welshbairn Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 They were not loans, they were contractual payments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Hope you haven't thrown down a gauntlet to Neil Doncaster and the SPL's Working Party !! You're right of course. I didn't really think that one through.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chazza1910 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Albeit a tip whose owners haven't ever finished in a promotion position which was dependant on it not being a tip. Got to say I was disappointed in Cliftonhill when we played Accies there and John Robertson scored for Dundee. It wasn't nearly as bad as I was hoping it would be. That was about 20 years ago, mind. Two other grounds come to mind as being much worse. Cowdenbeath. Need I say more. And Firhill. Not getting at you guys as Thistle are a fine club, but back in January, with fans on two sides of the ground, wind and rain, is as bleak a football prospect as I ever want to witness, and never want to see again. To dispel another myth, I think Cappielow is a tidy wee ground, which I really enjoy visiting. With the setting near the river, the cranes and all, it looked lovely in the September/April whenever it was sunshine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 that's why they don't have to be paid back! payment can be endlessly deferred. Tsar - you need to get this into your skull. These people were asked to take payments due to them as part of their contract in the form of EBTs (ref: B Dodds). The payments were not included as part of the contract submitted to the SFA. They are absolutely fucked. Whether the money will or won't be repaid is neither here nor there. Thankfully, you've made a cvnt of yourself just about every step of the way in this saga. You've taken the Bun perspective all the way through and you'll still be on the "we wuz robbed" bus when these bastarts get fired to the bottom of the pile in Scottish football (if they are functioning at all). PS - Walter Smith - WHAT A FUCKIN' HERO. LET THE CLUB DIE SO YOU CAN PICK IT UP FOR f**k ALL. YOU'RE NOT A HERO, YOU'RE A SCAVENGING b*****d PICKING ON THE BONES OF A CARCASS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) They were not loans, they were contractual payments. Why all the shouting ha ha ONE PAGE TO GO and people better not start deleting posts to have theirs first on page 1872 these B*stards will be outed and duly RED DOTTED by me. Edited June 16, 2012 by hellbhoy -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 If he does not payback any loan then the company is liable for the repayment and why there is an 80 year perpetuity put on them. But the Rangers EBT system at some point would have been shut and closed down probably before anyone noticed likely well under the radar if the HMRC had not investigated the widespread misuse of the loans on EBT's. The company is liable to pay money back to itself? They still have gotten the tax benefit of when the loan was given so does that really mean anything other than moving money around on a balance sheet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibby82 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Whoa boy. United are still c***s for doing that. Every game that I've been to has been abandoned at half time has been free entry. We didn't charge Hibs fans when are floodlights caught fire last season. The time honoured tradition is that if a match is abandoned at half time then the rescheduled fixture is free for all those who attended the original game. Stephen Thomson went for a cash grab plain and simple and he should be condemned for his actions. How would that have worked exactly, with the away end sold out? What you're asking for is for United to sell no more tickets for the rescheduled game as they'd have to assume every Rangers fan at the original match would return, meaning United would lose a not inconsiderable sum of money. You didn't charge Hibs fans again, but you were able to cover costs by offering discounted entry to people who weren't at the original fixture (I believe) with ample room in the stadium to accommodate those fans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBairn Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Albeit a tip whose owners haven't ever finished in a promotion position which was dependant on it not being a tip. It was never a tip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 They were not loans, they were contractual payments. I was undecided but this has clinched it for me...Big AND Bold writing must make it true.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Fucking hell...... We looked at doing something with the leagues due to falling crowds and staleness amongst other reasons. Now it seems the SFA are hurridly going to rush through reconstruction to save Rangers. Saving Rangers through reconstruction will no doubt still piss off fans and still make some boycott. What do Rangers have to do to get booted out? Is it a case that the more you are worth financially to the SPL the safer you are? Everyone has called the SPL greed is good from pretty much day 1, i never expected the SPL to confirm it so blatantly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFC1973 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 This reconstruction push won't happen in time for the new season. It's a lifeline for rangers if it does but it won't. But the fact the sfa have scrambled to give rangers a top flight lifeline worries me, it also worries me that so many folk are happy to bring rangers back in to the top tier in exchange for reconstruction. One more thing though, did you know you can download a PDF of sky's current broadcasting contracts and it states there must be 4 old firm games a year to make the contract valid. So the spl signed up to a deal knowing it would be invalid if Celtic or rangers failed to make top 6. Spl - sporting integrity pfffffffft We've all been paying cash to our clubs for years thinking the rules were the same for everyone. i dont think anyone wanting reconstruction wants rangers any where near the top league, they should be punted to the 3rd division or the lower tier with 2 years embargo on players and 40% reduction on any revenue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leepylee Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 And that could as easily happen whether a TV contract includes a renegotiation clause or not. I know , all I said was the sky contract is evidence that this would happen, of course it could still happen without sky being around , no one suggested otherwise. We seem to be having an argument here even though we don't actually disagree on anything :-0 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Albeit a tip whose owners haven't ever finished in a promotion position which was dependant on it not being a tip. It was a ridiculous rule to expect clubs to build 10,000 seat white elephants which might never be needed. Well done to the authorities for showing flexibility to ICT and Ross County. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 if it was a loan there would be documented terms of settlement, deferred or otherwise. If there isn't documentation to say its a loan, (or at least 3rd party evidence in the case of a verbal agreement) then legally, it isn't one.. RM have a currant saying that there is no documentation etc The same fellow who kept me up to speed with whytey and HMRC's inability to lay a glove on him, basically the revenue have chanced their arm this time very unwisely, questions have been asked as to why such a time-scale elapsed between outset, alleged discovery and execution of assessment being delivered, apparently HMRC have no valid argument for any of these questions, a very badly prepared case is I believe the expression. On a secondary issue there is allegedly no evidence of secondary contracts at any stage either football related or any other related. Shame about wee Billy and his admission then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 1872...now why does that ring a bell Never mind it's gone now 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 How would that have worked exactly, with the away end sold out? What you're asking for is for United to sell no more tickets for the rescheduled game as they'd have to assume every Rangers fan at the original match would return, meaning United would lose a not inconsiderable sum of money. You didn't charge Hibs fans again, but you were able to cover costs by offering discounted entry to people who weren't at the original fixture (I believe) with ample room in the stadium to accommodate those fans. So if the Rangers end was half full then United wouldn't have charged for the re-arranged game. Steven Thomson broke years of tradition when he charge for a re-arranged match that didn't make it past half time, he did so only out of monetary concerns, that makes him a money grabbing c**t. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I'll bet there are plenty of users on here just waiting for the time when a few posts to go then there is a rush to get first post on page 1872. B*stards are hawking over to get the killer post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) That is the law. If a person/company lend you money and there is no contact for 5 years you are no longer indebted. Contact would be any written statement, payment or request for payment. I was just about to post this. If there are no repayments made, then after 5 years the loan becomes statute barred. The loanee can ask for repayments but you are under no obligation to make any and no legal recourse can be sought to force you. ETA, read the next post and was reminded that payments were made offshore so above point means feckall in this case. Edited June 16, 2012 by blanco 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 How would that have worked exactly, with the away end sold out? What you're asking for is for United to sell no more tickets for the rescheduled game as they'd have to assume every Rangers fan at the original match would return, meaning United would lose a not inconsiderable sum of money. You didn't charge Hibs fans again, but you were able to cover costs by offering discounted entry to people who weren't at the original fixture (I believe) with ample room in the stadium to accommodate those fans. the risks of staging a football match should be borne by the home club not the paying fan. if the club is unhappy with that risk they have the option of taking out insurance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Did Craigy get a knighthood today btw? Should have. 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.