youngsy Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I accept LNS's verdict 100% here and now. But, should Rangers lose the Upper Tier Tribunal appeal this decision will need to be revisited. The nuance of the case is that if these "payments" are not deemed to be "loans", Rangers would have evaded millions of pounds in tax and NI contributions. It would then follow that they did indeed "gain a sporting advantage" and "employ players they could not afford". I am not suggesting that they will lose the appeal, but it is a possibility. Do you accept that? Do you accept that LNS's decision would need to be revisited in that eventuality? Do you accept that in that eventuality Rangers would have "gained a sporting advantage"? So, like I said, the appeal hearing is vitally important in more ways than one, don't you agree? I can see where you're coming from here but the SPL Commission was not about the legality or otherwise of the EBTs but about side contracts,side letters,call them what you will and as such the crux of the SPL investigation was about the registering and playing of ineligible players on the field of play and the stripping of honuours. So as such the UTT findings won't impact on the SPL Commission findings. In my humble opinion of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) If that was found to be the case it would need to be investigated. Don't you agree? Nothing is settled until the UTT is settled. No, I don't agree. Not least because the SPL rules don't allow for retrospective changes. And the UTT would settle nothing if either of the losing sides decided to launch any additional appeal. I'm not sure if this stops eventually at the Supreme court or some other court above even that in Europe. I can be sure I wont be here discussing it for decades to come. Never mind what the SPL does/doesn't do, we are talking hypothetically here. So you don't agree that *should* Rangers lose the UTT the material facts surrounding LNS's decision would have changed? Of course the same applies if there is any further appeal upheld but that is irrelevant. As for Cookie's comments regarding "final decision, he is wrong. The fact that there is an appeal is irrelevant. Until the result of that appeal, in the eyes of the law, the current tribunal finding is 100% correct, it is not an interim position.. Edited March 8, 2013 by barrysnotter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookies71 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 That is not what you said earlier. You are cherry picking the bits you like along with making up things which are simply not there. LNS`s verdict was not appealed, it will never change, the deadline has passed. I accept the verdict 100% you on the other hand do not, your choice, good luck with your appeal in 2 years or so. Until you answer my questions (as I had the common decency to do for you) your input is meaningless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Rebel. Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 So, it wasn't enough that you already come across as the complete tool. Aye,if you say so,no doubt you have never been with company like Andy Pandy Goram like? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 So will you be having a party when Dunfermline die in the coming weeks? Why? We've been through what they're going through right now and wouldn't wish it on anyone. Your post does you no favours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Aye,if you say so,no doubt you have never been with company like Andy Pandy Goram like? I have and he acted like a dick. I know a lot of other fans who feel the same. Great player, kunt of a man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I accept LNS's verdict 100% here and now. But, should Rangers lose the Upper Tier Tribunal appeal this decision will need to be revisited. The nuance of the case is that if these "payments" are not deemed to be "loans", Rangers would have evaded millions of pounds in tax and NI contributions. It would then follow that they did indeed "gain a sporting advantage" and "employ players they could not afford". I am not suggesting that they will lose the appeal, but it is a possibility. Do you accept that? Do you accept that LNS's decision would need to be revisited in that eventuality? Do you accept that in that eventuality Rangers would have "gained a sporting advantage"? So, like I said, the appeal hearing is vitally important in more ways than one, don't you agree? Either quote the post in full or don't bother at all. Cherry picking parts of a post to distort the context is out of order. © Norman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I have and he acted like a dick. I know a lot of other fans who feel the same. Great player, kunt of a man. He's a changed man...great company at Peterhead and in mixed company at hotel everybody commented on how pleasant and approachable he was. Shame the local celtic supporters were not as well behaved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookies71 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) I told you i accept the verdict 100%, that is actual wording in the verdict not your skewed interpretation or when you add words that do not exist. Until you are willing to accept all of the findings which are 100% recognised in law as being the actual position, then you have no position in which to offer reasoned debate. As I said earlier you are cherry picking the bits you like and are a million miles away from accepting the verdict, you lied. So you are not going to answer the sepcific questions I asked you. Fair enough that reflects on your psyche not mine. I shall not ask again. As for "cherry picking" don't make a fool of yourself man. You "cherry picked" a small section of an extended quote by me and presented it as fact. Got to go and do man stuff now Tedi. I've got a funny feeling you will be bashing at the keyboard for a few hours yet. Edited March 8, 2013 by Cookies71 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookies71 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Either quote the post in full or don't bother at all. Cherry picking parts of a post to distort the context is out of order. © Norman Couldn't agree more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Moonbeams is virtually broke. There is no reason he would appeal. He'd rather live out the rest of the days in his vineyard in France. I wish I was as "virtually broke" as that. imagine having to live out the rest of your days in your French vineyard? Oh, the deprivation! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 He's a changed man...great company at Peterhead and in mixed company at hotel everybody commented on how pleasant and approachable he was. Shame the local celtic supporters were not as well behaved. He used to drink in the mermaid (Saltcoats) a lot, saw a post on FF recently which said he's cleaned up his act and off the bevy now. Fair play to him if he has changed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 The rule would have been irrelevant, you have no idea when the rule was changed, you have no idea why the rule was changed. Just another tic fan on a paranoia trip. Pleasing. ETA, 54 titles, we welcome the chase and we do not need to include the war year ones, unlike your club. EH ? I have no idea what rule was changed ! I've posted the fucking rule umpteen times on here Tedi.Do you need a reminder again ?. Rule 17.7 in the SFA handbook circa 2009/2010 ya knob. This was the rule that the SFA got rid off just so you can allegedly claim it's the same club pish.This rule above would have killed of Rangers if it were still law in 2012 bub when the CVA failed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 EH ? I have no idea what rule was changed ! I've posted the fucking rule umpteen times on here Tedi.Do you need a reminder again ?. Rule 17.7 in the SFA handbook circa 2009/2010 ya knob. SFA rules pre 7th June 2011 2012.JPG This was the rule that the SFA got rid off just so you can allegedly claim it's the same club pish.This rule above would have killed of Rangers if it were still law in 2012 bub when the CVA failed. Why would you have a segment of SFA rules saved on your computer? Weirdo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I can see where you're coming from here but the SPL Commission was not about the legality or otherwise of the EBTs but about side contracts,side letters,call them what you will and as such the crux of the SPL investigation was about the registering and playing of ineligible players on the field of play and the stripping of honuours. So as such the UTT findings won't impact on the SPL Commission findings. In my humble opinion of course. I agree with the above. I was at pains to say that the FTTT verdict needn't dictate the LNS business and that remains the case - they were looking at different things. I think the remaining fellow Rangers loathers on here are playing into the hands of the Rangers fans. "You're deid" - "No we're no" has been replaced by "You cheated" - "No, we didny". It's over guys. Rangers have suffered more beautifully in the last year than any of us could ever have imagined. It might have gone further, but it didn't. Take a step back and enjoy that they've lost £7m while dropping lots of points to tiny, tiny teams and failing to register any kind of impact in the Cups. The more we seethe, the more they can convince themselves that what's befallen them isn't disgraceful, humiliating and hilarious. Let it go guys. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 As I said you have no idea when your irrelevant rule was removed or why, carry on with the tic paranoia tho I posted a part of the 2009/2010 SFA handbook and we know for certain that it was removed in the 2011/2012 handbook.There is no 2010/2011 handbook online that I can find so I'll deffo go for it was removed in the 2011/2012 handbook to accommodate the death of your beloved club . Now if you can find the 2010/2011 handbook then feel free to add to the mix when it was actually removed for certain. Tedi we do know for certain that the rules were changed in advance of Rangers going tits up eventually and that's not tic conspiracy or paranoia that is fact and you know it but can't help with your obsession on the GIFUY bralt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Why would you have a segment of SFA rules saved on your computer? Weirdo. Honestly stop this, the last thing we should be doing is teaching them how to stop being knobs. Benny ! that was a bad attempt at deflecting there.You don't see me condemning you for any data you store on your PC do ya ?. Tedi ! Rangers fans are being knobs and huge ones at that.Rangers fans openly admit what their old club was up to and doing but then have the audacity to post legal verdicts like it's some sort of closure and finite in any argument or debate. Have you seen my signature ? that shows you how big a knob Rangers fans are when it really matters,they know their club cheated but are happy to post material that says otherwise just because it suits their agenda at the time. Legal verdicts are just verdicts in the eyes of the law and that's it.To everybody else we all know Rangers are fecking cheats to the core but got off on legal loopholes only. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 How about a big sackful of "I do not give a fcuk"? That would be you stepping down then wouldn't it because you haven't a leg to stand on and can't win this wee battle nice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) It's over guys. Rangers have suffered more beautifully in the last year than any of us could ever have imagined. It might have gone further, but it didn't. Take a step back and enjoy that they've lost £7m while dropping lots of points to tiny, tiny teams and failing to register any kind of impact in the Cups. The more we seethe, the more they can convince themselves that what's befallen them isn't disgraceful, humiliating and hilarious. Let it go guys. Very sane post Monkey. Yes, we've suffered. Yes, most of that suffering has been self-inflicted. Yes, our season so far hasn't been that glorious. At times we've looked inept and at other times we've been overly arrogant. I agree, though, that we should be left to stew in our own juices. Now most sane people would agree with you, except we have opinions like this: Legal verdicts are just verdicts in the eyes of the law and that's it.To everybody else we all know Rangers are fecking cheats to the core but got off on legal loopholes only. This is just a crazy post. Celtic fans clamoured for due process. We were subject to due process and the outcome did not suit the rhabid ones. Not once but twice. They are saying, now, that due process matters not a jot because we are guilty whatever the law says. To me the mentality of the average ***** on here seems to be, "Rangers should be investigated and if the outcome is one that we agree with then we'll accept it. If we disagree then they are cheating b*****ds whatever the enquiry says". Edited March 8, 2013 by The_Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Benny ! that was a bad attempt at deflecting there.You don't see me condemning you for any data you store on your PC do ya ?. Tedi ! Rangers fans are being knobs and huge ones at that.Rangers fans openly admit what their old club was up to and doing but then have the audacity to post legal verdicts like it's some sort of closure and finite in any argument or debate. Have you seen my signature ? that shows you how big a knob Rangers fans are when it really matters,they know their club cheated but are happy to post material that says otherwise just because it suits their agenda at the time. Legal verdicts are just verdicts in the eyes of the law and that's it.To everybody else we all know Rangers are fecking cheats to the core but got off on legal loopholes only. After reading that why then should we have legal verdicts or decisions on anything or don't you accept the word of law. 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.