Raidernation Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 i don't think anyone really knows the current financial situation at rangers outside the club. But all you "berrs" on here have claimed for several years that you do? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Even the judges who largely sided with Rangers in the first tribunal verdict said explicitly that there was a case to answer; praised HMRC for their rigorous investigation and castigated the DeadCo for deliberately obstructing the investigation at every possible opportunity. So what are you basing this claim on? It's self-evident that there should be some scrutiny when things go wrong, particularly when you not only lose that first tribunal you mention but then take things to another tribunal and lose that as well. As for the leaking of information, I don't know the truth about it but it's something that should be investigated, especially since it's a potential criminal offence. However, clearly some folk don't want to look any further than, "Ha ha, it's all big bad Rangers fault". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 i don't think anyone really knows the current financial situation at rangers outside the club.tbh i don't think many inside the club know either.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 (edited) It's self-evident that there should be some scrutiny when things go wrong, particularly when you not only lose that first tribunal you mention but then take things to another tribunal and lose that as well. As for the leaking of information, I don't know the truth about it but it's something that should be investigated, especially since it's a potential criminal offence. However, clearly some folk don't want to look any further than, "Ha ha, it's all big bad Rangers fault". But that's ridiculous - David Murray's own lawyers accepted that there was a case to answer when they accepted that Rangers were guilty of a good chunk of the charges against them. That vindicates HMRC's decision-making on its own with no further supporting evidence required. Nonetheless, when the judges themselves - the ones who rejected the majority of the charges, no less - state explicitly that there was a case to answer, they mean that HMRC was wholly justified in bringing the case. This isn't even up for debate, you know. HMRC have been categorically proven correct in bringing a case against Rangers, and that view has been endorsed by all parties involved in the proceedings themselves. Edited July 13, 2014 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 (edited) But that's ridiculous - David Murray's own lawyers accepted that there was a case to answer when they accepted that Rangers were guilty of a good chunk of the charges against them. That vindicates HMRC's decision-making on its own with no further supporting evidence required. Nonetheless, when the judges themselves - the ones who rejected the majority of the charges, no less - state explicitly that there was a case to answer, they mean that HMRC was wholly justified in bringing the case. This isn't even up for debate, you know. HMRC have been categorically proven correct in bringing a case against Rangers, and that view has been endorsed by all parties involved in the proceedings themselves. Just to be clear, there were no "guilty" admissions or verdicts. Some tax liability was agreed. That obviously doesn't vindicate every decision the taxman took e.g. taking it to a second tribunal. I hope the taxman is looking more carefully at what he did than you want to. When you lose twice at tribunals, proper questions really should be asked. Edited July 13, 2014 by Bearwithme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 (edited) Just to be clear, there were no "guilty" admissions or verdicts. Some tax liability was agreed. That obviously doesn't vindicate every decision the taxman took e.g. taking it to a second tribunal. You seem to be saying here that HMRC were likely correct in bringing the original case but that the decision to appeal the verdict was in some way unacceptable. Is that what you're saying? Edited July 13, 2014 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 (edited) You seem to be saying here that HMRC were likely correct in bringing the original case but that the decision to appeal the verdict was in some way unacceptable. Is that what you're saying? No, I'm saying the whole thing should be looked at including the alleged leaking of information. That is the correct, reponsible thing to do. Why would any sensible person not want proper, thorough scrutiny of something that has gone wrong? Edited July 13, 2014 by Bearwithme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 No, I'm saying the whole thing should be looked at including the alleged leaking of information. That is the correct, reponsible thing to do. Why would any sensible person not want proper, thorough scrutiny of something that has gone wrong? Why indeed? If somebody, somewhere wants to take a look at HMRC's decision-making, I have no objection. I'm 100% certain that the verdict will be "All perfectly reasonable", not least because the judges in the case praised HMRC for their conduct. But this "Why not have an investigation" attitude is an odd one for you to take given that a) There are few credible allegations against HMRC and not much evidence to assist in chasing them up, and that b) Both the judges found that Rangers had dragged the case out for as long as possible, and that one of them explicitly accused Rangers employees of deliberately attempting to mislead and frustrate the inquiry. The first point is basically tangential to the death of Rangers. The second may well have contributed directly to it - you can imagine how useful that verdict could've been, if it had come much earlier, like HMRC wanted it to, but were prevented from achieving. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmy Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Leaving aside the inane jibes, the taxman can't just be given a free pass on scrutiny over this, much as some would like to put all the blame on Rangers or people associated with Rangers. When you lose two big tribunals in connection with a matter which caused serious damage elsewhere, you can't reasonably just shrug your shoulders. I don't think Murray should have introduced the EBT scheme in the first place but that doesn't mean there can't be others whose conduct or judgement was questionable. What is questionable about taking a company to court that you think owes you money? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Leaving aside the inane jibes, the taxman can't just be given a free pass on scrutiny over this, much as some would like to put all the blame on Rangers or people associated with Rangers. When you lose two big tribunals in connection with a matter which caused serious damage elsewhere, you can't reasonably just shrug your shoulders. I don't think Murray should have introduced the EBT scheme in the first place but that doesn't mean there can't be others whose conduct or judgement was questionable. Firstly, let's not forget that the FTTT comprised of many individual cases, a sizeable minority of which the old club didn't contest, i.e. admitted liability for. I think we know why. Secondly, the UTTT has not totally exonerated the crooks either - they are pursuing individual cases, including Minty's 6m+ "loan". Hardly comprehensive "victories" for the club*, or "defeats" for HMRC. "A matter which caused serious damage elsewhere" - care to expand? I do hope you're not going down the "armageddon" or social unrest" avenues, and if you're going to plead for the poor creditors, there's only one organisation guilty of not paying them. Can you guess who? *Especially as they died. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 yeah rangers fc plc died but the club lived on free from debt. club in its current form unaffected. As youngsy says, the Plc was the club - for the avoidance of doubt, check out the gates at ibrox. Of course the new club is unaffected - it didn't exist when all the criminality was going on. That's not to say that the new lot may get up to some tricks of their own, mind. Now, about this "serious damage elsewhere" - any chance of an explanation, or are you going to try the Amigo method of ignoring it in the hope that it goes away? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 It's amazing the Rangers fans who seem to think they should have special treatment from HMRC. Let's get real, Rangers at the time wasn't a big business that the country couldn't afford to do down the drain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 dunno, i'm not bearwithme. i'm captain hindsight you seem to get confused easily Aye, Mea Culpa. Nobody's perfect. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 was it not real before you posted that rubbish? incredible how you think that this country could afford to lose one of the two biggest and most successful clubs. the empty seats at celtic park are testament to what your own fans think of a premiership without rangers and without competition for the title without rangers celtic don't have a reason to exist. Of course could, on the grand scheme of things Rangers wasn't a massive company who employed thousands of staff that would do serious damage to the local economy, i'd argue Starbucks are more vital as a company than Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 (edited) an interesting choice of comparison since starbucks never paid taxes for 5 years and hid its profits away from the uk for 15 years and claimed loss making for 14 of these years. starbucks were made to pay 5m and then 10m in corporation tax in 2013 and another 10m this year but for a company that reportedly made over 400m in profits in 2012 this is small change so how much from starbucks went back into the scottish economy during the last 15 years before they were made to pay back some of the tax owed? and compare to rangers who have actually contributed through paying taxes (obviously not during craig whyte term) and contributed to scottish sport and charities and in many other ways. do starbucks contribute in anyway to communities like not just rangers but any football club in this country?. no they just sell coffee and cakes to make a massive profit for themselves? You obviously missed my point about a company like Starbucks who probably employ thousands across the country, and in turn the employees pay tax into the system through their wages. Hence why because of the sheer number of people starbucks employees compared to Rangers would make them a bigger miss to the economy na dif for some reason Starbuck went under, the amount of people made redundant would be a disaster Rangers as a business is a small fish, in the grand scheme of things they wouldn't be missed, and they most certainly don't deserve special treatment from HMRC Edited July 13, 2014 by Enrico Annoni 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raidernation Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Snafu, are you genuinely a moron/cretin, or do you have to work at it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Are you saying that HMRC deliberately leaked documents to bloggers Wow..... just wow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 To be fair, despite his rambling protests, it's clear he far more intelligent than Tedi or Bennett. More a WUM that knows his club died and is simply trolling. Actually the boy is quite good value. Between his colourful therapeutic scribblings and his mentalist fantasies, he brings a lot more (relatively ) to the forum than out and out simpletons such as Benny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Marvellous stuff boys. Bearwithme absolutely owned, rogered etc by the Rodent, while Snafu totally misses the point Enrico made in citing Starbucks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I miss the_crazy_frog He was fun. 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.