Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[BobWilliamson]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

 

Are you capable of independent thought?

Explain in your own words why no advantage was gained through paying players you otherwise couldn't afford (David murrays words). Don't hide behind LNS please.

 

Who says we couldn't afford them?

Alex Rae , who received an EBT, turned down contracts worth more to play for Rangers.

Is money the one and only reason players sign for clubs? If you accept that it is not then your argument dies right there.

Now. Are you able to think for yourself and admit that the 'they couldn't afford these players' just doesn't stand up.

Other clubs and many players and officials have used tax avoidance schemes. Should they be stripped of trophies? 

[Dons_1988]

Who says we couldn't afford them?
Alex Rae , who received an EBT, turned down contracts worth more to play for Rangers.
Is money the one and only reason players sign for clubs? If you accept that it is not then your argument dies right there.
Now. Are you able to think for yourself and admit that the 'they couldn't afford these players' just doesn't stand up.
Other clubs and many players and officials have used tax avoidance schemes. Should they be stripped of trophies? 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/921539/david-murray-ebts-rangers-players/

Before you say that is the sun, it is direct quotes from a court of law.

Of course money isn't the sole reason someone signs but are you trying to say it isn't significant? Cherry picking one or two examples of players who signed elsewhere is irrelevant to the debate.

Let's be honest if I failed to pay tax on certain income I'd be hammered for it regardless of my intentions. I couldn't just say I wasn't motivated by saving money I just forgot, I'd be punished as if I meant to do it.

[bennett]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

 

 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/921539/david-murray-ebts-rangers-players/

Before you say that is the sun, it is direct quotes from a court of law.

Of course money isn't the sole reason someone signs but are you trying to say it isn't significant? Cherry picking one or two examples of players who signed elsewhere is irrelevant to the debate.

Let's be honest if I failed to pay tax on certain income I'd be hammered for it regardless of my intentions. I couldn't just say I wasn't motivated by saving money I just forgot, I'd be punished as if I meant to do it.
 

 

 

" He added: “It gave us an opportunity to get players that we perhaps would not be able to afford."

the key word here is 'perhaps' ...

The sun with a misleading headline, who'd have thunked it..

 

[Dons_1988]

" He added: “It gave us an opportunity to get players that we perhaps would not be able to afford."
the key word here is 'perhaps' ...
The sun with a misleading headline, who'd have thunked it..
 

It really isn't the key word

[bennett]

6 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

You keep saying this as if it must be the end of the matter.  

Five way agreement?

Didn't the SPL claim that the William Nimmo Smith outcome was binding?

 

6 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It was only 'factored in' in the sense that it was explicitly dismissed. ?

William Nimmo Smith stated several times that HMRC may win future appeals. The points raised in the ftt and the utt are still relevant tho.

3 hours ago, cyderspaceman said:

I've been absent from here for a while. Whatever happened to Tedi/The Tedi?

Banned for red dotting stand free.

 

[bennett]

5 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

 

It really isn't the key word

 

Only if you write for the sun.

[mjw]

Banned for red dotting stand free.
 

Seems harsh.

[Romeo]

32 minutes ago, bennett said:

 

Banned for red dotting stand free.

 

This is not what happened.

[Drew Brees]

Banned for red dotting stand free.
 

He'll hath no fury like a woman scorned.

[The OP]

52 minutes ago, bennett said:

" He added: “It gave us an opportunity to get players that we perhaps would not be able to afford."

the key word here is 'perhaps' ...

The sun with a misleading headline, who'd have thunked it..

 

You couldn't afford them anyway. That's why you went bust. HTH. 

[williemillersmoustache]

25 minutes ago, mjw said:

Seems harsh.

Seems untrue.

[dave.j]

Very enjoyable watching the Orcs squirming to hold on to the illusion that their 54 title haul is in no way tainted or accrued through cheating. It seems to be really important to them that they convince a couple of folk on an internet forum.

Regardless of their opinion, their team will forever be known as cheats.

 

14 trophies, all won through cheating!

[Henrik's tongue]

1 hour ago, bennett said:

 

Banned for red dotting stand free.

 

Grown men greeting about dots  

63 now  

[Ross.]

Heads gone from Dave King.

[williemillersmoustache]

Quote

While I am Chairman, Rangers’ overspending will always be on a sustainable and robust basis

 

[hellbhoy]

10 hours ago, coprolite said:

 

the loans are loans.

facts are as found by the FTT. no sham. all transactions real and effective.

this stuff's all before p4 on the judgement

 

Yeah I know that now, sorted that with JMG earlier on. The fun bit came when the HMRC declared monies going into their EBT scheme as taxable earnings.

So before the money left the UK to go offshore it was already taxable earnings and that's where the HMRC stuck the boot right into Rangers. It doesn't matter one jot about the EBT scheme any more because the HMRC have legally proven that in UK law Rangers were at it trying to avoid paying PAYE by using some dodgy financial mechanism. The FTT & UTT outcomes mean the sum of feck all really even though the Supreme Court agreed with these outcomes as legally binding contracts.

Final conclusion!, we do not need to ever go around in circles about the legality of Rangers EBT trust and how it was implemented. The Supreme Court has judged the monies going into Rangers EBT scheme was in fact players earnings and was taxable earnings and Rangers were avoiding paying full tax. And now the players they signed and paid dodgy soft loans too have been improperly registered with the SFA because they had dual contracts one of which Rangers never declared to the SFA.

[shull]

54 Tainted League Titles. 

Impossible to add anymore 

Disgraced Club died a hilarious death in 2012.

Their Supporters were guarding an irrelevant Wall while their Team passed away. 

FECKING SHAME  

[Insaintee]

10 hours ago, coprolite said:

 

the loans are loans.

facts are as found by the FTT. no sham. all transactions real and effective.

this stuff's all before p4 on the judgement

 

The loans are loans, but the money going into the funds for the loans are wages. Undeclared wages. Oh f**k that's quite a biggie. 

[Insaintee]

9 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

You keep saying this as if it must be the end of the matter.  Perhaps it actually must, but how unsatisfactory is that?  

Yes, they were found guilty, but the sentence given did not remotely reflect the scale and nature of the offence.  That should, morally at least, be revisited.  I honestly don't know if it can be or not, but the question certainly deserves to be raised.

I'm not even fishing here, but I'm genuinely baffled that you'd apparently want to keep such titles.  I know what the stereotypical Rangers fan is like and why he'd want to cling on regardless.  I know also that you and plenty others don't conform to said stereotype though, so I don't get why some innate sense of fair play and some innate sense of pride doesn't kick in here.

Tell me honestly:  Why do you want Rangers to retain the titles in question, especially given that the club has won dozens of others entirely legitimately?

To compensate for their tiny little penises.

[Insaintee]

9 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It was only 'factored in' in the sense that it was explicitly dismissed.  How can that be just?

As I've said, I think you're essentially right in saying the BTC changes nothing with regard to this as this is really about player registration.  For you to use that line now though, strips you of any credibility you may once have possessed.  When the initial ruling went in Rangers' favour, you claimed that the LNS commission should be stood down in the wake of it.  

I've argued that this ruling was not materially that significant throughout.  You've only felt that way when it was leaning in particular directions.  Can you not see how foolish this looks?

It's actually hugely significant and blow NMS out the water.  FTT and after argued that the loans were liable for taxes. The final ruling is that The money paid into the trust funds is wages. IE that undeclared payments were  being made on behalf of players into these trusts and that money was wages.  This is no longer about if tax should have been applied to the loans. Its about totally illegal diversion of funds offshore.  It COULD lead to criminal charges for former directors and possibly even recipients. Unlikely as HMRC will be looking for cooperation from other EBT recipiants and the threat of criminal charges is not usually an inducement for openness and cooperation. 

The fact that the chair of the SFA had a vested interest at the time of the inquiry also calls it in to question. Particularity as LNS simply asked the SFA if Rangers were guilty and what the punishment should be.