rustyarabnuts Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 so by this ruling it'll be 5 years in Barlinnie for Craig Whyte ?! not sure he'll like the pony rides ! he he Bar L might be the only "big hoose" whyte sees 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wokcomble Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) http://www.bbc.co.uk...otland-18352528 Five years for 600k of tax and NI evasion. Surely Rangers have done the same on a much larger scale? ah bet that story has quite a few 'peeple' quaking in their boots Edited June 7, 2012 by Wokcomble 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mps02 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Ok now for another of my inane ramblings: Lets say that they are liqidated (for the sake of argument) Green proposes Ranjurs 2012 for the SPL. RFFFFFFF also try to bring Ranjurs of Glasow P&B tries to bring Govan United etc, etc. I can see much hilarity ensuing. Which will get the SFA licence? Has anyone thought about this possibility? Could we really be that lucky? There are three Buck Fizz groups doing the rounds claiming to be the original, I think. Anyone got any thoughts on this possibility? Or have I spent too long out in the sun (pishing rain)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby_F Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Someone can correct me if Im wrong, but I dont think the question over whether these were payments or loans is that relevant. Is the key part whether or not the payments were discretionary or not? If the payments were discretionary, but never paid back, that doesnt necessarily mean Rangers broke any SFA rules. However, if they payments were not discretionary, ie expected and paid in lieu of salary payments, then they have. There is NO legal requirement to repay a loan so the above statement is irrelevant . The EBT scheme requires participants to have NO knowledge of the 'amounts' to be requested prior to any loan being requested. Therefore 'side letters' issued to players and emails to their agents detailing how much they can get makes the whole thing illegal .. they already have all the evidence they require. They are f****d and everyone knows it ... It's just a matter of time. Is it not all about 'balance of probabilities' again though? If everyone entitled to an EBT loan requested one, it was granted, and it was never repaid then surely that shows that in all probabilty these were pre-agreed payments? Obviously the fact they DO have evidence of side letters makes the case even stronger, but I think looking at the reality of how the scheme has been managed shows it was a channel for making under the radar payments. I remember a lawyer saying to me once (about a rogue landlord using a 'license' rather than a 'lease')... "It doesn't matter how often you call a four pronged eating instrument a spoon... it's still a fork." And in this case, everything points to Rangers scheme being used as a way of remunerating staff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasda Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 FIFA's articles are legally dodgy in some areas, attempting to close the door on "natural justice". It's a bit like your headmaster giving you the belt for telling the Polis you've been felt up by your maths teacher, instead of going to him first. Sorry but it's not like that at all. This isn't some arbritary "headmaster" giving someone the belt, analogous of course. It's a fundamental of football as a sport, and in many other sports and competitions, that there is an association set of rules that all members agree to work within, otherwise it's bedlam. People going externally on every issue, challenging every decision in court etc. It can't happen. Anybody who has been involved in any level of football from schools up knows this, only the Orcs are ignoring it, or at least their administrators did. Sorry if this comes across as po faced but I dislike the succulent lamb agenda to rewrite these asociation principles to accomodate RFC(IA). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Again .. the side letters prove the were not discretionary, they were entitled payments for services. Yes, they would. However, as it stands, the only evidence of these is from the BBC documentary. We dont actually know what evidence of them HMRC or the SPL have 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 so by this ruling it'll be 5 years in Barlinnie for Craig Whyte ?! not sure he'll like the pony rides ! So, that's 5 years for £635,000. Which means it's 1 year for every £127,000. Therefore £4 million is as near as damn it 31.5 years. Oh well, if he keeps his head down and the toilets immaculate, Craigy boy could be back out in 2031. As for Murray's 550 year sentence though... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Again .. the side letters prove the were not discretionary, they were entitled payments for services. Side Letters ... What side Letters? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Side Letters ... What side Letters? I'm mocking them up with Clip Art as we speak. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Side Letters ... What side Letters? :lol: C'mon to f**k! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Side Letters ... What side Letters? Here's a handy cut-out-and-keep guide: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18148818 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Sorry but it's not like that at all. This isn't some arbritary "headmaster" giving someone the belt, analogous of course. It's a fundamental of football as a sport, and in many other sports and competitions, that there is an association set of rules that all members agree to work within, otherwise it's bedlam. People going externally on every issue, challenging every decision in court etc. It can't happen. Anybody who has been involved in any level of football from schools up knows this, only the Orcs are ignoring it, or at least their administrators did. Sorry if this comes across as po faced but I dislike the succulent lamb agenda to rewrite these asociation principles to accomodate RFC(IA). Don't get me wrong in any way, I'm partial to succulent lamb myself, but only in a curry, so definitely no RFC agenda. Howver, there have been cases in the past where, e.g. golf club members have been expelled or otherwise disciplined and have ultimately taken their case to civil courts. It usually seems to give the appellant a bit of leverage, but 99% of the time it results in a foot-shooting, as it just gets everybody's back up, in the golf club case nobody wants to play with you, so you're back in but ostracised. In the case of RFC as I mentioned earlier, when you do face a legitimate penalty it's applied with very precise (extra?) vigour and to the full extent and letter of the law (we hope) . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby_F Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Side Letters ... What side Letters? Here's a handy cut-out-and-keep guide: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18148818 To be fair though, there are only 44 of them. Given No 8's blinkers problem he might have missed them. BTW, haven't looked at that in a while. Some of the figures are STAGGERING! No wonder they had to cheat the tax payer to afford that kind of 'lifestyle'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Is it not all about 'balance of probabilities' again though? If everyone entitled to an EBT loan requested one, it was granted, and it was never repaid then surely that shows that in all probabilty these were pre-agreed payments? Obviously the fact they DO have evidence of side letters makes the case even stronger, but I think looking at the reality of how the scheme has been managed shows it was a channel for making under the radar payments. I remember a lawyer saying to me once (about a rogue landlord using a 'license' rather than a 'lease')... "It doesn't matter how often you call a four pronged eating instrument a spoon... it's still a fork." And in this case, everything points to Rangers scheme being used as a way of remunerating staff. Maybe. I dont know how common it is, in a legitimate EBT, to have every request granted, or how quickly the loans are repaid. One things for sure, it wont "prove" discretionary payments as well as side letters will. Side Letters ... What side Letters? ^^^^ too far 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Don't get me wrong in any way, I'm partial to succulent lamb myself, but only in a curry, so definitely no RFC agenda. Howver, there have been cases in the past where, e.g. golf club members have been expelled or otherwise disciplined and have ultimately taken their case to civil courts. It usually seems to give the appellant a bit of leverage, but 99% of the time it results in a foot-shooting, as it just gets everybody's back up, in the golf club case nobody wants to play with you, so you're back in but ostracised. In the case of RFC as I mentioned earlier, when you do face a legitimate penalty it's applied with very precise (extra?) vigour and to the full extent and letter of the law (we hope) . I'm a great believer in everyone being responsible for their own actions. If you don't like the rules of a golf club or any organisation, don't join it. If you do join it, adhere to the rules or try to get them changed through the organisations due processes. The courts stick their noses into far too many situations they shouldn't. Hey, more money for the boys though. Edited June 7, 2012 by 7-2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 :lol: C'mon to f**k! No8 is attempting the Pie & Bovril equivalent of "Custer's last stand" ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DensDerry80 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Interesting to hear Richard Keys and Andy Gray on talksport earlier saying that the only way forward for Rangers is Liquidation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 No8 is attempting the Pie & Bovril equivalent of "Custer's last stand" ! It's admirable. He should get green dotted for his efforts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I'm a great believer in everyone being responsible for their own actions. If you don't like the rules of a golf club or any organisation, don't join it. If you do join it, adhere to the rules or try to get them changed through the organisations due processes. The courts stick their noses into far too many situations they shouldn't. Hey, more money for the boys though. Aye, and those guys who do that are generally the kind of guys who think they are more important than the club itself, and that they know better than everyone else, and everything should be done to suit them, but obviously that doesn't apply in the case of RFC.....oh, wait...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 No8 is attempting the Pie & Bovril equivalent of "Custer's last stand" ! Or King Canute... 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.