fun, escapism, for a small price.

    Contrary to popular fiction the best cons don’t separate the powerful or the criminal from large quantities of their ill gotten gains.

    Taking a small amount of money individually from a larger group of people has an advantage. It can generate a lot of money without effective challenge.

    No individual has lost enough to make a challenge worth the time or expense.

    Craig Whyte described Rangers fans as having the capacity to be monetized.

    It seems he had a point.

    Those Rangers fans who describe themselves as ‘the people’ might give a little thought as to what it is that sets them apart.

    Looking from the outside as so many of their owners have, parting with their hard earned cash is endearing, certainly beneficial and best of all largely unquestioned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s