WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 The RFFF were delighted to fund the case last time around then the Scottish fitba authorities had their arses handed back to them on a very shiny plate. And I'll happily add to the monies to take them on again. It would be my pleasure. And after paying all those DLA cheques and crisis loans, Charlie accepted the VERY SAME sanction in order to get a permit for the Tribute Act. Result! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Didn't Rangers help to hold things up by taking ages to hand over documents? That has been mentioned and if that's the case let's get it out in the open,along with everything else that i've posted. Especially any leaking of HMRC confidentiality,a criminal offence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAFC Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Tom English's article in the Scotsman made for some interesting reading. IF the HMRC had no case then why did Murray offer them £10M? It's not clear if this was to do with EBTs or not. Really sickened by the way some redtops have turned around and started kissing the hand that feeds them again. f**k Scottish Football. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 You lot shot yer loads far too early, the smart guy bides his time and waits for that perfect moment Which, in most people's cases, is at the end of the affair. Let's hope it doesn't turn out to be premature, Bennett. Oh, and if it does turn out to be premature, rest assured many quotes will be forthcoming from you and yours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I really, really fervently hope that Murray does go after these bloggers - he would force them to air their allegations in an open public forum, on a far, far wider set of issues than merely the tax case, and most of the major players would be eligible to be hauled into court and compelled to testify. Given Sir Dave's attitude to secrecy in his (ahem) "Business dealings", how likely do you think it is that he'd fancy taking to the dock to discuss the ins and outs of Old Rangers' finances? Would Craigy Whyte? Would Charlie Green or Alistair Johnson or Martin Bain? Would. They. Falkirk. (By the way, a far funnier result would be if the Rangers Fighting Fannies scraped together the cash to raise an action. Imagine the Big House guy conducting a cross-examination!). Whatever happens, I hope and pray that this hits an open court. I would love to watch the sh*te hit the fan in that trial - it'd be like a muck-spreader in court, and it wouldn't splatter a single innocent man. These bloggers have been quite conspicuous by their absence though,wouldn't you say. RTC couldn't get that site closed down quick enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Tom English's article in the Scotsman made for some interesting reading. IF the HMRC had no case then why did Murray offer them £10M? It's not clear if this was to do with EBTs or not. Really sickened by the way some redtops have turned around and started kissing the hand that feeds them again. f**k Scottish Football. HMRC didn't want to liquidate Rangers over the EBT case. they wanted to do it so BDO can have a closer look at the books. I think they believe Rangers had been doing some very dodgy stuff over the years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Tom English's article in the Scotsman made for some interesting reading. IF the HMRC had no case then why did Murray offer them £10M? It's not clear if this was to do with EBTs or not. Really sickened by the way some redtops have turned around and started kissing the hand that feeds them again. f**k Scottish Football. Can I just add a personal note - I sincerely hope that Dunfermline are one of the clubs that do not over come their curent troubles. After Yorkston gladly accepting a cheque from the RFFF and then turning on us, I think it's only fair that we now return the love. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyWellFan Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 They have still been liquidated though right ? Superb 'victory' lads. Still going strong. :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I think they believe Rangers had been doing some very dodgy stuff over the years. Who told you? Mibbe RTC who recently said: "This blog has been accurate on all of the major points of the case except the one that matters most to date- the FTT outcome." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 If you have proof that Bendarroch is a bigot i advice you to report the bigoted posts...Mine as well...Good luck with that. (1) Thanks for reminding me about the Republican Sympathiser...Anybody heard from him? Anybody? Anything? (2) :lol: :lol: (1)Bendarroch's twisted, hate-filled little mind is his problem, not mine. As you appear to understand his issues, and share a worldview, maybe you could help one of your own? (2) Who is this "republican sympathiser" again? And where is your proof for using a possibly defamatory description for him? Or are you just a bigot? * advise. HTH. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Didn't Rangers help to hold things up by taking ages to hand over documents? That's like saying Hitler helped to start WWII by wandering into Poland.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 These bloggers have been quite conspicuous by their absence though,wouldn't you say. RTC couldn't get that site closed down quick enough. That's just wise conduct, if you think you might be about to be on the end of a big, hairy libel case - it reduces potential damage to the plaintiff and covers the defendant's backside a little, although nowhere near enough. It's perfectly possible that RTC and various others might decide not to fight a case, assuming Sir Dave fancies one, which I seriously doubt he does. They might decide to settle out of court, which wouldn't be entertaining at all, rather than risk a massive payout later on - libel law in the UK is ludicrous, Draconian and deliberately biased towards the very wealthy. On the other hand, if they did fight it, I'd wager they'd have volunteers willing to work for free from among some of the country's brightest and most publicity-hungry lawyers and accountants, and you'd better believe that any lawyer taking the case on would be choking to get SDM, Craigy White, Charles Green et al into the dock so they can be grilled in open court on the most intimate details of their business dealings. If you think David Murray cares enough about a few bloggers to risk having to publicly account for his actions... Well, you have more faith in his integrity than I do. But as your fellow Rangers fans have said, bring it on - let's hear everything in gory detail and let everyone who deserves justice face it. I cannot wait to watch the bloodbath. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 That has been mentioned and if that's the case let's get it out in the open,along with everything else that i've posted. Especially any leaking of HMRC confidentiality,a criminal offence. I know it's been anonymised, but I would have said a published document, much like the one which has been hailed as a massive victory by fans of rangers, would qualify as "out in the open". Mr Red - that's yer man. Maybe read the document a wee bit, instead of rejoicing at the return of Jabba the Oracle to the Retard. Or maybe, I dunno, look around and see if anyone more credible has published anything on it since release on Tuesday. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 That's like saying Hitler helped to start WWII by wandering into Poland.... Adolf and his "red hand salutes". WTF was he like? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Can I just add a personal note - I sincerely hope that Dunfermline are one of the clubs that do not over come their curent troubles. After Yorkston gladly accepting a cheque from the RFFF and then turning on us, I think it's only fair that we now return the love. You know, Bendarroch, if you got your Santa wishes granted, you'd be sat watching the Tribute Act training every day, because they'd have nobody to play against. "Scottish Football should die 'cos they widnae let the gers do what they wanted" Sad, bitter, wee bigot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Stopped here, cos you are clearly speaking out of your arse You have not got a clue what the tiny amount of liability remaining pertains to, it could be non playing staff, you simply do not know, yet above you just state they are definitely 100% players Why, it could be non-playing staff. The evidence we've seen so far suggests that players hugely outnumbered backroom staff for these payments, but if it is only non-playing staff, you'd be in the clear, I reckon. Of course, if they were playing staff, then you can start unpicking one of those stars off your jerseys. You also state massive sums, again the common figure doing the round is £1M of liability and you call this massive, but again you simply do not know Even assuming that a million is the total liability - which is just as much an assumption as anything you're accusing me of - there's no way of knowing what percentage of actual remuneration that represents. By example - you and I pay roughly a third of our income to the taxman because unlike Rangers players, we aren't employed by a bunch of wealthy shysters. And again - it doesn't matter whether the sums paid out are massive* or miniscule. What matters is whether the payments were registered with the appropriate football authority. The commission is not adjudicating on the tax status of the payments, as far as I can see. It's deciding whether the payments were compliant with SPL rules. Even if we look at this issue through your own blue-tinted glasses, I'd say that it would be prudent for Rangers fans to invest in Pampers and brown trousers for the verdict. *And I'd call a payment of, say, £100,000 "a massive sum of money" for an individual to receive as a lump sum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 (edited) Stopped here, cos you are clearly speaking out of your arse You have not got a clue what the tiny amount of liability remaining pertains to, it could be non playing staff, you simply do not know, yet above you just state they are definitely 100% players You also state massive sums, again the common figure doing the round is £1M of liability and you call this massive, but again you simply do not know As I said, speaking out of your arse Where's the figure of £1 million come from then Tedi - the only place I've seen it mentioned is on this thread, in your posts. You didn't make it up, did you? Did you? The Herald and Scotsman, I believe, are talking about an admitted liability in the tens of millions (that's "seven-figure sum" in paper-speak). Other than (S)Dm and his 6.3 million back-pocket bonus, what non-playing staff are we talking about? So call it ten one million - as low a seven figure sum as possible. Over ten years - ballpark figure. One million hundred thousand a year. So, one million in tax @ 20% basic rate = 5 million hundred k a year earnings. f**k me, how much did they pay the tea-lady? Even accepting your figure, leaves 500k per annum, or around 40 staff on minimum wage whose tax wasn't passed on to the Treasury. Disclaimer - back-of-fag packet figures, may seem insubstantial to followers of Scotland's deceased giants. But then, in my world, and in most Scottish clubs' world, 1 million pounds IS a fucking massive figure. eta: fucking stupid fag packet! Edited November 22, 2012 by WhiteRoseKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Murray may well have more to lose than gain,that remains to be seen,but he isn't the only consideration in this. I would hope that MIH go after these online bloggers such as McConville,McGillivan,Thomson and RTC (Tony McKelvie?) if they have been publishing false representations that was detrimental to the PLC,MIH and ultimately the shareholders. Also a full inquiry into any confidential information held by HMRC that may have been leaked to the individuals mentioned. As well as that an inquiry as to why this outcome took so long to conclusion,resulting in having an impact on liquidation of the PLC which led to many shareholders and creditors losing substantial amounts of money. I dare say that the bloggers you mention will have legally protected themselves by the use of the word "allegedly" and the fact fact that that conclusion wasn't unanimous could be another reason that Murray / MIH might not take this further..............the HMRC might of course appeal the decision too. Agree that the timescale of the decision was far too long. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 1353588780[/url]' post='6831031']I'm a bit perplexed what difference the result of the FTTT makes as to whether or not Murray pursued RTC? The result makes not a single bit of difference. In the highly unlikely event of Murray pursuing it however, I will enjoy all the muck being trawled up in open court and all the witnesses being dragged into it. Yeah ,I think you can put (Murray to sue tax man) in the same category as (Craig Whyte to sue BBC) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nofixedability Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Who is/was Mr. Red? 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.