flyingrodent

They also appear to have forgotten that they "wanted to go to the third division" in the first place. I wonder why they've forgotten that? Why attack Dundee United for giving them what they say they wanted? Oh aye, I remember - because most of them didn't decide they "wanted to go" until they realised that they had no other option.

Impressive circling of the wagons from the Rangers boys, here. Lots of gunsmoke and whoopin' and hollerin'. Let's see how it goes down with the courts, shall we? Who knows, maybe HMRC are just chancing their arm or making a good show of it.

I guess we'll see, won't we? Although something tells me that, in the event that the case goes against you this time, we'll miraculously discover that the courts are now somehow fallible and fragile, or maybe even riddled with anti-Rangers bias.

Perhaps they think that enforcing the law of the land is important. Perhaps they think that punishing criminal behaviour is important. Perhaps they think that allowing wrongdoing to go unpunished sends a bad message to crooks. Perhaps, Tedi, what you are saying here is tantamount to claiming that, since a bunch of junkies have already sold the jewelery they stole from that old lady, then it would be vindictive to punish them. After all, the jewelery is gone and can't be recovered, eh? Who gains from such public expense? I've said it before and I'll say it again - the issue of Rangers FC's cheating should be secondary here. Yes, anything won by fraud needs to be re-examined, but the real aim here should be David Murray, sitting in a dock and then taking that long G4S van ride to Barlinnie. And the very idea that, out of Rangers or HMRC, it's HMRC that should be embarrassed is just hilarious. One of these organisations has been heavily criticised by judicial figures for dishonesty and obstructiveness in legal proceedings, and it isn't Hector.

Part one is likely true, although I would've thought they might be able to pursue the "loans" from the people who benefitted, no? Part two sounds daft to me, though - there's the small matter of David Murray and all of his confederates, who HMRC clearly believe are due a holiday at Her Majesty's pleasure. A very long holiday indeed, perhaps at the Bar L, pour encourager les autres. All of which is would be well within HMRC's duty to the taxpayer, I imagine. They are supposed to tackle actual, criminal activity, aren't they?

Obviously, HMRC are just pursuing a vandetta against Rangers. Didn't they hear? Rangers are innocent - they never cheated anyone! Two judges said so!

STV News @STVNews HMRC to 'seek permission' to appeal Rangers tax tribunal verdict bit.ly/SDuUeS

James Cook @BBCJamesCook HMRC say they will seek permission to appeal the so-called "big tax case" decision which went n favour of Rangers Football Club.

Well, right throughout this whole debacle, we've been asking our resident Teds which writers they do think have been putting out accurate information about the demise of their club. As far as I'm aware, none of them have ever made any suggestions at all, and now we know why - because their grand tribune, their font of all knowledge, is... Jim Traynor. I hope Jabba has a rare time at the prospective Sports Direct Arena, feeding the locals' lunatic paranoias. They deserve each other, and I'm sure they'll be very happy together.

Traynor was on the panel at a fan Q&A session I was at, back in 2009/10 or so. He was well aware then of the scale of the financial catastrophe at Rangers, if not its exact dimensions, and repeatedly said that their situation was far worse than was being publicly admitted to.

So basically, one of the country's biggest media outlets has had, as its chief reporter on the Rangers tax decision, a man who knew he was about to start taking a sizeable wage off Rangers? I thought the Record's tax case coverage was even more wilfully ignorant than usual, but I never suspected that this was because Rangers had offered one of their top football writers money.

Several qualifying clauses, really, but we actually do have to accept that verdict. it has legal force and there's been no appeal as yet, so it stands, for now. The issue of whether Rangers actively set out to cheat is a separate issue to the specific circumstances and arguments of the case, however.

No, I think you're right - I think they only commended their diligence and hard work. On the other hand, all three felt the need to state that Rangers dragged out and obstructed the case. On their Lordship's judgement, then - I accept it, because I have no reason to doubt their ability and I've seen nothing that calls it into question. I think that their judgement proves - subject to appeal - that, under the terms of the case laid out by both parties, Rangers weren't liable for tax on a majority of the "loans" under examination.

I've made the same simple point to you three times Tedi, and you've dodged it three times, while also asking two questions. I answered one of yours, and you've dodged one three times. One of us is at it, here, and I reckon a fair-minded reader would agree that it's you.

I'll gladly answer that question, right after you've justified your belief that HMRC delay helped kill Rangers, in light of Their Lordships' explicit comments undermining that contention.

I can only presume they were correct in law, same as anybody else. The point I'm making is that these judges' opinion absolutely refutes the argument that you're trying to make, which means that the only comeback you have is to argue that Their Lordships were wrong. But they can't be wrong, can they? After all, you guys have done *little but* remind us of the unquestionable, rock solid nature of their pronouncements. Which means that you've backed yourselves into a corner and that as a result, your argument is totally boned.

Nonsense. By way of demonstration, I have to point out that HMRC didn't have to be forced into complying with legal requirements by the police. This "on the one hand... On the other hand" stuff doesn't work when HMRC were praised for their diligence and hard work by all three judges*, and your shyster directors were castigated by all three for deliberately obstructing and delaying the case. *Edit - including the two judges whose absolute wisdom and accuracy we have been instructed to unconditionally accept.

As all three judgements noted, if I recall correctly, including the two that are supposedly unimpeachable and must be accepted in toto by all. The dissenting opinion was even more scathing, but since the author wrote that Rangers won a game that they actually lost, her opinion is apparently tainted beyond all credibility. Or so I've been told.

When I walked out to my nice, brand-new car this morning, and I couldn't believe it - my mate Dave was standing there, beside a smouldering heap of junk that was missing panels and tires, with the windscreen kicked out and the engine impacted into the front seats. "Morning, Billy Big-Baws", my mate Dave says. "Sorry, I borrowed your car and I had a bit of an accident". "A bit of an accident!" I shouted. "It's a total write-off!" "Nah", Dave says, "It's salvageable, if you speak to the right mechanic. I'm afraid I was pretty hammered and I drove it off the edge of the road, rolled it six times and put it side-on into a wall". At this point, the left-hand doors fell off and the suspension gave out with a long, shearing I'm totally f*cked sound. "Anyway", Dave says, "The recovery guys just dropped it off, and look what's in the back seat...." I took a look and there in the back seat, there's an old jakey asleep, right next to the biggest toalie I've ever seen. "Looks like the cheeky bugger's taken a dump in your motor, mate", Dave says. "Want me to sort him out for you?" "Aye, Dave!" I said, holding his jacket for him. "Kick his teeth right in! That old jakey has pure ruined my nice, brand-new car!" So Dave hauls the old jakey out and starts kicking his teeth in. "Dave! Dave! Dave!" I shouted. "Go Dave! Jump on his head!" "Nay bother, Billy" he says, putting another boot in. "Anything for a friend".

Well look, I'm afraid we do know what damage was caused, and as others have pointed out, it was "almost none", in terms of keeping the club alive. Fatal damage was already done - It was known long ago that Rangers were potentially on the hook for bajillions; Craig Whyte left you in hock for God knows how much more, and there's no reason whatsoever to assume that the papers got their figures from the Phantom Leaker or the RTC blogger. Let's ask - what scared off BIll Miller, for instance? He paid a lot cash for a look at the books, IIRC, then said "Thanks but no thanks"*. Did Bill Ng just happen to catch The Men Who Sold The Jerseys on BBC Asia? I don't think so... And these are just a couple of illustrative examples, not an exhaustive list. And as regards David Murray vs Getting The Blogger - look, your actions are speaking louder than words here. You say you're all enraged about Sir Dave but you are doing nothing at all in the way of holding him to account. The papers aren't full of Rangers supporters demanding inquiries into his conduct and your forums barely touch on him, in comparison to the endless threats of REVENGE! against bloggers, leakers, diddies, plastics and God knows who else. Here, give me a second and I'll come up with a good analogy for what you're like... *I believe there was an issue over Rangers supporters waving banners, too.

It's incredible because the list of people responsible for killing your club runs something like this at the top end... 1. David Murray 2. Craig Whyte 3. Mr Red 4. And so on. Even if we accepted all the accusations against RTC and HMRC that your mates have been flinging here, their place in the list of people who killed Rangers would be far, far below relative non-entities Billy Dodds or Ms Scarlet. In a sane world, that would make SDM public enemy number one and bloggers and leakers would be nowhere. Nobody would give a damn about them, because they're nobodies. Your mob, however, appear to be quite happy to see SDM walk, if it puts a blogger on the hook. It's an insane position that makes no sense whatsoever to anyone except yourselves. With respect, you don't act like it and that's always been the point - if you want to know what motivates people, don't judge them on what they say. Judge them on what they do. How does this apply here? Well, Rangers fans say they're pure raging at David Murray and blame him for killing their club, but they actually do ignore Murray entirely and go tear-arsing off after journalists and bloggers and minor officials at every opportunity. They say they want David Murray to account for his behaviour but they do in practice spend all of their time calling for almost everyone except Sir Dave to face justice. From that, I conclude that Rangers fans are far, far more interested in battering non-entities than they are in blaming someone - anyone! - who isn't connected with your club. Because any effort that found Sir Dave accountable would mean that Rangers killed itself, with no or only minimal assistance from external forces. And that's unacceptable to most Rangers fans, I think. Without wishing harm on RTC or other bloggers, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if any of them were hit by a bus tomorrow, never mind charged with the heinous capital offence that is "leaking some documents" or "alluding to information you read in some leaked documents". Which is to say - I don't know them, I don't have any particular affection for them and if it turned out they'd broken the law, I wouldn't care at all whether they were busted or not. It's just not an important issue to anyone except yourselves, you see? Now, I'm broadly of the opinion that people who break the law should face justice; sure, I think that the crime you're accusing them of is relatively trivial, but if that's the way the chips fall, then let 'em have it. I couldn't care less and the only thing I would find annoying would be Rangers fans celebrating as if they'd just won a semi-final, rather than squashed some joker with a blog.

Given everything we know, that is an absolutely incredible position to adopt. Nobody did more to destroy your club than David Murray, and nobody did more damage while also stuffing their pockets full of the cash you gave him to take care of your club; money he didn't even need to take, because he was already loaded! I mean, if I could offer you the choice right now of sending just one person to prison from David Murray, the RTC blogger and the HMRC leaker, who would you choose? Would you seriously choose to jail some tit on the internet or a minor official over the man who masterminded the annihilation of your 140-year-old football club? Really?

No. You'd be better looking in the direction of "Diddies and Plastics" for that one.

The only thing you need to know to understand Rangers supporters is that loads of them are stupid enough to be overjoyed that the man who slaughtered their club is making noises about chasing after some blogger. If you're a Rangers supporter and that's your opinion, then you are stupider than rocks; duller than a soggy slice of toast. You couldn't outwit a box of lego, because only an idiot would be fooled and played and scammed and screwed over again and again this many times, and then beg for more. If a clear majority of Rangers supporters hold that opinion, it's entirely fair to say "Rangers supporters are as thick as shitty jam". Because they are.

For the love of... (headdesk) Look, it's a judicial opinion. I don't have to go through it and fact-check everything in it in order to give it legal heft - it has that on its own, without my assistance, because of the credentials of the author and the context in which it was written. If you want to take issue with the judgement, then you have to go through it and fact-check everything in it, then explain in precise terms why you think it is wrong. And here's a hint - see if you go through the whole thing and the biggest error you find is that at one point it says "Rangers FC won a trophy" where it should say "Rangers FC did not win a trophy", that doesn't cast any doubt on the judgement's merits. All it says is that you are a straw-clutching chancer who doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand what he's talking about. We could all treat you like this. We could all keep pointing out to you that a Rangers supporter has no right whatsoever to suggest that anyone else on Earth is gullible or credulous. Look - your club is dead because you and your fellow supporters spent years attacking any media organisation that had the temerity to warn you of its impending demise. When Craig Whyte killed Rangers, you were all dumbfounded because you had all been too busy waiting for his lawsuit against the BBC, the one that would smite all of your club's "enemies", to notice that he was a conman. And here you are, not a year later, with a dead club, waiting for David Murray's lawsuit against HMRC! Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me four hundred and fifty seven times, buy some shares. I mean, the scientific analysis has been undertaken; the lab tests are complete and the test results are in. Here they are - your club's supporters are, beyond all question or dispute, the stupidest, most gullible, credulous bunch of suckers ever to clamp lips upon a fraudster's bumhole. Would you like proof? Your club is dead, and you're all cheering on the man who killed it because he is distracting you with promises to smite your club's "enemies". Now, every one of us could fill every response to you with some variation on this. But we don't, because that would be boring and pointless.