Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Bendarroch]

If the author is anonymous how can you say he is undeniably a Celtic fan?

You can't of course.

You can, however, undeniably state that anonymity guarantees a salivating, compliant and already converted audience from the diddies and plastics community.

I'm citing the Philthy Mac Goebbels/RTC doctrine (as argued by said diddies and plastics).

Proof? Read the comments beneath the content.

There's some quality straw clutching going on. References to bent judges, the establishment at work and boaby-sucking levels of hero-worship for, well, who the f**k knows? Perhaps it's the writer he suggested might have written up Poon's judgement for her.

[Cliche Guevara]

Again, you really need to read the judgement.

Counsel for HMRC tried to introduce the argument that the side letters (not contracts) should have been disclosed (p 38) as part of his overall case that the EBTs represented payments. The majority decision did not accept that argument. If the side-letters were specific to loans - which is what the Tribunal found - then there is no case for them to be disclosed to the SFA. Furthermore, in the dissenting opinion, Dr. Poon opined that Rangers did actually disclose all payments to the SFA albeit vaguely.

Again - two separate issues. These cases are not symbiotic - it's a non-sequitur that the payments not being liable to tax mean they do not require to be disclosed to the SFA. A tax tribunal does not determine whether the SFA rules were breached or not. It only determines the tax liability within the confines of the law and the specific case put before them.

There is a different evidential standard for the SPL case to the tax case. You, yourself, have acknowledged EBTs are a tax-avoidance mechanism. So far tax has successfully been avoided. The recipients have stated, under oath however, that the EBTs reflected payments that were agreed as part of their package of remuneration for football activities.

Rangers have so far 'got away with' (and let's be clear that's all they have done - let's forget all notions of being innocent in any way) tax liability, but the evidence for breach of SFA rules on the declaration of payments has been proven well beyond any doubt, if they choose to see it that way.

[youngsy]

Sorry I was dealing with the lying slanderous Amigo .. this post was more suited to his character and ability. Resorting to calling someone bigoted .. low Youngsy and the type of reply the Amigos would be proud of hence "Fivestars" cheerleading post at the back of it.

1. I agree with the verdict as delivered and accept it.

2. The verdict does exonerate your old club in manner which the majority of Orcs are trying to spin. It simply states that although you operated within the very stetched limits of legal definition they were at it.

So now that I don't agree with the warped Orc view of what the judgment means ... I'm a bigot ... Classy Youngsy .. Classy

You initially rejected the tribunal decision as delivered,hence why i stated that you had a bigoted attitude against the club,perhaps bigoted was too strong a word but you certainly showed a very bitter hatred to the club and i would hazard a guess that you were more than a shade disappointed in the verdict,sort of diminishes any criticism of the club after that verdict.

Poor Youngsy ... now reduced to mistyping my name on here. Are you auditioning to become the fourth Amigo ??

Oh,that wasn't a mistype,i just prefer to use the English version of words. Can't remember being taught that there was an "h" in den or boy at school.

[bennett]

Again - two separate issues. These cases are not symbiotic - it's a non-sequitur that the payments not being liable to tax mean they do not require to be disclosed to the SFA. A tax tribunal does not determine whether the SFA rules were breached or not. It only determines the tax liability within the confines of the law and the specific case put before them.

There is a different evidential standard for the SPL case to the tax case. You, yourself, have acknowledged EBTs are a tax-avoidance mechanism. So far tax has successfully been avoided. The recipients have stated, under oath however, that the EBTs reflected payments that were agreed as part of their package of remuneration for football activities.

Rangers have so far 'got away with' (and let's be clear that's all they have done - let's forget all notions of being innocent in any way) tax liability, but the evidence for breach of SFA rules on the declaration of payments has been proven well beyond any doubt, if they choose to see it that way.

Did you read that on a blog?

Learn to think for yourself, whats your views on the subject, stop listening to the failed lawyer and failed social worker.

You have a mind, use it.

[bennett]

Young Dhensboy crying about being called a bigot, if you dish it out son then you had better be prepared to take it back. Especially with a post history like you have.

[youngsy]

The tax verdict.

The tribunal could not find in favour of the HMRC with the case and legal arguments presented to them so instead they deliver a verdict which states the old Rangers club are not liable for tax. (Youngsy's victory ... I applaud you .. well done sir)

However the verdict they did deliver was still a damning assessment of the conduct of the old club and ensures that other organisations such as the SPL tribunal and the BDO may use it to proceed in their own investigations against the Gers.

The Orcs still don't get it ... strange that.

A small victory for them .. in fact miniscule in the bigger picture.

OH and their club's dead .....

Three cheers for Murray's victory ... should we see a parade on open top bus through the city very soon ???

Not my victory,however i can say that i'm pleased that the PLC won this tribunal verdict.

[bennett]

Maybe if your old club hadn't gave away those 'loans' you would have been in a position to pay off creditors or been in a position that Whyte would never have gotten involved which was old Minty's fault .

How dare Rangers follow the rules and not break the law regarding taxes.

HOW DARE THEY :angry: :angry:

[Cliche Guevara]

Did you read that on a blog?

Learn to think for yourself, whats your views on the subject, stop listening to the failed lawyer and failed social worker.

You have a mind, use it.

Well, no, I didn't.

I did. I have posted them.

Thanks. I have.

You don't have to agree with my views. You won't, in any event, as you're ill-disposed towards them due to your blind-loyalty to the football club you used to support. I am, however, expressing my own genuine views based on my understanding of what is being presented. I am trying to make a mature and considered contribution to the discussion (which I confess I find fascinating for a variety of reasons - who wouldn't?). I will actually take your post as a compliment, and will try and continue to engage in some meaningful discussion, analysis and debate over our respective positions. You are free to join in.

For the record the author of the blog is a lawyer called Jim McGinley who is, by his account, a die-hard life-long Celtic fan

(who is the 'failed social worker'?)

(who is the 'failed lawyer' for that matter?)

Edited November 24, 2012 by Cliche Guevara

[Cliche Guevara]

How dare Rangers follow the rules and not break the law regarding taxes.

HOW DARE THEY :angry: :angry:

Aren't you rather badly missing the point?

[bennett]

Well, no, I didn't.

I did. I have posted them.

Thanks. I have.

You don't have to agree with my views. You won't, in any event, as you're ill-disposed towards them due to your blind-loyalty to the football club you used to support. I am, however, expressing my own genuine views based on my understanding of what is being presented. I am trying to make a mature and considered contribution to the discussion (which I confess I find fascinating for a variety of reasons - who wouldn't?). I will actually take your post as a compliment, and will try and continue to engage in some meaningful discussion, analysis and debate over our respective positions. You are free to join in.

For the record the author of the blog is a lawyer called Jim McGinley who is, by his account, a die-hard life-long Celtic fan

(who is the 'failed social worker'?)

(who is the 'failed lawyer' for that matter?)

Well i'm sure if this Jim bloke blogged it then it must be true, i apologise most sincerely for my remarks which rubbished lawyer Jims bloggings.

Sorrry.

Edited November 24, 2012 by bennett

[bennett]

Aren't you rather badly missing the point?

Rangers never followed the rules and did indeed break the laws regarding taxes.

Is that better?

[SS-18 ICBM]

I could go on for hours about Moonbeans. Some good and some bad.

Sir Minty has been responsible for some of the best of times and some of the worst of times in my 40+ years of watching Rangers.

The best? Some of the football we played during Wee Dick's (overspending) tenure was breathtaking. Like it or not we were a truly world-class team in that epoch.

The worst? "For every fiver Celtic spend we'l spend a tenner."

Sounded shameful at the time and age doesn't improve it.

Minty was an arse. However, he was our arse. Most of us bought in to his 'vision' for right or wrong.

Looking at only the football played on the pitch i wouldn't hold any of what you have said there against you.

was most definitely breathtaking to watch and played a major part in the final demise of Rangers FC who started digging there own grave immediately afterwards ("£80m in debt 2002") in their unsuccessful attempt to dominate Scottish football in the new millennium.

[bennett]

Looking at only the football played on the pitch i wouldn't hold any of what you have said there against you.

was most definitely breathtaking to watch and played a major part in the final demise of Rangers FC who started digging there own grave immediately afterwards ("£80m in debt 2002") in their unsuccessful attempt to dominate Scottish football in the new millennium.

You just concentrate on getting your jack boots polished and less of the chit chat.

[SS-18 ICBM]

Rangers never followed the rules and did indeed break the laws regarding taxes.

Much better!

[Cliche Guevara]

Rangers never followed the rules and did indeed break the laws regarding taxes.

Is that better?

The point the guy was making was in relation to making loans of almost £50million to various employees. As a football fan don't you think that money would have been better spent on the team than unnecessarily going into the pockets of millionaires?

As a football fan, don't you think that rather than being 'run by the bank', going into Adminstration and being liquidated - on account of unnecessarily paying nearly £50million into the pockets of millionaires - that money could have paid off your bank debt?

As a football fan don't you think that rather than being 'run by the bank', going into Adminstration and being liquidated, the club should have asked for the loans to be repaid and avoided that agony? You could have paid the £9.5million tax bill that killed your club, and still had £40million left over to play with.

As a football fan, don't you think any of that would have been better?

Or, simply, don't you think?

You could try and give an honest answer to all that if you want...

Edited November 24, 2012 by Cliche Guevara

[Bendarroch]

For the record the author of the blog is a lawyer called Jim McGinley who is, by his account, a die-hard life-long Celtic fan

Now there's a shocker.

[bennett]

The point the guy was making was in relation to making loans of almost £50million to various employees. As a football fan don't you think that money would have been better spent on the team than unnecessarily going into the pockets of millionaires?

As a football fan, don't you think that rather than being 'run by the bank', going into Adminstration and being liquidated - on account of unnecessarily paying nearly £50million into the pockets of millionaires - that money could have paid off your bank debt? Don't you think that rather than being 'run by the bank', going into Adminstration and being liquidated, the club should have asked for the loans to be repaid and avoided that agony? You could have paid the £9.5million tax bill that killed your club, and still had £40million left over to play with.

As a football fan, don't you think any of that would have been better?

Or, simply, don't you think?

You could try and give an honest answer to all that if you want...

You do know it's the trustees of the scheme rather than the club who decide when it's paid back?

Apart from that it's a well thought out post, with several good points etc

[Jacksgranda]

The point the guy was making was in relation to making loans of almost £50million to various employees. As a football fan don't you think that money would have been better spent on the team than unnecessarily going into the pockets of millionaires?

As a football fan, don't you think that rather than being 'run by the bank', going into Adminstration and being liquidated - on account of unnecessarily paying nearly £50million into the pockets of millionaires - that money could have paid off your bank debt?

As a football fan don't you think that rather than being 'run by the bank', going into Adminstration and being liquidated, the club should have asked for the loans to be repaid and avoided that agony? You could have paid the £9.5million tax bill that killed your club, and still had £40million left over to play with.

As a football fan, don't you think any of that would have been better?

Or, simply, don't you think?

You could try and give an honest answer to all that if you want...

If these had have been "loans" they would have to be re-paid, but they weren't loans as we ordinary people understand them, the re-payments, if any, were to be discretionary. They were never going to be re-paid, they were never loans, they were wages/salaries. That's why the "trust" never sought repayments and never will. Unless something comes out in the liquidation process.

[flyingrodent]

The point the guy was making was in relation to making loans of almost £50million to various employees. As a football fan don't you think that money would have been better spent on the team than unnecessarily going into the pockets of millionaires?

As a football fan, don't you think that rather than being 'run by the bank', going into Adminstration and being liquidated - on account of unnecessarily paying nearly £50million into the pockets of millionaires - that money could have paid off your bank debt?

As a football fan don't you think that rather than being 'run by the bank', going into Adminstration and being liquidated, the club should have asked for the loans to be repaid and avoided that agony? You could have paid the £9.5million tax bill that killed your club, and still had £40million left over to play with.

As a football fan, don't you think any of that would have been better?

Or, simply, don't you think?

You could try and give an honest answer to all that if you want...

Blithely unconcerned about previous owners and directors making off with so much of their club's money that it keeled over and died.

Raginger than raging about some blogger saying things they didn't like on the internet.

Priorities, Peepul.

Edited November 24, 2012 by flyingrodent

[Bearwithme]

The point the guy was making was in relation to making loans of almost £50million to various employees. As a football fan don't you think that money would have been better spent on the team than unnecessarily going into the pockets of millionaires?

As a football fan, don't you think that rather than being 'run by the bank', going into Adminstration and being liquidated - on account of unnecessarily paying nearly £50million into the pockets of millionaires - that money could have paid off your bank debt?

As a football fan don't you think that rather than being 'run by the bank', going into Adminstration and being liquidated, the club should have asked for the loans to be repaid and avoided that agony? You could have paid the £9.5million tax bill that killed your club, and still had £40million left over to play with.

As a football fan, don't you think any of that would have been better?

Or, simply, don't you think?

You could try and give an honest answer to all that if you want...

It was being spent on the team.