flyingrodent

Probably worth remembering Tedi's "We cheated and we won, so GIRFUY" attitude next time he's complaining about an unfair headline or a disallowed goal.

Looks like the best they can come up with is "But we won all those games fairly (with players that we couldn't have afforded if we hadn't been intentionally cheating)". I'd expected something a bit more sleekit. All the talk is about title-stripping this morning, but I doubt that'll happen. Morally, you'd think the beaks would have no option but to void the competitions Rangers won during the EBT era. Practically, I think the very most that's going to happen is a weak statement recognising that Rangers were cheating, and that'll be it - not so much as an asterisk next to the trophy.

Just mark them "No award due to financial malfeasance" or something. Seems the fairest thing to do for everyone.

He sure did. HMRC wanted a look at the books though, not a payoff. Today, I think we've found out why Dave preferred the payoff.

Given that Rangers deliberately kept the existence of this scheme from the ruling body, then spent the next decade hurling lawyers at Hector to avoid having to disclose it, I think it's a bit kind to suggest that they only "Got the tax rules wrong". Nonetheless, "we are guilty as charged" is a lot better than expected, so kudos to you.

Of course, rather than squirming & dodging for almost ten years, Sir Dave could've settled this in the mid-2000s by just being honest with HMRC. But then, I suppose that would've created a risk of Rangers getting into financial difficulties.

Aye, it's an outrage. Me, I'm wondering where the apologies to HMRC and others who investigated the EBTs are. It's not so long ago, that this place was filled with ripe denunciations of Hector and the BBC etc. for their statements and actions on the DeadCo's malfeasance. Surely Hector has now been utterly vindicated, and some very meek mea culpas are called for?

So basically, a large payment that never has to be repaid isn't a "loan" after all, and is actually dodgy? Jesus. It says something about how good lawyers are at their jobs, that it's taken years to get agreement on that.

Relax, geezer. Much like your original club, you're getting wound up.

Or, by a jury of their peers randomly selected from the populace, as is traditionally the case. I think Whyte, Green et al are obviously guilty myself, and I'll continue to think so even if the Crown can't prove that they are, unless some compelling countervailing evidence comes out at trial. I am however noting that your pals have long since passed judgement upon culpability for serious misbehaviour, and pronounced that certain people who are found guilty of only a minority of charges, while the main ones are dismissed, are thus utterly innocent of all wrongdoing for all time.

I'm guessing that the Crown wouldn't be going after Whyte and Green unless they thought there was a good chance that they could get a conviction. I predict guilty verdicts all round. Still, worth noting that the precedent on innocence and guilt was established long ago on the BRALT - if they're found guilty of only a few of the charges but the most serious ones are dismissed, then it means that they did nothing wrong at all and all complaints about their behaviour are a terrible witch-hunt.

Jesus Christ, I don't expect to have my good faith shattered that quickly.

I'm a fair-minded man, myself. If New Rangers cover the debts of the old club - properly, and not in a bullshitty manner - then I'd say that levels it out. They can have their history back.

I'm not sure whether "Non-Rangers fans were overly credulous towards cheats and fraudsters" is the most profitable line of argument that you could pursue here, Benny.

TBF quite a lot of you did put a staggering amount of effort into telling everyone who would listen that there was no crime, and into bashing hell out of anyone who suggested that there might be something dodgy going on. It's hardly the same as running cases of rum out of the back door of the bar, I suppose, but it's the main reason why there's going to be little sympathy for you now you're cranking up the chants of "We Are The Victims".

It's always the ones you least suspect, isn't it.

Didn't think you'd fancy digging your heels in on that one about the admin errors.

Aye, the type of administrative errors that were "at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme". The type of administrative errors that you deliberately attempt to prevent investigation of, and get fined quarter of a million pounds for. That type of administrative errors.

As has been said before - if Rangers hadn't weren't found to have engaged in serious, intentional and systematic rule-breaking over hundreds of games in all competitions, it's a bit odd that they were slapped with what was IIRC the largest fine in Scottish football history. Maybe they got the biggest fine for being especially awesome, or something?

This does seem very close to saying that - Rangers fans should be able to tell lies* about whoever they like, without the people that they tell lies about getting annoyed, and also - that Rangers fans are absolutely correct to throw their toys out of the pram and hurl a hissy-fit, if broadcasters tell the truth about them. That is, you seem to be claiming what looks to be an unlimited right to tell whopping great porkies yourselves, while also forbidding others from reporting the truth, if their manner displeases you. And any objections can only be motivated by spite, and are thus automatically illegitimate. Which is the kind of for-me-but-not-for-thee logic that you'd usually expect from children, rather than adults. *Or, charitably, make major mistakes. "Tell lies" seems more likely to me, but let's not leap to conclusions.

Is there another league in world football where fans of a second-tier team with severe financial problems would seriously argue that they're soon to be contenders for the top-tier title? Rangers are struggling to get a half-decent line of credit, never mind compete for titles. Aberdeen or Dundee United are more credible title challengers in the next ten years, and neither of them is really that credible.

Yes, I'm sure Rangers fans wouldn't want to see any procedures ignored or broken, given their strong record of condemning rule-breaking without fear or favour. What terrible, non-straw-clutching outrage this is. I don't know what kind of "speaking to" this match official is going to get from the authorities, but by god I bet that once the speaking stops, he'll know that he's been spoken to.

BBC Scotland has some good journalists and some poor ones, and the same goes for the pundits. Generally speaking though, their coverage is fine and they're no more obsessed with the daily gossip nonsense than any of the papers or, for that matter, football forums. The idea that there's some urgent problem that should be addressed is bollocks. I suspect that it's only being floated here to salvage at least a wee bit of Dignity by people whose basic common sense forces them to admit that Rangers are acting like children.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02yr1wz Really sad stuff - just a tantrum with a lot of whinging and girning and drumming heels.

That's certainly true. Perhaps though you should consider whether the men that killed your club would launch this kind of legal action, if it was likely to make their position worse rather than better. While a civil suit will provide information, it will also give the fraudsters' lawyers lots of chances to pump out all kinds of misleading crap; to attempt to spread the blame and, if they're able to catch the BBC out on anything half-significant, it may even land them a significant payout. I would've thought you'd be opposed to a big payday for the men who broke your club but maybe you're not, if there's also a slight chance that it'll taint the BBC. You have, and it's bizarrely swithering between the men who killed your football team and some journalists who reported that those men were killing your football team.