FRAUD BY GOD!

Traynor is again suggesting that Craig Whyte acted criminally with his Ticketus deal. In reality it is a grey area: can future sales be considered as assets, especially when it was a loan he took out to be paid back from these future sales? One for the lawyers and certainly not one for Traynor, who blames both Whyte and HMRC for creditors losing out. 

He is good at pointing to company law to blacken Whyte but fails dismally to mention the real scandal in all these shenanigans: the sale of the assets on the cheap by Duff and Phelps to Green. Quite apart from the immorality of this procedure it is, most likely, illegal:

"under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 423, a company may recover assets if they were paid away at a "significantly less than the value" of the thing, and this was done "for the purpose of" prejudicing other creditors' interests."

It could be argued that Duff and Phelps's bargain-basement sale was not done for the purpose of prejudicing other creditors' interests; but can they prove that? Why, exactly, did the sale go ahead if not for this purpose?

Thousands of small creditors have lost out due to this underhand deal and it remains to be seen if BDO will challenge this sale.

What is certain is that the agnivores in our media will never challenge this sale as it goes against their 'doublethink' agenda that says that Rangers still exists as the same entity but under a different company.

This sale of assets was fraud, pure and simple, and it will be an absolute disgrace if it goes unchallenged while Green boasts about being 'debt-free.'

"I am not a crook!"

NOW IT'S ALL HECTOR'S FAULT!

Traynor today has another go at Craig Whyte, again blaming him for everything. He admits that Murray's EBT scheme made Rangers an unattractive proposition but, then again, HMRC are more to blame than Murray! In fact, Traynor is at pains to point out the failings of HMRC, blaming them for all the small businesses losing out.

HMRC apparently allowed the "...situation to worsen when they should have taken swift action." That's Whyte's dodging the PAYE. About the EBT money he says, "you have to wonder why the tax authorities didn’t take the £11m settlement fee offered to them a few years ago." So even the government have got it in for Rangers/Sevco!

So why did HMRC not come to some kind of deal? Well, in any case like this it is usually weighed up which scenario will give the creditors more money: a deal, ie CVA, or liquidation of assets. HMRC decided on the latter. But what's that? The assets are no longer there?

Traynor is quick to point out that Rangers, under Whyte, might have been trading while insolvent, which is, of course, a crime. But is it not a crime also to shaft the creditors by punting off the assets for a song leaving nothing for the liquidators? 

"The football company associated with EBT no longer exists," Traynor says. Er...sorry, Jim, but it does; it hasn't been liquidated yet! Once BDO arrive they surely must look into the activities of Duff and Phelps and Charles Green? Administrators are supposed to be working on behalf of the creditors; not for the benefit of themselves and some mountebank!

So Green can brag about his team being 'debt-free' while all the creditors get nothing because he and the administrators cut a last-minute deal, giving him the assets and them the money they are owed; effectively sticking two fingers up to the creditors, from HMRC to the wee wumman that did face painting. 

Am I the only one that thinks that there is something criminal in all this?

Craig Whyte going off the radar

WHYTE'S BACK!!!

Today, Traynor is back to his favourite topic: blaming Craig Whyte for everything that went wrong at Rangers. Yes, the PAYE fiasco was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as HMRC were concerned, but a lot of what Whyte says actually makes sense.

Did the administration under Duff and Phelps really have to take so long? Everybody and his granny knew that nobody was going to buy the poison chalice that Rangers had become; hadn't Murray already been trying for years? Instead of trying to come to some arrangement all Duff and Phelps did was trot out the names of potential buyers, who ran a mile when they got a look at the books. Remember Miller? Ng? Then there was the possibly illegal handing over of the assets to Hughie Green. Adminsistrators are supposed to work on behalf of the creditors; so what happened there?

Imagine if Whyte had paid the PAYE when he was supposed to: Rangers would have been lucky to have afforded a team to put on the field. All he was doing was what had been going on at Rangers for years; robbing the tax man to pay for players. If he had paid the tax when he was meant to then Rangers would have fallen way behind earlier in the season and would have had no chance of finishing in the top six, never mind second!

Traynor still goes on about 'mortgaging the season tickets' to Ticketus but fails to raise any questions about where Green got the money to 'buy' Rangers from Duff and Phelps. It's about time these 'journalists' started asking some serious questions about Green and his illegal absconding with the assets, instead of trying to blame everything on Whyte.

There is one matter, though, on which Traynor seems to have had a Road-to-Damascus conversion. He says about Whyte's claim that Rangers/Sevco were relegated to Division 3:

'Rangers had to go there because they were a new club starting over.'

Who'd-a thunk it?

Meanwhile the sports journalist manqué, Rabid Biggat, is beating the drum for Auld Dignity, Walter Smith, returning as Scotland manager! Good luck with that; he needs big bucks to succeed at anything!

LEVEIN US IN NO DOUBT

Traynor has decided to jump on the bandwagon and call for the head of Craig Levein. He exhorts Stewart Regan to do the right thing but can't resist his usual little dig:

"Regan, who has not exactly covered himself in glory either over the last year or so..."

How does he make that one out? What has Regan done wrong? Oh, that's right, he is one of the ones that Sevco, aka the Hughie Green Zombies, blame for everything bad that has happened to them. Keep it up, James, David Biggat is always extolling your virtues in his blog.

Speaking of the  sports journalist manqué, I see he is buying into the myth that calling the Zombies 'Daleks' is some allusion to the Ibrox Disaster. Alex Thomson used this word and explained what he meant by it: that Rangers/Sevco supporters have no minds of their own and just spout slogans like, 'Wee arra peeppil' in the same way as Daleks shout 'Exterminate.' So much for the journalistic expertise that Biggat is always on about!

He is also orgasmic about Alex Thomson apparently becoming a 'target' for a 'top newspaper.' In reality, the right-wing, Daily Mail columnist, Richard Littlejohn, had a go at everyone on Channel 4, including Thomson, for what he sees as a far-too-liberal agenda. Music to Biggat's ears!

Anyone not familiar with Littlejohn will be interested to know that he has been proven to be a liar on numerous occasions. He also recently caused a furore by suggesting that for prostitutes being raped and murdered was an 'occupational hazard!' No doubt Biggat would agree with him!

Littlejohn, like Biggat, panders to a certain demographic, prepared to lie, exaggerate and defame to pursue his agenda. He has the support of the kind of old-fashioned, racist bigot that still thinks it was wrong to cancel the Black and White Minstrel Show and calls everyone with any common decency 'the PC brigade.' I don't think Alex Thomson has too much to worry about!

"Brains! Brains!"

 

 

 

  Craig Levein throws his hat into the ring to replace Sooperally.

THE HUMOURLESS UNDEAD

I see I was right in my previous post (20-9-12) about the supposed shamrock on the guy shooting a zombie on THAT banner. I predicted that the deranged would jump on this as a pretext for condemning this hilarious joke. David Biggat leads the way: he calls it an "offensive IRA themed banner." Aye, right. I have heard that the gunman is a clip art from some video game about shooting zombies. Perhaps the name of this game needs to be passed to a certain Chris Graham, so he can add it to Ze List.

There is nothing at all in the banner that suggests any connection with the IRA or any other organisation. Still, it gives an indication of the way Biggat's mind works; as does his subsequent characterisation of Barcelona as "Catalan rebels."

I, personally, think that the banner would have been funnier without the shooter, but that would have made no difference. I believe it was Jim Delahunt on Radio Clyde that said that the banner was funny up to the gunman. He was lambasted for this by Sevco supporters, which goes to show that it is not the gunman they are upset about; they are merely using this as an excuse. The Daily Record, as usual, pointed them in the right direction.

Meanwhile, I think Biggat has riled Tam Cowan with his unprovoked and unwarranted attacks. It seems to have changed him from making juvenile jokes to coming straight out with the truth. His Saturday column has this to say about Charles Green: 

"Would you throw money at a fella who still insists the SPL threw Rangers out of the league ? Listen up, Charlie. I’ll say this only once. Rangers weren’t thrown out of any league – they were allowed back into one thanks to the SFA and the SFL ripping up the rulebook."

Oh, dear! Not only will Tam end up on Ze List and have Biggat trying to link him with terrorist organisations, but how long will the Daily Record put up with this sort of thing? After all, Jabba and his agnivore cronies never tire of telling us how Sevco were 'relegated.' 

Oh, and make sure you give your postman an extra big tip this Christmas, Tam!

 THE LAST POST?

Today the Daily Record decided to suspend all comments on its football stories. They gave the following reasons for doing this:

"We are talking about personal abuse directed against other users and members of our staff, foul language, hate speech, sectarianism and systematic, tit-for-tat deletion of posts."

Anyone that posts on the Daily Record will recognise the personal abuse, hate speech, sectarianism and deletion of posts aspects. Most of this is down to one person, who has changed his username a few times but always posts the same hate-filled drivel and somehow manages to delete all posts by Celtic fans every Sunday. Surprisingly, nobody at the Daily Record has seen fit to ban this individual.

Anyway, the bit that stands out for me is the 'personal abuse directed against...members of our staff.' To me this would suggest Traynor, about whose obvious partiality quite a few folk have posted. The poor wee lamb's feelings have evidently been hurt!

Anyone that has ever listened to Traynor's 'Your Call' programme on a Saturday will know that he is not averse to handing out insults to his callers. His insults and abuse tend to be directed at a particular set of supporters, whom he characterises as paranoid and out of touch. I myself was at the receiving end of his 'wit' one Saturday. I had phoned to ask, quite reasonably, in 2010 to ask why Celtic fans were labelled as paranoid for calling into question penalties and other 'honest mistakes' that occurred in favour of Rangers. I pointed out that when, in 2008, Rangers fans squealed about Celtic getting a couple of penalties the Daily Record started to call in to question the competence and integrity of our referees. They even hired a psychiatrist to interview the referee for the first Old Firm derby. Traynor's reply? He was going to send the psychiatrist round to me!

The point I'm making is that folk like Traynor smugly sit in their radio studio, handing out insults and abuse with impunity. Hugh Keevins does the same thing on Radio Clyde. But let anyone say anything about them on a newspaper forum then they scream victimisation. I have to say that I have never seen anything posted about Traynor that is anywhere near as bad as the things he says to, and about, callers to his radio programme.

Like all bullies, he can dish it out but he can't take it!

GIVING IT TO YOU STRAIGHT

Tam Cowan is apparently a comedian. I don't quite know where he appeared from; did he used to do stand-up or something? But he's around and that's it. Like most comedians he can be hit or miss: sometimes funny, sometimes not. He has a reputation as a trencherman so does the restaurant reviews for the Daily Record. He also does a weekly sports column for the same paper, in which he takes a scattergun approach to poking fun at everyone without fear or favour. Commendably he does not toe the paper's party line and makes fun of Rangers/Sevco and even the brown-nosing journos that fawn over said team. To sum up, Tam Cowan is occasionally funny and mostly harmless.

Which makes it all the more remarkable that he is the latest target of sports journalist manqué David Leggat. Poor Tam has joined the list of characters who, in Leggat's fevered imagination, are enemies of Rangers/Sevco and out-and-out bigots. Cowan's crime? Supposedly he applauded the Mad Men parody on BBC's Sportscene programme. The fact that he didn't seems to have escaped Leggat's notice. But when did facts ever get in the way of a bigot's rants?

He calls Cowan a coward and even manages to make out that the management of the Daily Record is on some Celtic-loving, Rangers-hating, Papist crusade.  He then calls into question Cowan's journalistic credentials. If Leggat knew anything about newspapers then he would know there is a difference between a journalist and a columnist. For his information Tam Cowan is a COLUMNIST - that means that, like Leggat himself, he can write whatever he likes, except he has a wider audience and gets paid for it. Perhaps that's what sticks in Leggat's craw?

As my old, Catholic granny used to say, 'Shut it ya clown!'

 AS CLEARED AS MUD

'That bastard verdict!' That's what Sir Walter Scott called the 'not proven' verdict, one of the vagaries of the Scottish justice system. One wag said that the verdict was analogous to saying, 'Not guilty and don't do it again!' In other words, this strange verdict leaves a stigma of doubt over the accused: he's guilty but there's not enough evidence to prove it conclusively.

The SFA, in its wisdom, has decided to use this verdict in dealing with Charles Green, after his outbursts blaming all and sundry for the demise of Rangers and accusing the Scottish game of bigotry in its dealings with his team. He also called into question the integrity of Lord Nimmo Smith and his panel. Strangely enough, the evidence is all there in black and white; the man can't help himself! Stick a microphone in front of him and he's away! Apparently TV evidence and reams of newspaper coverage is inadmissable in the eyes of the SFA; in this particular case anyway!

So along comes Jabba to tell us all that Green has been 'cleared' of all charges! He goes further and states, 'And as there was insufficient evidence to find Green guilty, questions must now be asked as to the validity of the SPL’s handling of the EBT issue.' What questions? The SPL and the SFA are two separate bodies. It has been known for years that the SFA have always been very backward about coming forward when it comes to dealing with Rangers: not once have they ever done anything about the bigoted and sectarian singing of the fans. The corruption was laid bare for the first time when Jim Farry was exposed as a cheat, followed by the Dougiegate affair and the let-off for everyone associated with Rangers after the 'Shame Game.' It seems that the partiality of the SFA has been 'tuped' to Green's newco!

Traynor again goes on about this 'Five-way agreement' and a draft about stripping Rangers of titles if they can be shown to have used dual contracts. Exactly what his point is is anybody's guess!

Traynor then says that Green is being more conciliatory. Just to prove the point he quotes from Green, 'Perhaps it is time that those people within the SPL who have been pursuing Rangers at every turn take stock.' I don't know about you, but that sounds as if he's blaming everyone again - in fact, bringing the game in Scotland into disrepute!

The final part of the article is a classic punchline! Just to show his new conciliatory mood, Green plans to '...meet with SFA president Campbell Ogilvie in the near future.' Considering Ogilvie should be up before the beak for his involvement in the EBT fiasco then the mind boggles as to what this intended meeting will discuss!

Charles Green in a conciliatory mood