adamntg Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 If you are expecting a Rangers fan to stand up for our policy on youth development, then you may be waiting a while. £170k is a decent outcome and all the more for the McCoist January salary. fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewolf_1980 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Trying to sign him would be more accurate. I believe United used the established route of transfer tribunal when a fee couldn't be agreed for a young player available under freedom of contract. Whilst also trying to be smart arses and suggesting the "new club" nonsense which has amusingly (and predictably) jumped up and punched Thompson in his smarmy, mouthy face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) I would agree with the smarmy bit, but not the stealing. Made me chuckle though. I suppose the rubber-stamping of Rangers as a continuation of the old club should make sure that it's a 25 point deduction at the next insolvency event. Edited December 9, 2014 by adamntg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewolf_1980 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Trying to sign him would be more accurate. I believe United used the established route of transfer tribunal when a fee couldn't be agreed for a young player available under freedom of contract. And without meaning to use semantics, it wasn't United who used the route of a tribunal, it requires both parties to disagree for that to happen. If the buying club makes an acceptable offer in the first place. then the more established route of offer and acceptance comes into play first. The reason I bring that up isn't to be a wide-o, more to highlight that I can't imagine that Rangers would be all that difficult to negotiate with these days and therefore perhaps by going to a tribunal, Utd have ended up paying more than they needed to? Edited December 9, 2014 by thewolf_1980 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 And without meaning to use semantics, it wasn't United who used the route of a tribunal, it requires both parties to disagree for that to happen. If the buying club makes an acceptable offer in the first place. then the more established route of offer and acceptance comes into play first. Not theft though, is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewolf_1980 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Not theft though, is it? Nope, didn't say it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRBear Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 That's what happens when you try to steal players Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewolf_1980 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 That's what happens when you try to steal players In fairness, it could be argued that what's good for the goose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Why did David Murray not go to Ticketus to pay off the Lloyds debt? He could have done what Whyte did but above board... and then waited out the BTC result. So why sell to Whyte for a quid BEFORE the BTC was decided? The BTC is not a disease, Murray Group either had the same EBT tax issue or it did not. It was not going to 'catch it' from the RFC case. So why ditch RFC for a quid to a (there is only going to be one outcome) vulture like Whyte? Either you can be specific about why or you don't know. I have never heard a convincing explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) The curious thing about Whyte was there was no pretense at running RFC properly and then 'valiantly succumbing' to administration if and when the BTC was lost. No Whyte immediately stripped out the assets and stopped paying all bills even to HMRC. This was the guy Murray hand picked. The best guy he could find... Despite the fact bloggers could work out he was well dodgy from almost the start. edit: And then this well dodgy dude hand picks Green, another 'character'. The whole chain is dubious. Edited December 9, 2014 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) The curious thing about Whyte was there was no pretense at running RFC properly and then 'valiantly succumbing' to administration if and when the BTC was lost. No Whyte immediately stripped out the assets and stopped paying all bills even to HMRC. This was the guy Murray hand picked. The best guy he could find... Despite the fact bloggers could work out he was well dodgy from almost the start. edit: And then this well dodgy dude hand picks Green, another 'character'. The whole chain is dubious. Thanks for the insight Sherlock. Edited December 9, 2014 by Larky Masher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Trying to sign him would be more accurate. I believe United used the established route of transfer tribunal when a fee couldn't be agreed for a young player available under freedom of contract. It's just means Thompson has less money for his other "hobby". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kps022000 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I think history will reflect very differently on the major players here. Whyte is seen as a master criminal who duped everyone when in reality he was nothing but a chancer. Shady as but nothing more than an asset stripper. Green is a criminal. Also shady as but went in with the intention to commit a crime through pilfering off as much money as physically possible. The cash burn under his relatively short term in charge is eye watering. He is the person the Rangers fans should be chasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ta Ta Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Indeed. Utd still acted like fuds though. Hmmm, United agreed a 10 % sell on fee when Robertson signed from Queens Park which will end up around £300k. Queens don't seem to have done so badly out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Whilst also trying to be smart arses and suggesting the "new club" nonsense which has amusingly (and predictably) jumped up and punched Thompson in his smarmy, mouthy face. Hmm, apparently rangers claims that Utd tried to use the 'new club' claim is untrue... http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-forced-u-turn-charlie-telfer-4778953 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Farrington Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Hmm, apparently rangers claims that Utd tried to use the 'new club' claim is untrue... http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-forced-u-turn-charlie-telfer-4778953 Ha ha ha, trying to stir up shecht to get their daft fans back on board - they can't even do that right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Hmm, apparently rangers claims that Utd tried to use the 'new club' claim is untrue... http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-forced-u-turn-charlie-telfer-4778953 Fannies. Who are these people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce778 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Hmm, apparently rangers claims that Utd tried to use the 'new club' claim is untrue... http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-forced-u-turn-charlie-telfer-4778953 Seems like Rangers overstated the use of the new club argument by Dundee United - see quote from Steven Thompson. Thompson later told BBC Scotland: "We did not use the two years old scenario as quoted." So it was used in some respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 It's just means Thompson has less money for his other "hobby". He still has a. Lot more money than your club. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Hmm, apparently rangers claims that Utd tried to use the 'new club' claim is untrue... http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-forced-u-turn-charlie-telfer-4778953 Doesn't really surprise anyone. Still £170k for the spl young player of the month is good business in anyone's book, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Indeed. Utd still acted like fuds though. Parkie you act like a fud on here every other day and we let you off, so chill out man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Hmm, apparently rangers claims that Utd tried to use the 'new club' claim is untrue... http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-forced-u-turn-charlie-telfer-4778953 So, more poison from the govan based club. Why doesn't that surprise me, I am struggling every year to work out why anyone would support this football team. It really is rotten to the core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRBear Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 So, more poison from the govan based club. Why doesn't that surprise me, I am struggling every year to work out why anyone would support this football team. It really is rotten to the core. As with most loyal fans, support is in the blood. Don't suppose anyone is going to stop supporting their team because some tangerine tadger doesn't like them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Seems like Rangers overstated the use of the new club argument by Dundee United - see quote from Steven Thompson. Thompson later told BBC Scotland: "We did not use the two years old scenario as quoted." So it was used in some respect. Not the way I'd read it but you keep grasping at those straws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Seems like Rangers overstated the use of the new club argument by Dundee United - see quote from Steven Thompson. Thompson later told BBC Scotland: "We did not use the two years old scenario as quoted." So it was used in some respect. Well no, not necessarily. You could read that as "it was quoted that we used the two years old scenario, however we did not" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.