Bendarroch Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) They certainly don't understand the verdict document. On the contrary - the verdict document clearly indicates that Rangers won the appeal. Are you still struggling with the outcome? Feeling somewhat stupid because of your faith in the bungler, runaway and IRA man? And, as a consequence, so angered by this startling turnaround that you have now invested yet more (blind) faith in the new nameless, faceless emperors of the plastics and diddies? Perhaps you are even working with them - keeping things 'upfront and centre' with those who 'take you seriously'. Edited November 27, 2012 by Bendarroch -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Are you trying to say HMRC chose to chase Rangers down because they are a well supported team? Or our club was targeted by a variety of liars because we enjoy massive support? Which is it? I was talking about the BBC, saying that It investigated Rangers because it's a clear matter of public interest, as the viewing figures showed. Although I didn't say so in my last post, HMRC investigated old Rangers because it was running a highly suspect tax-dodging scheme. This was clearly demonstrated when your old club admitted to running a highly suspect tax-dodging scheme by conceding that it was liable for taxation on a large number of cases, and also when it was found guilty on a smaller number of cases. HMRC is presently considering whether or not to appeal the decision, not because your old club was"well-supported", but because your old club was running a highly-suspect tax-dodging scheme. If Hector thinks he has a good chance of busting you on the cases that he lost, he'll appeal; if he doesn't think he has a good chance of busting your old club on the cases he lost, he won't. And that's the extent of it. Edited November 27, 2012 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I was talking about the BBC, saying that It investigated Rangers because it's a clear matter of public interest, as the viewing figures showed. Although I didn't say so in my last post, HMRC investigated old Rangers because it was running a highly suspect tax-dodging scheme. This was clearly demonstrated when your old club admitted to running a highly suspect tax-dodging scheme by conceding that it was liable for taxation on a large number of cases, and also when it was found guilty on a smaller number of cases. HMRC is presently considering whether or not to appeal the decision, not because your old club was"well-supported", but because your old club was running a highly-suspect tax-dodging scheme. If Hector thinks he has a good chance of busting you on the cases that he lost, he'll appeal; if he doesn't think he has a good chance of busting your old club on the cases he lost, he won't. And that's the extent of it. MacPherson asked why Rangers were singled out - you said: "Because fifty thousand Scots don't usually turn up to cheer on Starbucks, Archie" What has that got to do with any of the pish you just answered with? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 MacPherson asked why Rangers were singled out - you said: "Because fifty thousand Scots don't usually turn up to cheer on Starbucks, Archie" What has that got to do with any of the pish you just answered with? Does this questioning technique normally yield positive results down at the pub, Bendarroch? I imagine it'll get you a few slaps around the earhole, at any rate. Feel free to read what I wrote again - if you're still confused, I'm afraid you're just going to have to stay that way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Feel free to read what I wrote again - if you're still confused, I'm afraid you're just going to have to stay that way. There's nothing to be confused about, so I'd really rather not. Your feeble contribution to the endless streams of pish from diddies and plastics alike is noted. "Because fifty thousand Scots don't usually turn up to cheer on Starbucks, Archie" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 There's nothing to be confused about Of course not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Aw be fair on the poor wee halfwit It's just sinking in that the Glorious Victory didn't really improve their situation and, in fact, could help make things even more embarrassing for them. No rallying cries or future visions from Charlie Boy to cling onto, either. Bennett's backed himself into a corner, and the deflector shields are crumbling. Expect more lies, abuse and whataboutery over the coming days and weeks. If he sticks around that is. The last couple of days Bennett's been rattling like a smackhead on his first night in chokey. His usual backup crew are no use to him - one look at a 145 page document full of big words and they shat it, going straight into "Grab the headline and ignore the rest" mode - unfortunately "the rest" makes a bit of a mockery of the headline. I'm not sure they understand "Pyrrhic" as a concept. They certainly don't understand the verdict document. Then wee Cammy came along and reminded us of the sheer shite they gave these EBTs to, and some of the more interesting ones - did nobody tell Souness he's not allowed to be employed by two clubs at the same time? Once BDO start the recovery operation, are all those players bound by some code of Omerta to rangers, or will they drop the dead club further into the shite in order to save their money? It looked as if £444 was the bargain of the century, but what if one or two of those ex-players hung onto their copy of the side-letters? On the contrary - the verdict document clearly indicates that Rangers won the appeal. Are you still struggling with the outcome? Feeling somewhat stupid because of your faith in the bungler, runaway and IRA man? And, as a consequence, so angered by this startling turnaround that you have now invested yet more (blind) faith in the new nameless, faceless emperors of the plastics and diddies? Perhaps you are even working with them - keeping things 'upfront and centre' with those who 'take you seriously'. No further questions, M'Lud. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 My God the usual suspects are still keeping up the fight .... i loved when they were compared to the Japanese jungle fighters but it looks like we will have to get mcconville and phil 3 nsmes to come out of hiding to tell them it is all over 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 My God the usual suspects are still keeping up the fight .... i loved when they were compared to the Japanese jungle fighters but it looks like we will have to get mcconville and phil 3 nsmes to come out of hiding to tell them it is all over HMRC may appeal. Dual contract investigation. BDO rummaging around in the bottom drawers at Ibrox. Chuckie's share issue. Is it over? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 My God the usual suspects are still keeping up the fight .... i loved when they were compared to the Japanese jungle fighters but it looks like we will have to get mcconville and phil 3 nsmes to come out of hiding to tell them it is all over Yes indeed,they are - and now you've come back to join them. All over? If you accept that rangers are in fact dead, then you're nearly right. They are in liquidation, heading for the morgue as we speak. Again, the partial exoneration delivered last week was about as good for rangers as a pardon was for Timothy Evans. On the other hand, if you cleave (as you appear to) to Charlie's World of Stories and Wonder, then I think you'll find there's a long and twisty path ahead for the Tribute Act. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 You're right WKR You're certainly right about that - again. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 That's all I got wrong ... Of course. Last time it was a 'typo' this time it's dyslexia. You don't need to explain why you keep referring to him as a WKR. We all understand. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Boyne Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Of course. Last time it was a 'typo' this time it's dyslexia. You don't need to explain why you keep referring to him as a WKR. We all understand. You had that £20 yet ? Agent Killie said it was in the post ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I noticed about 30 pages back (struggling to keep up!) in a list of people who should apologise over this entire saga that some Rangers fans included Hutton, just wondering if any of them want to elaborate why? My understanding of his conduct was that he stood up to the other SPL 11 who wanted Rangers squeezed in to the First Division, something which Rangers fans were more or less in agreement with since their preferred option was to start again in Div 3. Maybe I'm wrong? I realise it was some of the real roasters in here who said it but if its not just a case of 'he's no one of us so must be one of them' then I'd be interested to hear their reasons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I noticed about 30 pages back (struggling to keep up!) in a list of people who should apologise over this entire saga that some Rangers fans included Hutton, just wondering if any of them want to elaborate why? My understanding of his conduct was that he stood up to the other SPL 11 who wanted Rangers squeezed in to the First Division, something which Rangers fans were more or less in agreement with since their preferred option was to start again in Div 3. Maybe I'm wrong? I realise it was some of the real roasters in here who said it but if its not just a case of 'he's no one of us so must be one of them' then I'd be interested to hear their reasons. It was a joke. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 It was a joke. Fair doos 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Title stripping has begun @BBCchrismclaug: Charles Green on #Rangers website saying he won't join #SPL in current form. Says difficult to engage when title stripping still an issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Title stripping has begun @BBCchrismclaug: Charles Green on #Rangers website saying he won't join #SPL in current form. Says difficult to engage when title stripping still an issue. You're a trier, I'll give you that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I noticed about 30 pages back (struggling to keep up!) in a list of people who should apologise over this entire saga that some Rangers fans included Hutton, just wondering if any of them want to elaborate why? My understanding of his conduct was that he stood up to the other SPL 11 who wanted Rangers squeezed in to the First Division, something which Rangers fans were more or less in agreement with since their preferred option was to start again in Div 3. Maybe I'm wrong? I realise it was some of the real roasters in here who said it but if its not just a case of 'he's no one of us so must be one of them' then I'd be interested to hear their reasons. Kyle or Alan? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Anybody heard from Charlie Boy? I thought he was supposed to be getting the share info out last week - or was it the week before? Isn't he in one of your favourite bands Norm? 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.