bennett Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Your teams boss as you very well know. But hey, waste a few more posts without debating....... I'd no idea what is was, still haven't a clue what it stands for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Just to be clear, here - are you saying that it's the government's fault that your club ripped off its creditors? No, that's not what I'm saying. What I said is pretty clear I think, if you don't try to get too imaginative. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I'd no idea what is was, still haven't a clue what it stands for. Fishing you are so I will bite. FPLG is an old name for Sally based on his record. Fat Paul Le Guin. It has fallen out of common useage of late as PLG doesn't want to be assossiated with FPLG. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 The guy took the time out to give Rico the reply he's been looking for and you act the arsehole. This is why most of us don't waste our time debating. No, I think the question is fair enough, given the antiseptic language - oh, It's unfortunate, it's just the way company law works, if you don't like it complain to the government, they write the law. Which is certainly one way of putting what happened at Old Rangers. Another way of putting it would be to say that your club intentionally defrauded the Treasury and continued to buy goods, services and even players in the full knowledge that it would probably have to default on its debts. They were still trying to sign players when HMRC dropped the guillotine on you, FFS, knowing full well that payment would never be made. It's certainly true to say that the ripping off of creditors was "Just the way company law works" and that the government are responsible for company law. On the other hand, this is much like arguing that Neil Simpson crunching Ian Durrant was "just one of those things that happen in football" and noting that the SFA are responsible for punishing foul play. It's the difference between a sin of commission and one of omission, or like saying "Mistakes were made" rather than "I intentionally bought stuff off you in the full knowledge that I would never be able to pay for it". RFC knew full well what they were doing when they screwed those creditors, and hand-waving it away as just one of those things that happens in business is massively and intentionally misrepresenting the situation. Which may strike you as a pedantic point to make, but it certainly isn't arseholery - it's right at the heart of the issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 No, that's not what I'm saying. What I said is pretty clear I think, if you don't try to get too imaginative. Cheers - see above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 No, I think the question is fair enough, given the antiseptic language - oh, It's unfortunate, it's just the way company law works, if you don't like it complain to the government, they write the law. Which is certainly one way of putting what happened at Old Rangers. Another way of putting it would be to say that your club intentionally defrauded the Treasury and continued to buy goods, services and even players in the full knowledge that it would probably have to default on its debts. They were still trying to sign players when HMRC dropped the guillotine on you, FFS, knowing full well that payment would never be made. It's certainly true to say that the ripping off of creditors was "Just the way company law works" and that the government are responsible for company law. On the other hand, this is much like arguing that Neil Simpson crunching Ian Durrant was "just one of those things that happen in football" and noting that the SFA are responsible for punishing foul play. It's the difference between a sin of commission and one of omission, or like saying "Mistakes were made" rather than "I intentionally bought stuff off you in the full knowledge that I would never be able to pay for it". RFC knew full well what they were doing when they screwed those creditors, and hand-waving it away as just one of those things that happens in business is massively and intentionally misrepresenting the situation. Which may strike you as a pedantic point to make, but it certainly isn't arseholery - it's right at the heart of the issue. If any kind of fraud was committed I'm sure charges will be brought against those responsible - and rightly so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 If any kind of fraud was committed I'm sure charges will be brought against those responsible - and rightly so. I would hope that it also covers employees who took a huge wedge whilst fraudulently claiming to be 'football players' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 See Sally is issueing his threats again! http://www.dailyreco...advises-1403883 The Ibrox boss said: “If there has been wrongdoing then every one of the individuals should be made accountable.” Accountable to whom? I assume he does mean our legal system. And how many people is he thinking of? David Murray, Martin Bain and the many many other from the Murray 'Minted' era plus Duff & Duffer and Whyte. It is a big list Ally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) so are you catagoricaly stating the FPLG did not receive any payments by EBT. Just for the record. Just for the record i'm stating that he isn't on the BBC list of EBT beneficiaries that so many have put great faith in. If you have evidence that he is a beneficiary please show.My link Edited October 28, 2012 by youngsy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Give a guy a compliment and someone else finds fault with it. A sad attitude, but understandable if you live in a Rangers world where there is so much infighting amongst the various factions. Where everyone seems to have their own petty agenda. The Loyal True Blues, the Very Loyal True Blues, The Effin Loyal True Blues. And so it goes on. And then the leaders of the various supporters groups who spend all their time sucking up to owners is the hope they will invited along to Slaters to be measured up for a Blazer. Please accept this as a compliment to you, even if a bit back handed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lodmoorhill Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Here is the list from the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-18148818 Are you saying that the BBC got it wrong? The BBC getting it wrong? Couldn't happen, could it? Because they clearly got it so right over the Jimmy Saville saga didn't they? EDIT. For the record, If you type bbc gets it wrong into google, it returns 179 000 000 entries. Edited October 28, 2012 by lodmoorhill 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Glad to see he is demanding accountability. I assume he will now be coughing up the tax and national insurance payments he avoided the first time round by being paid via an EBT. McCoist isn't on the list of beneficiaries of EBTs that was provided by the BBC. Try again. so are you catagoricaly stating the FPLG did not receive any payments by EBT. Just for the record. Here is the list from the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-18148818 Are you saying that the BBC got it wrong? Oh I remember the list , but the question originaly wasn't 'was FPLG on the BBC list or not', it was whether he had benefited from an EBT. Wattie aint on it either After a flurry of activity from Bennett, we have a wee interlude whilst he consults Orc Central for the Party Line on the best way to deflect this one....... Edit for.......best guess is ''show me proof''. Bennett on a Party Line......who would've thought Just for the record i'm stating that he isn't on the BBC list of EBT beneficiaries that so many have put great faith in. If you have evidence that he is a beneficiary please show.My link :whistle :whistle You brought up the BBC list, that was not part of the question. I repeat, are you catagoricaly stating the FPLG did not receive any payments by EBT ?. Just for the record. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Oh I remember the list , but the question originaly wasn't 'was FPLG on the BBC list or not', it was whether he had benefited from an EBT. Wattie aint on it either I genuinely don't know if McCoist or indeed Smith were beneficiaries of an EBT but if you can show definitively that one or both of them are,please show. That's all that is asked for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I genuinely don't know if McCoist or indeed Smith were beneficiaries of an EBT but if you can show definitively that one or both of them are,please show. That's all that is asked for. You don't know. Thank you, that was all that was asked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 You don't know. Thank you, that was all that was asked. I'm taking it from your post that as i've asked yourself if you had a definitive answer as to whether he had or not, with your lack of a response on a yes or no then you don't know either. Would that be correct? Or if you have then please show. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I'm taking it from your post that as i've asked yourself if you had a definitive answer as to whether he had or not, with your lack of a response on a yes or no then you don't know either. Would that be correct? Or if you have then please show. oh, lets just say him + Wattie were not on the BBC list so everything is all right and neither is sweating buckets at night. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 The BBC getting it wrong? Couldn't happen, could it? Because they clearly got it so right over the Jimmy Saville saga didn't they? EDIT. For the record, If you type bbc gets it wrong into google, it returns 179 000 000 entries. Maybe they did, maybe they never but until someone comes up with another list then thats what we've got. Earlier in the year the BBC could no wrong on here, now it's case of "it's only the beeb what do they know". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I'm taking it from your post that as i've asked yourself if you had a definitive answer as to whether he had or not, with your lack of a response on a yes or no then you don't know either. Would that be correct? Or if you have then please show. A matters little when we say, none of us has 'definite answers' as it is all based on second hand information. I think it is best to await the fraud squad conclusions, assisted by BDO and then we can decide which moral high ground to take. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 oh, lets just say him + Wattie were not on the BBC list so everything is all right and neither is sweating buckets at night. So you don't know either. Thanks for that,all that was asked for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 We entered admin due to non payment of paye by whyte, The reason Rangers didn't pay the paye was because there was no cash flow due to mortgaging season ticket sales to Ticektus. The reason season tickets were mortgaged to Ticketus was to repay the debt to Lloyds. The reason for the debt to Lloyds was because Rangers signed players on huge salaries in order to try and gain an advantage on the pitch. The reason HMRC refused the CVA was because of the huge sums of money owed to them from this non payment of PAYE and the tax owed on the EBTs. The EBTs were also used by Rangers to sign players on huge salaries to gain an advantage on the pitch. Whichever way you look at it, the reason Rangers no longer operate as a football club and will be liquidated is because they used other folk's money to sign players they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford in order to gain an advantage on the pitch. The consequence of all this is that Rangers FC will soon die and a brand new club was set up and now pretends to be Rangers and plays in the Third Division. In order for the brand new club to bypass the normal rules for a brand new club and gain entry to the SFL they took on the membership of the real Rangers FC and agreed to take on all the punishments that will go with that and also promised to pay all football debts. The consequence of that is that the brand new club will either be banned or suspended from football altogether when the whole process follows through and will also be liable to repay all the prize money paid to the real Rangers by the SPL and all the Champions League money paid by UEFA. In other wordsm whichever way you look at it, Rangers and their supporters will fully get what they deserve. You are fucked. Enjoy. 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.