pollymac Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 You're missing the point. Rangers fans really do not like the position the club is in. Our club is deep in the old doo-doo. Not that I want any sympathy, just a basic grasp of the situation. And remember that various clubs have had dubious owners from Robert Maxwell to Shinawatra and so on, just to get things in perspective. Erm, nope, it's you who is missing the point. I fully appreciate the fact that you and the Order of Lugburz really do not like the position the club is in. I do. I would need a very short memory not to. I simply do not think you appreciate your own part in landing it in such a predicament. wedeservebetterCSC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 aren't they dead yet 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Well, whether Rangers have been one of those organisations remains to be seen of course. Actually, it doesn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) Erm, nope, it's you who is missing the point. I fully appreciate the fact that you and the Order of Lugburz really do not like the position the club is in. I do. I would need a very short memory not to. I simply do not think you appreciate your own part in landing it in such a predicament. wedeservebetterCSC Well, I'm glad you appreciate some of what I say, at least. As for what you believe I don't appreciate or what part you believe I personally have played in things, you're perfectly entitled to those beliefs of course. Edited April 7, 2012 by Bearwithme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Actually, it doesn't. Has the tribunal ruled? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Has the tribunal ruled? No. Is that relevant? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 No. Is that relevant? Yes. If you're still in any doubt, I suggest you review the discussion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Well yes, just not paying your tax bills is actually another matter from looking to reduce your tax liabilities within the law, which is what I said. Nope, this is what you said... Yeah, I know. You're also entitled to seek to minimise your tax liabilities within the law. Countless organisations and individuals do it. Whyte simply didn't pay the bills but that's another matter. I response to... It also says pay your taxes. Whyte not paying your clubs taxes is clearly not 'another matter', it's quite clearly going against Gaz' point, i.e. you did not pay your taxes within the laws of the land. And not for the first time. And maybe not even for the second either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Nope, this is what you said... I response to... Whyte not paying your clubs taxes is clearly not 'another matter', it's quite clearly going against Gaz' point, i.e. you did not pay your taxes within the laws of the land. And not for the first time. And maybe not even for the second either. Just not paying the bills clearly is another matter from tax planning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Yes. If you're still in any doubt, I suggest you review the discussion. Erm, no. If you're in any doubt, I suggest you review the Administrators document. hint: pay particular attention to the bit about paying taxes dating back to discounted share options in 2001 etc. HTH 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Just not paying the bills clearly is another matter from tax planning. Well, yes, but in the context of the discussion, it is also clearly different from me ordering a Chinese takeaway. Which is also utterly irrelevant, like your point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Erm, no. If you're in any doubt, I suggest you review the Administrators document. hint: pay particular attention to the bit about paying taxes dating back to discounted share options in 2001 etc. HTH Good point. Should cut through some of the hysteria, really. Companies and individuals have technical disputes with the tax people all the time. Sometimes those companies or individuals end up with a tax bill. As far as I understand this particular matter, the club reached an agreement with the tax people. Pretty run-of-the-mill stuff, if truth be told. Far from the actions of The Great Satan or whatever. Moreover, as I said, earlier, David Murray effectively gave Craig Whyte more than enough money to settle this bill. But Whyte didn't pay it over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 So, who you going to support next season? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Good point. Should cut through some of the hysteria, really. Companies and individuals have technical disputes with the tax people all the time. Sometimes those companies or individuals end up with a tax bill. As far as I understand this particular matter, the club reached an agreement with the tax people. Pretty run-of-the-mill stuff, if truth be told. Far from the actions of The Great Satan or whatever. Moreover, as I said, earlier, David Murray effectively gave Craig Whyte more than enough money to settle this bill. But Whyte didn't pay it over. Can I get a couple of litres of what you're drinking? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Good point. Should cut through some of the hysteria, really. Companies and individuals have technical disputes with the tax people all the time. Sometimes those companies or individuals end up with a tax bill. As far as I understand this particular matter, the club reached an agreement with the tax people. Pretty run-of-the-mill stuff, if truth be told. Far from the actions of The Great Satan or whatever. Moreover, as I said, earlier, David Murray effectively gave Craig Whyte more than enough money to settle this bill. But Whyte didn't pay it over. hahahahahahahahahahahahaha By 'the club reached an agreement', you of course mean: the club were found out to have performed tax planning without the law of the land, were caught bang to rights and to prevent further penalties above interest accrued, agreed to pay exactly the amount Hector demanded with no negotiation at all? You seem to continuously confuse 'being within the law' with 'breaking the law, but being far from the actions of some mythological entity'. I commend you on your ignorance. The fact remains: Rangers broke tax laws more than a decade ago - this is not in dispute. Although it was a while back. But wasn't initially when the breach was discovered. But was hidden in the uttermost inception of the scheme. Ooh, there's just so many layers of f*ck people around. And by people, I don't mean The People, more Joe Public et al, although I do concede that The People being shafted is quite amusing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Despite working in the financial secotor, I haven't really followed this debacle in any great detail, purely because it's so boring. The way I see it though, Rangers are fucked regardless of the outcome. Hence why I had to laugh when they were singing ' Every little thing is going to be alright ' today. I can see 3 scenarios: 1) Rangers lose big tax case and are liquidated and cant agree a CVA and cease to exist in their current form... Have to reapply to the SPL blah blah... 2). Rangers lose big tax case but reach a CVA with there creditors (10p in the pound for example, and owe around 10 milliion) so with this debt plus no season ticket income (ticketus) they have a playing budget, which is, at best, similar to SPL teams like ourselves for the foreseeable future. 3). Rangers win big tax case but still have to reach a CVA with other creditors ( wee tax case, Craig Whyte, etc ) so with this debt plus no season ticket income (ticketus) they have a playing budget which is, at best, similar to other SPL clubs like ourselves for the foreseeable future. 1 of the 3...take your pick lads 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy85 Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Would prefer hidden option number 4 - Club is liquidated and every single Rangers fan is wiped off the planet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Yeah, I know. You're also entitled to seek to minimise your tax liabilities within the law. Countless organisations and individuals do it. Yeah, Rangers didn't do that. Cheers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenpot Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Would prefer hidden option number 4 - Club is liquidated and every single Rangers fan is wiped off the planet. You really are a bitter cretinous b*****d -1 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.