yoda Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Might be wrong but did McGregor not pay off at least one of the Rankgers creditors, out of his own pocket, recently Yeah, you're wrong. A Rangers fan attempted to pay off MacGregor Industrial Supplies, who were listed as a creditor. That company isn't owned by Uncle Roy, and I think it's his brother that owns it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerokus Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 As Chief Exec, Doncaster managed to take Norwich from the EPL to League One over a few years. A typically idiotic appointment for the SPL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Oh, and btw, has there ever been a picture of Whyte where he hasn't looked like a raving psycho/lunatic/kiddy fiddler? I mean I'm hardly the most photogenic of people but even I scrub up well on camera once in a while. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 So all that pish about MIller getting a NewCo started before the St Johnstone game was well pish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Also for clarity as I (thankfully) don't listen to Clyde1... was Doncaster saying: [1] it requires an 8-4 majority to amend the rule so that decisions on Newcos are taken by GM of clubs, not Board; or [2] that the majority required at such GMs on Newcos would be 8-4; or [3] both? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 That's been Doncuntsters modus operandi since he started. Remember his Comical Ali like denials that there was no fan opposition to a 10 team league and that it was "the only show in town"? Basically every time Doncuntster has come up against a difficult question he's given a troll line of "You don't get it because you are too stupid to get it, just leave it with us, we know what we are doing. Now sit down and enjoy your happy meal". Standard Scottish football "journalist" approach too - if in doubt, shout loudly and call the other guy and idiot. In terms of rules, etc, I am considering writing to the SPL for clarification on which of their rules apply to which of the teams - that should make everything much easier for us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pansypotterthedirtyrotter Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I'm surprised you feel the need to comment when you don't know the facts of the situation. From the SPL Articles of Association nobody likes a smartarse, you just sound like a troll 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Question that relates to the older generation on here as I can't answer this..... Before football went commercial, did you consider the team you followed to be 'your' team, because you del the money you paid, paid for the entertainment you got? And when did you think you noticed that change? And who was responsible for it? Like to hear your views on that. Cheers! After the past few days, seems to me the rhetoric from all chairmen is that they all think they have to look after 'their' clubs. But they apparently understand the views of fans. Really?? For 'clarity' I'm not sticking up for our current chairman on this, he's in the position he is because of his fathers undoubted passion for the club, his is by association and family ties, but first and foremost Thomson Jr, my understanding of him is, he's a businessman first and United fan second. Anyone that knows different, please feel free to correct me. Eddie pursued that chairmans seat with passion for a long long time before he got it. How many other SPL chairmen, past or present, did the same? Must be more than that? We all understand the commercial nature of football these days, but surely we all just feel it in our hearts as 'our club' right?. I don't ever recall thinking I was going along to see 'insert chairmans name' United. Chairmen come and go, no more or less important than any decent player or manager. Until they stand up and prove themselves exceptional. We can all name legendary players and managers. Wouldn't it be nice if this time, we could all begin to name legendary chairmen.....do they really understand? That feeling, the one you get when you put on the replica shirt/scarf/slippers (ok, maybe just me there....) the one you get at 3pm on a Saturday? We, the real fans, can all understand that all too well 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 By the necessary clubs desiring such. That's never been the case, you're talking rubbish. Some matters require 11-1, some require 10-2, some require 8-4. Only specialised matters (e.g. reconstruction) aren't 8-4. FFS how much more 'specialised' can you get than 'saving' rapeepul? if things like restructuring and tv money sharing require 11-1 or 10-2 then letting the bigots back in should also require this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pansypotterthedirtyrotter Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 By the necessary clubs desiring such. That's never been the case, you're talking rubbish. Some matters require 11-1, some require 10-2, some require 8-4. Only specialised matters (e.g. reconstruction) aren't 8-4. if this isn't a specialised matter then what the fcuk is? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Question that relates to the older generation on here as I can't answer this..... I think you can answer it, as it's common sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akredz Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Not quite as simple. If it is a 'loan' over 5 years of age the players can tell them to gtf. As someone who is bang on 5 years non acknowledgement of a £25 grand RBS loan I know this And you say that like it is something to be proud of ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Someone needs to ask Houston if, in the hypothetical situation next season Newco Rangers go to Tannadice on the last day of the season needing a win to avoid relegation, will he instruct his players to lie down as the SPL needs a strong Rangers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulfulsaint Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Not a great bank holiday for SPL chair Ralph Topping he faces a William Hill shareholder revolt over corporate bonuses tomorrow. Hope it's painful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Not quite as simple. If it is a 'loan' over 5 years of age the players can tell them to gtf. As someone who is bang on 5 years non acknowledgement of a £25 grand RBS loan I know this Bet you are outraged at Ranger's 'cheating' too 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I think you can answer it, as it's common sense. Ah, you see what I did there? that's me busted then.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Miller won't make a bid for rangers until he knows what sanctions they would face and the SPL won't decide on Rangers until they see what millers bid entails. Millar had a deadline of this Friday to complete his bid. I presume that this will now be extended? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 And you say that like it is something to be proud of ? Bet you are outraged at Ranger's 'cheating' too Well as I never got the cash, why, yes, yes i am proud of it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tadénator Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 County get to vote on the 30th and not the relegated club, confirmed on Twitter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 My understanding of EBT's is that once the benefactor has been in place two years at the company they are liable for tax/NI on all income as they are classed as employees and the 'loan' as taxable income. With regards to the loan it has to be proved there was no intention to repay the 'loan' as evidenced by the existence or not of an agreement to repay. Therefore it is up to HMRC to prove their was no intention to repay. Recently the head of the student loan company was caught out by this type of thing . In addition my understanding is that the way rangers structured it was not entirely in line with HMRC guidelines. I'll dig out the links after I have a wee search for them HMRC 2009 and I quote "Spotlight 5: Using trusts and similar entities to reward employees - PAYE and NICs, Corporation Tax and Inheritance TaxHMRC are aware that companies have been seeking to reward employees without operating PAYE (Pay As You Earn)/NICs (National Insurance contributions) by making payments through trusts and other intermediaries that favour the employees or their families. The arrangements usually seek to secure a Corporation Tax deduction, as if the amounts were earnings at the time they are allocated, and also defer PAYE/NICs or avoid them altogether. HMRC's view is that at the time the funds are allocated to the employee or his/her beneficiaries, those funds become earnings on which PAYE and NICs are due and should be accounted for by the employer." So either their tax advisor was a bloke in a pub or they knew it was illegal and didn't give a feck 2009 is pretty late in the game to be honest. Rangers are accused of using EBTs since the early 2000s (maybe even earlier) The main point is that even if Rangers have to pay the tax on those EBT payments the SFA/SPL or whoever will be judging the double contracts case need to prove that these earnings were contracts and if they needed to be lodged. They also need to decide an appropriate and enforcible punishment. 0 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.