flyingrodent

And on the idea that HMRC shouldn't attempt to sue anyone unless they're 100% certain that they'll succeed, I just stumbled across some questions I was asking before the first verdict... - Why did David Murray offer to settle with HMRC for £10m, if he knew he was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why did Rangers refuse to cooperate with the HMRC investigation by withholding as much documentation as they possibly could, over a period of many years, if they knew that the club was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why wouldn't David Murray agree to accept liability for the tax case when selling the club, if he knew that he was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why did David Murray sell the club he purportedly loved to a conman for a pound, if he knew he was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why did Craig Whyte stampede the club into liquidation ASAP, if he knew that the club was innocent of a majority of the charges? - And why did everyone associated with Rangers over the last ten years deliberately stretch out this case as long as possible, even though doing so was massively harmful to the club's finances and to it's survival prospects, if they knew the club was innocent of a majority of the charges? Probably worth considering, before folk start claiming that HMRC were needlessly persecuting the OldCo.

Once again, when presented with a choice between pursuing Sir Dave and the men who actually killed Rangers, or pursuing the BBC over some utterly trivial nonsense, the Bears are... pursuing the BBC. This attention-deficit disorder is precisely the reason why their club died. It's also why their new owners will have no difficulty at all shafting the supporters for cash, again and again, year after year.

It looks like this was permissable because Hearts' problem was only bankruptcy, rather than bankruptcy with an ongoing civil case. There was also an international aspect between Scotland and Lithuania and as far as I can see, the full extent of this "stepping in" was a couple of conversations with the Lithuanian ambassador and a few declarations of support. No actual money changing hands, obviously. The difficulty for Salmond with Oldco Rangers was that a) Once HMRC pursue legal proceedings, it becomes a judicial matter and b) HMRC are a UK Government body, over which he has no control. And even if it had been a Scottish HMRC pursuing Sir Dave, it'd be utterly inappropriate for ministers - UK or Holyrood - to try to insert themselves into an ongoing legal case of this nature. It'd be the same as if Kenny MacAskill tried to step into a murder trial to ask for leniency, which would be a huge violation of the ministerial code. IIRC the SG has tried to get involved in other cases of failing football clubs, but only where the issue at stake is insolvency or lay-offs. See also, the SG's attempts to get Diageo to keep their Kilmarnock plant open.

The really noticeable thing here is that practically all of them are boiling about the supposed "mistreatment" of their club but when you try to pin them down on precisely what real, verifiable mistreatment actually occurred and how it happened, none of them want to tell you. As evidence, see No8 above, asking daft questions, getting sensible answers, then point-blank refusing to give his own answers to those questions. The very best that we saw last night was Tedi asserting that, because HMRC were only able to prove a relatively small number of frauds, they should never have pursued Rangers in the first place. Which, as noted, is the same as saying that prosecutors shouldn't prosecute anyone unless they're absolutely certain of getting a conviction - a pretty stupid contention, if you think about it. I think none of them will lay out an A-to-Z explanation of this supposed campaign against Rangers because every one of them is aware that even the mildest description of it would sound utterly deranged, and would be very easy indeed to discredit. They'd far rather keep their nutty theories abstract and perfect, where no nasty Celtic-minded types can spoil them, thanks. Seriously, look at the last couple of pages: plainly, they're far happier just mumping around complaining about a generalised, largely fictional scheme to do them down that they won't ever describe in detail. So long as the conspiracy against them remains vague and ill-defined - just something that "everybody knows" happened - then it can't be discredited. And that's just the way that they like it.

"Rationally"

It's true, I do. On the other hand, there really is no other way that what you're saying can be true, if it didn't happen much like that.

Okay, let's assume for argument that you're right here. Who knows? You may be. If, as you're saying, HMRC based their case on attempting to bust you with "retrospective punishments" and thought they could slip this past the court on the sly without anyone noticing, this would be both a major schoolboy error and a career-ending balls-up. It'd be such a massive balls-up that really, it can't conceivably happen unless clever people in senior positions at HMRC were basically acting out of sheer spite. Further, it'd be such a massive balls-up that any half-competent judge should've spotted it at the very first hearing, a decade ago, and at every hearing since. Which is why I was talking about malice and monomania. If you're contending that HMRC attempted to do you on obviously non-applicable retrospective punishments, what you're saying is that everyone involved - the accountants, the lawyers and the judges, at every stage - must have been hopelessly incompetent beyond belief*. Is that what you're saying? *It also implies that Sir Dave's legal team are shockingly poor, if it's taken them a decade to get a partial result in such and open-and-shut case.

HMRC pay top-dollar for the best forensic accountants and company lawyers that they can buy, Tedi. Do you think that they'd chase you over a decade, all the way to an appeal, if they really thought that their entire argument was as weak as you're claiming it was? I suppose that it's always possible that HMRC's investigators pursued you out of malice, or monomania or whatever. On the other hand, if the accountants and lawyers presented a case to the court that they knew to be invalid, then they're all in violation of their own profession's regulatory code and are liable to be disbarred from practicing, possibly permanently. Do you think all these people were willing to risk their entire careers, just to put one over Rangers?

This isn't the case, Ted. If it was, the Oldco wouldn't have admitted to running numerous non-compliant schemes, and they wouldn't still be on the hook for more of them. Really, this is quite an important point - you actually were running schemes that violated the law, and your lawyers admitted that you'd done it in court and accepted the penalty. That in itself confirms that HMRC were correct to pursue you. And since your lawyers admitted that these schemes were illegal at the time and accepted the penalty, this can't possibly be "retroactive punishment" - it's just "punishment" or, as it's more commonly known, "justice". HMRC couldn't prove that the entire thing was a fraud, of course, but what you're saying here boils down to Prosecutors shouldn't pursue suspected criminals if they're not absolutely certain that they can secure a conviction. Which is a daft thing to be saying, if you think about it.

You asked why HMRC acted as it did and why Salmond didn't intervene - as I said, I think HMRC acted properly, and it's a fact that government ministers aren't allowed to intervene directly in tax disputes or any similar matter. Any intervention by the First Minister would be a pretty clear breach of the ministerial code, no different than if he'd tried to intervene to prevent someone accused of a crime from being prosecuted. If you have good reasons to disagree with either of these answers, feel free to explain them. (BTW I realise that you want the answers "Because HMRC hated Old Rangers for some unknown reason" and "Because Salmond hated Rangers", and won't accept anything much less wacky. Nobody is going to give you those answers though, not least because they're very silly).

I think HMRC acted properly and I think Alex Salmond, as a government minister, isn't allowed to get involved in these matters, beyond urging both parties to get round the table and negotiate for mutual gain. So that answers your question. Now, why do you believe HMRC acted as they did? What do you think Salmond should've done?

Well, why don't you tell us, Eight? Why do you think HMRC treated the company the way it did, and why do you think Salmond didn't intervene?

Just spotted this - from that Union of Fannies statement... Supporters’ group The Union of Fans called for a Government inquiry into HMRC’s handling of the case. They said: “Rangers Football Club and its fans have been the victims of a witch-hunt by HMRC ... which has done huge damage to a proud Scottish and British institution. “Why did HMRC continue with this spurious claim when they were offered settlement? “We deserve answers on why this was done to our club.” http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-big-tax-case-sir-3837055 "We Are The Victims" certainly has a ring to it. They should start singing it at football matches or something.

Going only by what's been in the papers, I'd be stunned if Craigy Whyte's behaviour didn't amount to fraud and I imagine that Ra Berrz will get his head on a stick, sooner or later. Nonetheless, if it's obvious that it was Whyte who fired the fatal shots at the now-dead club, it's also absolutely irrefutable that it was David Murray and his cohort of cronies who bought the gun, oiled and polished it up til it was gleaming, then left it on Craigy's desk under a big neon, flashing "THIS IS A GUN" sign for him to find. The fact that these supporters groups are entirely ignoring this undeniable fact, and are in fact demanding immediate investigations and lawsuits against practically every human being in Scotland except Murray and his mates, should tell you everything you need to know about their reasons for wanting these investigations and lawsuits in the first place. It's entirely obvious that anyone who says they want to find out who killed Rangers? by investigating HMRC, the SPL, a bunch of bloggers etc. do not, in fact, have the slightest interest in finding out who actually killed Rangers. These people already know the answer to that question, so they're instead looking for excuses to kid on that responsibility for the club's demise lies anywhere other than within their own boardroom. *(Partial responsibility also falls on a huge roster of grasping former on-pitch stars and the credulous loyal fans who swallow, swallowed every lie and scam to issue from the Ibrox boardroom throughout Murray's reign, right up until the murder was already done, but we'll leave that for another day).

Yup, after two years of your mob boycotting, marching, greeting, protesting, demanding to know who-these-people-are and generally carrying on like a non-stop avalanche of torn-faced bawbaggery, it's definitely everybody else that should be embarrassed.

Mostly not cheating, I think is the verdict, much as it was in the football authorities' ruling.

I was pretty stunned the first time I heard that a huge cash payment, never paid back or expected to be paid back, could actually be a "loan". I think lots of people found that one pretty difficult to swallow, since it defies all common sense. If anything though, it's actually quite funny to see it confirmed years later. Sir Dave's vast, bullshitty sanctimony is also as humorous today as it has been throughout these last few years, and a quick Twitter search suggests that it's your mob that are seething, rather than anyone else's. Another bone of resentment for you all to gnaw on in perpetuity there, Bennett - I'm looking forward to some interesting theories as to how e.g. HMRC came to believe so strongly that cash payments aren't loans. No doubt some roaster somewhere will be raging today but I expect that most folk who notice, having previously seen the Deadco slime its way out of almost every danger except extinction, probably just find it a bit humorous.

Prediction: World record-breaking season ticket sales for a Championship side.

Worrying About Tim-Posters.

Probably showing off one of my many insecurities here, but - don't use the urinal right next to another guy who's already pissing, if there's one available further away.

Not yet, but we do have indications that it isn't any where near as many as hoped for... New crisis for Rangers over season ticket sales as questions asked about club's ability to repay short-term loans http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/new-crisis-rangers-over-season-3604574 TERMS agreed by the Ibrox club in February state that it must repay shareholder George Letham £1.5 million as soon as that total has been raised through season ticket sales - but the businessman is yet to receive a reply from chief executive Graham Wallace. RANGERS face a fresh crisis after it emerged they may not have raised enough money from season ticket sales to pay off the short-term loans they took out to keep the wolf from the door. The under-fire board borrowed £1.5million in February on the promise the cash would be paid back the instant ticket sales hit that figure. However, by close of business on Friday night, shareholder George Letham – who took over the £1m share of the debt from Laxey Partners in March – had not received a penny. MailSport understands the wealthy businessman has been waiting more than a week for a response from chief executive Graham Wallace to an email questioning how many tickets HAD been sold. Fans group the Sons of Struth kept up the pressure on the Ibrox regime with a postcard protest yesterday at the Ibrox ticket office. And it’s clear the organised boycott of season books by the Union of Fans, allied to a wider distrust of the board, is biting home. The club have been offering season tickets for six weeks, with renewals closing a week ago and the general public now being allowed to buy. But the terms of the Inter Creditor Agreement, signed in February binding Letham and club chairman Sandy Easdale together, state Rangers must settle the debt the minute they have enough cleared funds to do so. Letham took on the sum from Laxey Partners after outrage at the hedge fund’s terms that would have earned them a whopping £150,000 in interest or shares over six months. In an announcement to the Stock Exchange, the club claimed all other terms of the existing agreement with Laxey would remain. Which means that Section 6.1 stands. It states: “The borrower shall repay the Easdale debt and the Laxey debt on such Business Day as the Company has received cleared funds in an amount equal to or exceeding the aggregate principal amount of all then outstanding loans from: 6.1.1 the sale of season ticket monies for the 2014-15 football season or 6.1.2 a placing or rights issue or other form of debt or equity fundraising of the company or any member of the Rangers group, or whichever is first to occur and in any event no later than September 1 2015.” The club have been coy over how many tickets have been sold but estimates put the figure at about 14,000. However because credit company First Data withdrew their facility, the club had to give fans a chance to pay up their season books in four instalments. Therefore, they will only have taken in a quarter of the cash from the fans who have chosen that option. It’s believed they would need the full amount to have been paid for at least 5000 tickets to meet the terms. Either way, the number is less important than the actual income. Contractually, when the target of £1.5m is hit, the money MUST go straight to Letham and Easdale, leaving the club with the same liquidity problem they had when they took the loans in the first place. A Rangers spokesman said: “The loans will be repaid in accordance with the terms of the agreement in a timely and proper manner. We are in regular dialogue with Mr Letham and Mr Easdale.”

Also worth recalling that the Rangers fans themselves were wholly unperturbed by Gascoigne's intergender boxing and many of them said so, quite loudly and often, in every forum available to them.

Daily Record story today about a former Scotland manager having a go at Lee McCulloch - "Burley blast at 'Gers ace". That headline's wrong on at least two counts AFAICS.

I'd say that the thing that's being missed in all this TV-deal nonsense is that it's nobody's fault but Rangers' that they went out of business and had to reapply to the third division. Not the SPL's fault or the SFA's; not Peter Lawell's or any other chairman's, but Rangers' fault. You can certainly blame the football authorities for making it clear to potential buyers that they thought the SPL broadcast rights were worthless without Old Firm games, which is pretty much the opposite of what they should be saying in public, and amounts to knocking megabucks off any deal. Nonetheless, this is yet another example of the way in which Rangers' stupidity has impacted negatively on everyone else in Scottish football, and the glee with which their fans have greeted the news speaks volumes about their mentality - if they're not free to win however they like, by fair means or foul, then they want the entire game to feel as much pain as possible. This is probably worth remembering if they hit the administration buffers again and need more favours.