Rangers Banter Archive February 07 2012

07 Feb 2012 23:34:51
Not with 46 mill runnin costs,n how many months n how many years plus 49 possibal from tax man,hee hoo ya donkey

Wtf 46 mil running costs, ur donkeys expensive

07 Feb 2012 23:16:58
Is it just me or is there possible (lets hope) a clever reason why Craig Whyte has took this £24.4m loan out ? Just a thought, when you add that to the £18m Lloyds loan which he did pay, but can claim back if we lose the tax case, and all the other smaller loans it takes total liabilities to Craig Whyte to over £50m . Now if we lose tax case to the tune of £49m it means Craig Whyte is the preferred creditor, so he gets the main say on how much Rangers should pay back to the creditors which include him. If he said for example 10p in the £1, that would be less than £10m. That way he could leave having profited by keeping the £24.4m and we would profit by only having to pay back a fraction of our debt. Not saying this is a fact put it could be his plan to make money and help club too.

Yeah theres a clever reason, hes a thieving lying crook, wake up sleepy head, where have you been, cant you read or even watch what you are seeing on tv

god help you
ska bhoy

Lol!!
do you hoinestly believe they will let him get away with that?

where have you been? if anything, the main creditors will be HMRC (who have the power to decide this), and Ticketus, NOT the guy who's been unashamedly shafting the tax man for years, and mortgaging everything in sight!


taco

07 Feb 2012 22:48:10
Fred the shred lost his knighthood for making a complete mess of the business and leaving massive financial holes on the books, seem to me Murray falls into same category, not to mention the tax situation that may be seen as illegal.

07 Feb 2012 22:08:10
Quiet the night on here, visited the celtic banter page but quiet there to.
Did give me a chance though to read tomorrow's posts that the usual suspects will cut 'n paste and claim as their own.
Aha no homework the night then.

spineless poster.

07 Feb 2012 21:07:29
Please dont take this rong but y would sky pay clubs to watch celtic beat everyone is thats not what they already are paying for,19 games unbeaten,n if gers werent skint then it would b same losing 3 ta 4 games a season as it is,look at porto n like celtic if gers go bust,players will wunt to go as european football n trophies,then biger club comes in takes your player for a fee n club profits n replacemant in,scottish football wont die theyl always someone else ready ta take your place n dont kid yourself,plenty good teams before old firm dominated,n with clubs share a bigger packet n more chance of winning trophies mite put more bums on seats and mite be savior of scottish football,neuther celtic or rangers are larger than life ,highland leauge upwards to division 1 survive without old firm,

07 Feb 2012 19:55:39
If we go into liquidation y don't we go to 1 of the bottom english leagues and start again we would still have ibrox murray park and the youth team who would tear shreds in that league and it would p*** celtic fans off

Murray park would be classed as a business asset and would be sold off as Ibrox could be. The front of the building is listed but not the land behind it. Any asset would be sold off to pay back the debt.

Oh lets do it coz it will pi~S celtic fans aff you really are a moron

Haha.thats all.....green jhedi

Does one not know meaning of liquadation,no you woldent have ibrox or murray park,craig whyte would,secondly,fans from all over scotland travel to plymouth away sat,then away to southampton on tues,(as championship more often than not play twice a week)not affordabble on top of season ticket,all them away games n if didint have ground but had one down south even more expense,can u c fa wunting us after carry on in manchester,more chance of pompey joining spl,plus that championship a strong leauge

Murray park isnt an asset of Rangers as Rangers dont own it. Murray Park is being leased to Rangers by David Murray

Remind me exactly what had Murray park produced that would tear any team to shreds?

Charlie Adam?

1 player in 10 years! Wow thats a great return

Training complexes don't produce talent. It is down to natural talent and great coaching that makes a great young player.

Rangers and Celtic have produced the same standard of players as each other, over the past 10 years.

TTG

Hibs have done better!

07 Feb 2012 19:47:17
we can all come on here and throw punches but what u should all be doing is marching down the broomloan road and demanding answers from the chairman instead of hiding away. if it were the celtic fans they would be at parkhead in their thousands protesting till dawn. (i am a rangers fan)

07 Feb 2012 19:31:04
So...if we lose the tax case Cellik Supporters want 9 in a row handed back?

So if the EBT was not available all of the players who joined us wouldnt have?

How bitter can you get? Is the club going out of business not enough.

Ach well gives them something to talk about doon the broo.

WATP

Celtic had two players, Hearts and Hibs both had one player using the same EBT, after a period of time the three clubs decided to pay the tax.

You clown..your 9 in a row was nothing to do with EBT's.another shoddy post from a shoddy fan...........green jhedi...where are the people??

The ebt started in 2002 well after 9 in a row do u even know what ur on about ??


T-Bear {Ed014's Note - 2000/1 until 2010 the EBT was used.

07 Feb 2012 19:14:11
The more things i hear about Whyte the more worried i get we need to face reality we could go into liquidation which would be a total disaster,i just want us to survive as a club i'm at the stage now where i don't give a F..k about the league our survival and being is more important.Just what us fans can do i don't know but there has to be something.BigAl

Not a chance of liquidation! your listening to us too much............green jhedi

That's where your wrong if we go into Admin and can't make a deal to pay back some of the debt especially with HMRC ,they have to agree for gers pay off like 20p in the pound if they don't go for it,we will go into liquidaton.bad news for us and also any fair minded Celtic fan will realise it's bad for them also,sky would pull out as the deal states Rangers and Celtic. {Ed014's Note - Sky deal does not say that.

Ed Does it not state 4 old firm games a year? {Ed014's Note - Nobody has seen the contract.How can a TV company demand certain fixtures,that is like match rigging especially in a league that has a split.There is no evidence show that it is true and if it is it would be illegal.

It might not be in the contract but Sky know tht the Old Firm games are the major games throughout the league season and therefor would not renew their contract which i think is due to end in the next couple of years {Ed014's Note - 2016.

Tv companies do have conditions attached to contracts the man who pays the piper calls the tune {Ed014's Note - Yes conditions but not stipulations of matches.It would be illegal and question the whole leagues integrity.

Moot point of pedantry re: contract. The long and short of it is, any value it has to speak of is in the toilet with no Rangers obviously. I'm sure that would be the case when/ IF it were renewed.

The Scottish Premier League has agreed a television deal with Sky Sports and ESPN which will run until the end of the 2016-17 season. They will pay a combined £80m to continue to screen 30 live SPL matches each per season. The figure represents an increase of £3m a year on the existing broadcast agreement due to end in 2014.

Central to the deal is the continuation of four Old Firm matches each season.

www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/21/spl-tv-deal-sky-espn

Heid RTID {Ed014's Note - It's been printed numerous places,doesn't make it true.Read the laws of the game and it will prove that no such stipulation can be put in place.What makes it more ridiculous is that the league splits.Basically you are saying S*y are rigging the SPL.I know for a fact that isnt true.

07 Feb 2012 17:40:15
just a general debate,

who would you make rangers captin ? & why ?

lenny

You..............because you seem to be an expert at everything. We couldn t lose with your know- how and perfection.

Who cares that's the last thing on rangers mind, getting a target man in on the cheap and staying afloat and pipping the manky's to the league is the priority.*ksd*

A would say Naismith when he is back from injury or Alan mcgregor i think that 2 would be good captains or even boconegra

campbell

Papac he always gives hiss all and is a experianced player,yor u could not have a captain n save a fiver on a armband,lol,dont c anything rong with davis,he just taking flack for sum reason

1st poster.... Clearly you can't leave a name so away back to playing with your Lego.

Ps you must be short sighted. Top of the page says banter & my post start general debate.... Not I'm a expert heres what to do ya tool!

Just wanted to know what rangers fans thought about there captin as davis doesn't look a firework that spurs a team on?

Lenny

It wouldn't benefit anyone to change the captain at this point of season, just give davies a kick up the a**e. but in keeping with general debate, mcgregor would command respect from the guys on the field.

Lenny it shd be the shagger

and the only 1 that plays with lego is ur captain

T-Bear

You mean Scott brown ? The same Scott brown who's player of the month this month ?

Lenny

Bocanegra. usa skipper n bucket loads of experience as well as being our most consistant performer.

davis nowhere near a rangers captain imo.

j1985

Broadfoot as hes stupid enough to do it, might help him boil an egg correctly

ska bhoy

Mcgregor or boca tho id get slated for this bit edu? jst my opinion

Wullie

07 Feb 2012 16:41:28
Based on what we have I'd go with a 4-3--3 formation right now until such times as we get some first team bodies back...

Macgregor // Broadfoot - Goin - Bocanegra - Papac // Davies - Edu - Mackay // Aluko - Healey - Wylde.....

and against Celtic when we should have a couple of bodies back play a 4-1-4-1 formation...

Macgregor//

Whittaker - Goian - Bocanegra - Papc//

McCulloch//

Aluko - Davies - Edu - McKay //

Lafferty

That last 11 IS good enough to beat Celtic but they DO need to be motivated by the manager. that may be a bigger problem!!

What if we get injuries n suspensions then what?

Never ever have Broadfoot in the team, I know we are bad but thats like giving any team a goal of a start.

In goals and defence we're covered pretty well i.e. Alexander, Wallace and Bartley but the decision to transfer and/or loan out the midfielders and strikers last month leaves us desperately exposed in both areas...we all know that...Ness is the only quality midfielder left but we can't trust his fitness...that leaves Bedoya, Wylde, Celik who are all wide players but their calibre is unknown other than Wylde who has had chances but is still lacking in the final ball...and as for up-front!!

Reality is McKay will not see the first team...and given how exposed thsi nteam now is, you got to question the decision making of McCoist....

I saw McKay against Liverpool and he was excellent...McCoist needs to show he can put the team FIRST before his own petty fall-outs....

Aye.please play that 11 against us.please,please,please,artybhoy

Totally agree mate questions need to answered why Ally will not play Makay when we are crying out for something different.

You're having a laugh if you think that team would beat Celtic....for starters, you had a much stronger team playing against us in November, and then you have edu, laugherty, whittaker, mcculloch, davies and mckay, none of which are anywhere near good enough


taco

07 Feb 2012 14:07:14
were in such a bad way i would bring gough back to play.

You couldn't afford his wages!

Remember Jagger only £3k a week and you had to say no!

DazzaBhoy

07 Feb 2012 13:47:33
Okay so the media has us all turning on ourselves, and in house fighting Craig Whyte said this Ally McCoist sayed that.

Time to stop all this and concentrate on the team give them our support yes we know its not the best team Rangers have played with and no some of the players should not be there but they are and whilst they are there they should be supported.

If a new manager comes in well thanks to Ally and the back room staff we will support who ever comes in. We are Rangers through and through.

We do need a right back and midfielder who can hold theball and pass it and a striker why not give the young guns a chance. Before the glory hunters shout me down i mean a proper chance not just one game. Somebody did not fancy Ally McCoist as a striker yet he is the clubs best ever goal scorer as facts will tell.

As for possibilities coming in why don't we look at those who are without clubs at the moment and offer pay as you play or short term deals gives them the opportunity to be in the shop window too and give us a service.

Ed you must know of some players out there who could do a job for Rangers just now. {Ed001's Note - I haven't had a chance to look through the free agents list, sorry.}

Good point about the strikers as most tend to thrive on confidence. remember the "ally get to ****" chants? he persevered and scored plenty......green jhedi

07 Feb 2012 13:10:40
the meaning of ibrox ...had to lol at this one... ibrox is of both British and Gaelic origin, and is said by a Scottish historian to mean the haunt of the badger (brock, Gaelic bruic, a badger)..... i would have thought more like tadger

And how we rolled on the floor laughing at this.

We didn't ever speak gaelic in central west Scotland, we spoke Scotts. Gaelic derived from Ireland primerily in north east and west Scotland during shipping etc.. It's a very common misconception that we spoke Gaelic in Glasgow but we never. So your story isn't very plausible.

Dtp89

Ps.. A brocH!! Is an old Scottish house designed for defence.

Dtp89

You are a clown dtp. The name glasgow is gaelic. Correct spelling is Glaschu, which translated means green place. Does that ring a bell

Don't think that Dtp89 is wrong."It is generally accepted the name is not from Gaelic, as at the time of its formation this area was a Welsh settlement. It is probably from the Welsh 'Glas', and 'cu' or 'gu'; translates as 'Beloved Green Place' "

I'm an idiot because your opinion is different from mine? Ok, I do this stuff at college. What about you hero, what's your source?.. No doubt some stupid google website ya clown. And hypothetically lets say your right about the naming of glasgow(which u may be, it's not an aspect I've came across) glasgow was discover long before the naming of ibrox. Columbus discovered america yet in north America they talk English.. Portugese in brazil, Spanish in Mexico. So your theory is pish. Now bolt I'm sick of this pansy talk daft ar*e

Dtp89 {Ed014's Note - Ancient Indian transcripts talks about the Americas.

Dtp89 is wrong. Even you have written that the language was Welsh, not Scots tho most likely the description of the language spoken was Cumbric.

Gaelic was spoken in glasgow for over 500 years. There are many gaelic placenames in and around Glasgow.
Check this link for details.

www.theglasgowstory.com/story.php?id=TGSAG

Bankie Bhoy

07 Feb 2012 12:20:57
Honestly rangers fans,why is it never rangers fault?it's either the daily record,BBC or even the old board etc!!cw knew what he was getting into and John greig the rangers great warned use all but all use could see is the green eyed monster ££££.there's no smoke without fire so use should maybe start to worry a bit!things are on the up for use anyway for Kirk broadfoot could be back for sat!lol why would you pay £400 to £500 on a season ticket to watch that pish on a park?oh wait use need to for your chairman has sold some of them for £24million and need to pay it back!it wont be long until the adverts start appearing on tv appeal for rangers,£10 a month that's how bad it is. Why won't he release the accounts?something to hide. P.s who's got the knowledge to disagree with me?I could count them on 1 hand!!!rusty the tim

Best to sssh until you have won the league! (or not)....Diesel

Ffs it is not use it is you's
dumbo {ed014's note - Sorry Dumbo,the plural of you is actually you

Is that your argument???just shows the amount of intelligent rangers fans there is!!!!

Is that the sssh your father wore? green jhedi

Grow up green jhedi
Wullie

Brilliant, being lectured on paranoia from a Celtic fan, LOL

@wullie; c'mon that was not too bad!..green jhedi

He wont publish the accounts because he is hiding how he has asset stripped Rangers, so that when the administrator comes there is nothing for them. I'll pay the money because I enjoy going to support Rangers, if I wanted to see good football I'd move to Spain. Are you under an illusion that Celtic play good football?

GovanFR

Not that relevant, but there was a poster on this thread who generalised the intelligence of everyone involved with a worldwide corporation (Rangers) on the basis of one comment. Pot calling the kettle black? CamAlex

07 Feb 2012 10:54:35
Just a thought on our team just now, as every1 knows steven davis is never a RANGERS captain but SUPERALLY chose him so be it, now he is not going 2 drop him & also kyle bartley is never a right back but he is going 2 play him also so how about this 2 accomodate both & bring a bit of stability 2 our team. play shagger, 3 centre backs goian, boca,bartley wing backs of wallce & edu yes I know edu as a wing back but this keeps him out the centre were he loses the ball 2 much not blaming him at least he puts tackles in unlike davis, 2 holding centre mids in mculloch & papac adds bit of grit to midfeild with davis in front of them & take your pick of any 2 of aluko,healy or celik up top this I think would bring more of a compact team as just now we are all over the place when teams attack us teams are hitting on the counter attack & our players don't have a clue the second goal on sunday the team was so far apart you could have got 3 double deckers between boca & goian, also SUPERALLY needs 2 stress 2 our players 2 take responibility as it seems now all we are capable of is leaving it all up 2 aluko, I don't see what the clamour is 2 get a new striker in as apart from aluko nobody else is creating any chances for the forwards so RANGERS captain please stand up & be counted instead of grettin 2 the press about needing players in as if I was manager it would be some1 for your position
NTYABOW

Regarding Steve Davis give him a break
if they would put someone in midfield who has the bite of Stuart McCall instead of EMU then we might have a bit more fight about us

That team you just posted is worse than the 1 we are witnesssing just now. why have 7 defensive players on the park? Its the scottish league we are playing in not La Liga !!!

The reason I would have this line up is, we are pish in the scottish league never mind la liga, & if you had have a brain you would realise it is all the players we are using just now only in a different formation, if you go 2 the games which you might well do, you would also realise this season at IBROX we have been witnessing worse football than we played under walter smith so I think this is the best way 2 utilise the players we have
NTYABOW

The squad we have is thin, we all know that, but davies being our captain has to be producing a bit better than he has been, regardless of who is beside him. Edu has came into a bit of form lately, but the whole squad, with the exception of aluko, is under-performing and letting us fans down.

Disagree NTYABOW, no one in the world plays that formation, why would we. Far too defensive.

pappy

Pappy why is playing with 2 wing backs defensive, this allows them 2 push forward with the knowledge that they have cover from the holding midfielders ,because when we play with 4 at the back we are all over the place because davis & edu are overran in centre mid all the time, bringing back mcculloch would give us the bit of steel that none of these 2 give us also bartley is a fish out of water at right back, davis needs 2 play further up the pitch & this is the only way we can accomodate him without being outmuscled in centre mid & remember we used this formation at old trafford & got a result, so we are not playing man u so we will do alot more attacking with being more compact, united played as a unit on sunday we played like no 1 knew each other & as I say it has been like this at IBROX almost all season
NTYABOW

07 Feb 2012 11:12:58
a sign of the times when both old firm managers are ex players who love the club but neither have any experience in management. Does this mean if i took my coaching badges i would be a candadate for the rangers job because i love them? Ally is out of his depth but i think any manager walking into ibrox with no experiencw would be. We need someone like butcher who has had no money everywhere he has been an done a very good job. We also need guys on the park who can roll up the sleeves an get stuck in when things are goin wrong. If you need proof of that watch the dundee utd game again...so many players went awol, davis is not captain material.

All the leaders and winners have left the club and replaced by hopeless cheap buys

07 Feb 2012 09:35:35
The substance of the programme is contained in a BBC website article and I'll put the link minus the www at the bottom of this post.

The key part is that Whyte claimed not to remember why he was disbarred s a Director and that it was a technicality. The journalist obtained a transcript of the hearing by Companies House and the crucial quote is "Registrar Simmonds ruled that "the assets of the company (Vital UK) were put out of the reach of the creditors on a somewhat dubious delayed basis".

The ruling continued: "Shortly after that Mr Whyte put the company into a members' liquidation disclosing promissory notes as an asset.

"This seems to me to be a self-seeking action with regard to the company. If this is too harsh, then the degree of recklessness shows Mr Whyte to be thoroughly unfit to be a director."

Judge for yourselves but I'm not sure how happy you should be with this guy owning your club.


bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-we
st-16912365

Judge for Yourselfs and You should not happy with this guy owning Your club.We will wait and see what happens but it nice to know Yous are concerned for Us.

Maybie some concern for the decent working people he shafted out of wages? green jhedi

07 Feb 2012 09:05:44
99% of all of the Free agents have been let go by their club either for not performing or refusing contracts...... This shows me that there will be no loyalty from that player or they are clearly not good enough.... why would we want this callibre of player?

Fellow Bears we are The Glasgow Rangers.... we will not fall!! We are the worlds most successful Football Club... Let this scenario pass by.... ignore all these rumours.... Lets get our head down and support our team!!

We Are The People don't let anyone tell you any different!!

Err,your actually not glasgow rangers, do you people not even know your clubs name?..green jhedi

World's most successful club my arse, Real madrid won the big cup 9 times, Milan 7 times, Liverpool 5, Bayern 4!

Come back when you get a REAL star above your badge rather than your mickey mouse stars!

DazzaBhoy

07 Feb 2012 04:39:46
Guys it was the last board that put us in this mess. whyte has a hard job to do but i belive he will get us through this. Even if it means not winning the league for a year or 2. All the Celtic fans have been ripping their board for years but the truth is they are in great shape considering how bad it was for them a few years ago. Whyte has the right idea for the future lets get behinde him. Btw we need a better manager than Ally at this time

Yeah whyte is a brilliant owner. i wouldnt trust him with my breakfast.

07 Feb 2012 02:14:41
Just read that a bus full of Fans never made it to the Dundee Unt game because the bus turned over, reports saying the were extremely lucky - to f**king right, that they didn't have to sit through that performance..

Pete

07 Feb 2012 01:20:18
I'm sitting here thinking, the only two ex Rangers players that have went on to Manage the club have done so when the club has been in decline. I love John Grieg and he will always be Mr Rangers in my opinion, he suffered with a lack of funding and was slaughtered in the end, I remember the pelters he took from the fans in that last season and if the internet was around, heaven knows what would have been written about him, his reputation was tarnished and it took a long time for him to get over. I also Love McCoist and I don't want to see the same thing happen to him, he doesn't deserve the stick he is getting from some quarters. He isn't getting the funding, and there has to be some inside interference, all these trialists would never have been there under Smith and if they were then we wouldn't have known about them. There is a board room battle going on, and Ex directors are involved, the media spotlight has very much stopped over Govan way and it's not going to go away. I fear for McCoist - I really do,

PS
"just watched one of the many McCoist Tributes on You Tube, time and again you hear the commontator say "McCoist does again for Rangers". It's time we did something for him, give him some support.

Pete

He knew the junk he was taking over and should have not taken the job. Now he is there he needs to get the team playing but he does not have the players. Davis, Edu, Healy, Wallace, Bartly are all top class underperformers and have been hiding recently. I may take Wallace and Healy and Edu out of that statement as they are just not good enough and never were.

Just like Greg, McCoist will tarnish his super ally rep if he dose not sort this mess out. The team has zero guts, zero skill and as much dominance as the SNP in England.

07 Feb 2012 00:01:18
An interesting observation to make regarding th bbc shows and th paper articles, is that if they aren't true or have any basis in truth, it would be clear slander and liable. Since they've been allowed to be aired an printed with no legal reproach from rangers or whyte it would point toward a fair bit of truth. Instead all we get is whyte telling us not to listen and he's taking legal advise, but that would/should have been sought prior to the stories going out. Something seems fishy with this guy.
S-bear

Precisely....it's the same with "it's 99.9% lies" rangerstaxcase website.....anyone who is being slandered, called a liar, fraud and conman would be in court fighting for his good name.....the silence from whyte is deafening


taco

Small point just being pedantic, slander and I'm assuming you meant libel are English terms, in scots law there's only defamation, there's no distinction between written and verbal in scots law of defamation .

You're right, you are being pedantic.

tomato's tomatoe's and all that


taco {Ed001's Note - you have to remember that no court action to clear anyone's name can be taken until AFTER the tax case is done. Any action prior to that could be seen as prejudicial to the court case. That is if court action is possible, after all it only takes words like 'allegedly' to make it damn near impossible to take any action. Anyway, why does inaction mean guilt? When you know the truth, you don't always care what other people say about you.}

I read new the articles from the BBC and the one from the record, they are using words like, "may" "could" "perhaps" "likely" "probable" These are not factual words.
look at the heading "Whyte "may" have lied in Court - they can then go on a spell spouting all sorts, if challenged they can then say we said "may" - not did and not be liable for anything. If you look at the Records article, Rangers "could" owe 5 Million to the taxman., or "may" borrowed as much as 24.2 Million.
The BBC were outside Ibrox park on at the end of the game on Sunday, asking the "Rangers" crowd what they thought of the game, I asked one of the reporters if she would have been standing there had we won, she said, probably not. For the record, they did not ask one Dundee united supporter how they felt. That should tell you everything you need to know about the media, they are looking for a story and if it's not interesting enough, they will make sh1te up, I am not for a moment suggesting that Whyte is innocent of all the stuff that's been written merely stating that not everything you see or read can be taken as Gospel.
And it is extremely difficult and expensive to proof liable in the U.K.

Pete

Not defending Whyte but the BBC are asserting he may have done this or may have done that. They will have had their solicitors check out their own reports to avoid defamation.
But the BBC lead the viewer to believe that Whyte has committed perjury by listing apparent facts from different periods, and when viewed implies he committed perjury.
I missed the first broadcast but why are the BBC not investigating why Lloyds were happy with his takeover bid?
A spokesman for Lloyds said "Lloyds Banking Group's aim has always been to secure the long-term financial stability and security of our customer, Rangers Football Club"

The stories obviously are true. The record and the bbc even moreso will clearly source them very thoroughly so as to no get sued. The guy's as bent as a nine bob bit- that's been pretty apparent to anyone with even half a brain for some time now. The "i'm never buying a paper or paying my licence fee again"/ "It's only septic fans coming on here stirring it" massive are off another planet quite frankly. Planet of the morons. {Ed001's Note - what they do is WORD them very thoroughly so they don't get sued, not research them thoroughly. There is a huge difference.}

'taco {Ed001's Note - you have to remember that no court action to clear anyone's name can be taken until AFTER the tax case is done. Any action prior to that could be seen as prejudicial to the court case. That is if court action is possible, after all it only takes words like 'allegedly' to make it damn near impossible to take any action.}

One word on the above: RUBBISH {Ed001's Note - and yet you can't explain why it is rubbish, which tells me you are talking out your backside. Either explain yourself or don't waste my time with nonsense, because clearly this comment is just pointless.}

'taco {Ed001's Note - you have to remember that no court action to clear anyone's name can be taken until AFTER the tax case is done. Any action prior to that could be seen as prejudicial to the court case. That is if court action is possible, after all it only takes words like 'allegedly' to make it damn near impossible to take any action.}

One word on the above: RUBBISH {Ed001's Note - and yet you can't explain why it is rubbish, which tells me you are talking out your backside. Either explain yourself or don't waste my time with nonsense, because clearly this comment is just pointless.}

Where to start? OK the tax case is being dealt with by an independent tribunal looking into an appeal by Rangers against a tax assessment. Given that this appeal and assessment were underway beofre Craig Whyte appeared on the scene there is nothing in any defamation claim that he might make that could affect this.
Secondly, the two issues are completely unrelated. If Craig Whyte claims that he is being defamed by the BBC there is absolutely nothing to prevent him taking action. There are no rules to prevent this, you are simply wrong.
Thirdly, simply using the words 'allegedly' is no defence against defamation, check that out with any lawyer if you don't believe me.
Finally, your whole comment is just so spectacularly wrong that it is quite approriate to apply the word 'rubbish' to it all. {Ed001's Note - are you for real? Nothing you have said is in the slightest bit true. You cannot go to court for slander over an ongoing court case, you can try and sound as clever as you like, but it quite simply isn't possible until the case is complete. How would you prove what is true or untrue until the case has been heard and ruled upon? So your comment on that was rubbish. It really makes no difference when it was started, a number of the details involved in the court case are being used with regards to Whyte. He might well not have a leg to stand on, he might well be as guilty as sin, but right now it makes little difference to his ability to sue over it.
Your second point is nonsense, financial dealings involving the club are involved in both cases, which is how they are connected. Until the accounts are signed off and revealed, no action can be taken in court regarding those financial details.
Again the third point is nonsense, using words such as allegedly can easily be used to get round defamation suits. Which is why all the reports contain words such as may or could, no direct statements of fact, which could be used against them.}

''taco {Ed001's Note - you have to remember that no court action to clear anyone's name can be taken until AFTER the tax case is done. Any action prior to that could be seen as prejudicial to the court case.'

Furthermore, if no action could be taken, how did Bain, McIntyre and Onestop all manage to get cases heard while the tribunal was still sitting? {Ed001's Note - because they are no longer involved with the club.}

{Ed001's Note - are you for real? Nothing you have said is in the slightest bit true. You cannot go to court for slander over an ongoing court case, you can try and sound as clever as you like, but it quite simply isn't possible until the case is complete. How would you prove what is true or untrue until the case has been heard and ruled upon? So your comment on that was rubbish. It really makes no difference when it was started, a number of the details involved in the court case are being used with regards to Whyte. He might well not have a leg to stand on, he might well be as guilty as sin, but right now it makes little difference to his ability to sue over it.
Your second point is nonsense, financial dealings involving the club are involved in both cases, which is how they are connected. Until the accounts are signed off and revealed, no action can be taken in court regarding those financial details.
Again the third point is nonsense, using words such as allegedly can easily be used to get round defamation suits. Which is why all the reports contain words such as may or could, no direct statements of fact, which could be used against them.}

OK, here we go again. For a start in Scotland you don't go to court for slander or, for that matter libel, what we have here is defamation.
Two, the details that Craig Whyte has claimed are defamatory include that he acted as a director while disqualified. This has no bearing on either the tax tribunal or the Onestop case so there is absolutely nothing to stop him going to court.
Three, the BBC programme made little reference to Craig Whyte's role in the ongoing saga of Rangers but focused on his dubious past.
Whyte has been clever in suckering the more brain-dead into believing that an attack on him is an attack on Rangers.
Nothing the BBC has said about Craig Whyte has any bearing whatsoever on the points at issue in the tax case or indeed on Rangers.
I can only repeat what I said, using the word allegedly does not provide a defence against defamation, this is an urban myth. If you don't believe me ask a lawyer. {Ed001's Note - clearly you can't read, so I am not going to waste my time telling you again that the reports used words such as may rather than stating a definite. It would be a waste of my time because you are intent on not taking any notice of what is said and I have better things to do than waste my time. I may as well talk to the budgie as talk to you, even the good points you make are wasted because you refuse to read anyone else's point of view and keep banging on with complete and utter nonsense about one word.}

Actually it is you that introduced that word and tried to use it as a reason for Craig Whyte not taking action. On that basis and and if you believe your position to be right, I will categorically state that you are allegedly a moron.

Purely in the interests of education, I will enlighten you. A statement can be judged defamatory based on what a reasonable person could infer from it regarding the intention of the person who delivered the statement. Therefore just sticking may, possibly, perhaps or any other similar word at the beginning or end, does not stop it being defamatory. {Ed001's Note - except that isn't what was done, purely in the interests of education I will point that out to you because you clearly still have no idea!}