Jim McLean's Ghost Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 At least the pitiful "administration error" chat has stopped. Deliberate non-disclosure is not an admin error. Carry on chaps. It is a bit more complicated than that. Rangers thought they didn't have to file the side letters because they were not contracts. The BTC judges agreed that any payments made through trusts detailed by the side letters were not contractual payments and not liable for tax. Nimmo-Smith takes a rather plain view and states outright that the side-letters formed part of the footballers contract arguing that players wouldn't have agreed to play for Rangers without the side-letter in place. You can see why it might not be obvious that Rangers should have given the side-letters to the SFA. Are the SFA bound by the decision of the SPL independent panel since they may have a different view on what kind of administrative error would make a player ineligible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Feck me all the furious w@nking coming from the Rangers fans is unbelievable Their arrogance and hatred towards the SPL & SFA has blinded them completely and can't see that this has been a sham and a whitewash since 2010 onwards to actually protect Rangers FC from folding over and dying and being consigned to the history books. The associations shit their drawers when Rangers faced BIG trouble and went are far as to change all their liquidation laws 8 months before the inevitable happened so as to protect what they seen as a cash cow that paid them handsome wages and bonuses. Plan "A" all along was to get the Rangers newco parachuted straight into the SPL and why the associations changed their rules so that they could say to the Rangers fans eventually "look here we changed our rules and it's the very same club according to the new rules & regulations" or the Rangers fans would have not have supported a completely new Rangers team.Financial Armageddon there perhaps according to them. Plan "A" failed to get the Rangers newco straight into the SPL and the diddies revolt fucked that up completely so plan "B" unfolded to lump the cheating fuckers straight into the SFL 1st division and then that failed completely so they entered the newco into the 3rd. So Rangers fans would be absolutely correct in saying that the SPL & SFA were corrupt to the core but it was towards saving the most Scotland's corrupt football club ever called Rangers FC.It's similar to the patient fighting the doctor that was and had saved their life ? So instead of demanding apologies from the two corrupt associations,why don't you actually thank them for giving you the Rangers fans legally according to them by the way a fucking club to support in the 3rd division when plan "A" was to get your club straight into the SPL in the first place. If the SFA & SPL didn't change their rules and they were changed just to accommodate the demise of Rangers FC we all on here would still be partying mental over the death of Rangers FC the club. UNGRATEFUL B@STARDS THE LOT OF YOU ! Can we try thieving instead of ungrateful? The gloating and arrogance of the Sevco mob it so sad. It is a bit like when Sevco get an equaliser against Stirling Albion/Montrose/Berwick Rangers Loud and arrogant, but sad and pathetic at the same time. Dimmo Nimmo had the remit of drawing a line in the sand allowing people to move on and of course ensuring the guilty such as Ogilvie were given a clean bill of health. Many facts were produced but the one key part of there being no advantage from being able to afford better players through tax avoidance methods was down to opinion only. Unless they hauled in players with EBTs under oath and looking at income before and after the old Rangers, then it will remain opinion. Dimmo Nimmo and his collaborators have their opinion. I have mine. Ogilvie would have been well rehearsed before his 'evidence'. In essence he says he 'assumed' it was all kosher. £92,000 times over. This is someone who was a director of old Rangers at the time. So the weasel words gets him off for now. However BDO and the fraud squad must look at his role as a director, and ask whether he carried out his duties with appropriate diligence. Those responsibilities are well documented on companies house website. He failed miserably. A proper examination under oath which must happen will help get him struck off as a director. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_titles_and_still_going_ Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Well i woke up this morning, there's still 54 glorious titles, the sun is shining, the sky is blue, i have a half day and i'm going for a swally. What a lovely day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I don't think this "investigation" from the BDO will amount to anything 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 It is a bit more complicated than that. Rangers thought they didn't have to file the side letters because they were not contracts. The BTC judges agreed that any payments made through trusts detailed by the side letters were not contractual payments and not liable for tax. Nimmo-Smith takes a rather plain view and states outright that the side-letters formed part of the footballers contract arguing that players wouldn't have agreed to play for Rangers without the side-letter in place. You can see why it might not be obvious that Rangers should have given the side-letters to the SFA. Are the SFA bound by the decision of the SPL independent panel since they may have a different view on what kind of administrative error would make a player ineligible. It will be very intriguing if the UTT goes in favour of the HMRC and they win and then these so called side letters are deemed as contractual bonus payments by the law ! so will the football authorities just sweep the Nimmo outcome under the carpet ? Will they try and use that the commission dealt with it and nothing more to see here even though legally it's a taxable bonus and the dual contract will be deemed as such,a separate player contract outwith the associations rules & regulations ?. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 It is a bit more complicated than that. Rangers thought they didn't have to file the side letters because they were not contracts. The BTC judges agreed that any payments made through trusts detailed by the side letters were not contractual payments and not liable for tax. Nimmo-Smith takes a rather plain view and states outright that the side-letters formed part of the footballers contract arguing that players wouldn't have agreed to play for Rangers without the side-letter in place. You can see why it might not be obvious that Rangers should have given the side-letters to the SFA. Are the SFA bound by the decision of the SPL independent panel since they may have a different view on what kind of administrative error would make a player ineligible. If you were on the SFA board would you take any decision that meant you and your family were vilified through online boards like this, getting parcels in the post, threats when you are out leading a normal life, and needing the advice from the police of how you and your family should live their lives? Presumably to burn down Hampden would be an option offered. You might, but I can understand why many would choose the easy option. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I don't think this "investigation" from the BDO will amount to anything They have legal obligations through the liquidation. Hence it could amount to a lot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 It is a bit more complicated than that. Rangers thought they didn't have to file the side letters because they were not contracts. The BTC judges agreed that any payments made through trusts detailed by the side letters were not contractual payments and not liable for tax. Nimmo-Smith takes a rather plain view and states outright that the side-letters formed part of the footballers contract arguing that players wouldn't have agreed to play for Rangers without the side-letter in place. You can see why it might not be obvious that Rangers should have given the side-letters to the SFA. Are the SFA bound by the decision of the SPL independent panel since they may have a different view on what kind of administrative error would make a player ineligible. Still, The commision report stated that "non-disclosure to the SPL and SFA of payments to players had been deliberate". I'm more than happy to go with the no on-field cheating aspect, but if the above quote from the report amounts to an administration error - the line the bears on here were trotting out yesterday - then I'm a Dutchman's monkeys uncle with a penchant for celebrating all things Dutch at a cup final. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I don't think this "investigation" from the BDO will amount to anything Well, they have Lloyds, Whyte, Withey, Collyer Bristow, Duff and Phelps, Murray, the SFA, the SPL and more to look at - BDO have much to aim for as they seek funds for the creditors. They'll collect what they can and, in doing so, hopefully reveal much more of what actually happened behind the scenes. Some of those responsible must surely be shiting themselves. Good! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 How did your Party go HellBhoy, was Dhensebore in the groove? Seems I you was right, it really did turn out to be a tic wet dream. 54 54 54 Your obsession with me is totally weird as fcuk Tedi has Brokeback Benny fell out with you and yer wee baldy hof incher that you fried completely since 12ish yesterday ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 If you were on the SFA board would you take any decision that meant you and your family were vilified through online boards like this, getting parcels in the post, threats when you are out leading a normal life, and needing the advice from the police of how you and your family should live their lives? Presumably to burn down Hampden would be an option offered. You might, but I can understand why many would choose the easy option. I wasn't looking for an answer filled with paranoia and delusion, I was looking for facts. When the final agreement was reached that meant Rangers would play in division 3, Green would take on the footballing debts and the SPL would continue the investigation of dual contracts did the SFA say they would stick with the SPL decision? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 It will be very intriguing if the UTT goes in favour of the HMRC and they win and then these so called side letters are deemed as contractual bonus payments by the law ! so will the football authorities just sweep the Nimmo outcome under the carpet ? Will they try and use that the commission dealt with it and nothing more to see here even though legally it's a taxable bonus and the dual contract will be deemed as such,a separate player contract outwith the associations rules & regulations ?. I see you fail to see the rich cherry on the lush icing on the very tasty cake from yesterdays sumptuous decision. No matter what happens now - Rangers players were always correctly registered and therefore eligible to play. HMRC might yet win an appeal and it will make not a bit of difference to yesterdays ruling. It sucks to be you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I'm more than happy to go with the no on-field cheating aspect, Eh? You mean you're not one of those convinced that Ferguson became a much better player because he had a performance enhancing side letter? Muscat and Eggen would have been fucking rank without them. I've heard they are better than steroids. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I see you fail to see the rich cherry on the lush icing on the very tasty cake from yesterdays sumptuous decision. No matter what happens now - Rangers players were always correctly registered and therefore eligible to play. HMRC might yet win an appeal and it will make not a bit of difference to yesterdays ruling. It sucks to be you No that is bullshit. If HMRC win their appeal then Rangers were guilty of major tax evasion and that would clearly imply that they gained a competitive advantage by playing players they could not otherwise afford. The SPL have to rule with the facts that are available now, that the vast majority of payments made through EBTs were legal tax avoidance and within the law. If the facts change then the SPL should revisit the issue and title-stripping is back on the agenda. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Eh? You mean you're not one of those convinced that Ferguson became a much better player because he had a performance enhancing side letter? Muscat and Eggen would have been fucking rank without them. I've heard they are better than steroids. They should have been fucking force-feeding them to Didier Agathe then in that case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I see you fail to see the rich cherry on the lush icing on the very tasty cake from yesterdays sumptuous decision. No matter what happens now - Rangers players were always correctly registered and therefore eligible to play. HMRC might yet win an appeal and it will make not a bit of difference to yesterdays ruling. It sucks to be you Well fcuk me we have a law Lord on P&B who is also an expert in footballing rules and regulations. Well it does matter ! if it goes against Rangers then the EBT's would then be ruled as bonus payments and the side letters ruled as contractual payments outside the associations rules.And just in case it hasn't sunk in from yesterday the favourable outcome you got was because the FTT ruled in your favour and if it goes against you in the UTT then these so called loans you got off on have to be looked into again.Enjoy the moment because it never lasts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 No that is bullshit. If HMRC win their appeal then Rangers were guilty of major tax evasion and that would clearly imply that they gained a competitive advantage by playing players they could not otherwise afford. The SPL have to rule with the facts that are available now, that the vast majority of payments made through EBTs were legal tax avoidance and within the law. If the facts change then the SPL should revisit the issue and title-stripping is back on the agenda. Here's the fact you don't want to acknowledge - their own rules dictated the outcome yesterday. The tribunal fined the Oldco for their part, but no sporting sanction was taken because the players were elegible to play under said rules. HMRC winning wont change that. And HMRC winning might not be the end of it - should an appeal on that outcome be sought. Indeed, HMRC might lose again and appeal to the Supreme court. Could go on for years and years yet. For me it's as good as over. All that remains now is to get back to the top, back into Europe and the whole sorry episode will be a bad memory. I do, however, want BDO to succeed and get as much back for the creditors as possible. And I wont be crying if any of those responsible are duly fucked in the process. Better for all if that can be achieved I'd say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Here's the fact you don't want to acknowledge - their own rules dictated the outcome yesterday. The tribunal fined the Oldco for their part, but no sporting sanction was taken because the players were elegible to play under said rules. HMRC winning wont change that. And HMRC winning might not be the end of it - should an appeal on that outcome be sought. Indeed, HMRC might lose again and appeal to the Supreme court. Could go on for years and years yet. For me it's as good as over. All that remains now is to get back to the top, back into Europe and the whole sorry episode will be a bad memory. I do, however, want BDO to succeed and get as much back for the creditors as possible. And I wont be crying if any of those responsible are duly fucked in the process. Better for all if that can be achieved I'd say. Tax evasion to sign players you could not otherwise afford is a clear competitive advantage. If the EBTs did not exist Rangers would have had no means to sign the calibre of player they did, clearly an on-field competitive advantage. If the EBT operated by Rangers is found to be illegal in appeal then Rangers have gained that on field advantage illegally and should be punished with the stripping of titles. In this case eligibility isn't the issue, illegal tax evasion is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 The fans sat back in the glory years and sucked it all in, the rumors were there but lets face we did f**k all, never again should we trust the suits who run our club, they must be constantly scrutinised and we have to do what we can to make sure it never happens again. I hope BDO screw Murray to post and take the shirt off his back. f**k Murray - his line about being 'duped' by the c**t of c***s fooled no one. And I expect that to be confirmed by BDO in due course. As for 'did f**k all' - and I don't know if you were ever at any of Murray's grandstanding AGM's - its difficult to know with any certainty what more could have been done other than voicing concern. People who tried were blanked. Absolutely blanked. I remember when the rumours became cause for genuine concern - I'd say the signing of Flo was a catalyst for an attitude shift amongst many of those I talked to at the time. It was becoming very clear Murray had fucking lost all the plots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Man Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 No as they would be just as nonsensical as half the pish on here. You are beyond deluded, blinded. Rangers have probably had the most exciting year out of everyone, we're not bitter like the rest of Scottish football, we're enjoying supporting our club. Irony overload. 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.