The_Kincardine Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Might wanna re read the transcript there I had a look through and searched for 'illegal' and didn't see it. Have a go yourself. http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8213f5a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 So, are they having to pay Chuck's legal fees? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Your implementation of said scheme has not been dealt with on the basis of its illegal operation by Rangers. It was dealt with on the basis that rangers operated it within the law. The SPL knew it was under appeal (to the UTT) and asked for a judgment irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 So, are they having to pay Chuck's legal fees? Wont know for a week or so is the word. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I had a look through and searched for 'illegal' and didn't see it. Have a go yourself. http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8213f5a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 Was quoted on here this afternoon......im guessing you were too busy in the sarcasm factory to see it but the poster did seem keen for you to notice it....still the fingers in ears la la la defence always works wonders eh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/351576661359?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1558.l2649&clk_rvr_id=928846647830&afsrc=1&rmvSB=true Always someone making money off the ***s 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/351576661359?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1558.l2649&clk_rvr_id=928846647830&afsrc=1&rmvSB=true Always someone making money off the ***s Wouldn't be surprised if that eBay account was a subsidiary of MASH 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crossbill Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 The_Kincardine, on 13 Nov 2015 - 00:05, said:The SPL knew it was under appeal (to the UTT) and asked for a judgment irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. Actually, they were very specific in asking for the exact opposite. "The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLip69 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Just get new ones and pretend they're the old ones. That wouldn't fool anyone, they'd see right through them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) Was quoted on here this afternoon......im guessing you were too busy in the sarcasm factory to see it but the poster did seem keen for you to notice it....still the fingers in ears la la la defence always works wonders eh I posted a link to the full judgment. I'll do it again: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8213f5a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 I may have missed 'illegally' so you quoting it would be helpful. The SPL knew it was under appeal (to the UTT) and asked for a judgment irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. Actually, they were very specific in asking for the exact opposite. "The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful." So what part of "the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC" makes my point wrong? Edited November 13, 2015 by The_Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crossbill Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Sorry, I've clearly misinterpreted what you meant. I thought you meant 'irrespective' as in it did not matter whether the appeal was accepted or rejected, rather than assuming it would be rejected (which is what the SPL instructed). So you must agree then that the findings of the LNS commission are no longer valid, since the scope it considered turned out to be incorrect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10menwent2mow Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 'Demoted from the premier league' HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Sorry, I've clearly misinterpreted what you meant. I thought you meant 'irrespective' as in it did not matter whether the appeal was accepted or rejected, This was the basis that the LNS enquiry proceeded on. They asked for a judgment whatever the outcome of the UTT was. So you must agree then that the findings of the LNS commission are no longer valid, since the scope it considered turned out to be incorrect. The opposite. The validity of the LNS commission wasn't dependent on the FTT appeal. The SPL's brief was very clear on this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 f**k me, just caught up after a thoroughly entertaining evening. Just imagine for a moment that statement from DK came from your chairman. I'd die of shame. Cheats, sycophants and a brand spanking new club. Oooft bad day for bears. Good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 This was the basis that the LNS enquiry proceeded on. They asked for a judgment whatever the outcome of the UTT was. The opposite. The validity of the LNS commission wasn't dependent on the FTT appeal. The SPL's brief was very clear on this. It's thoroughly amusing how desperate you are for oldco to keep their illegally gained trophies. Any technicality will do eh? Who cares if you supported cheats - it's the the sparkly baubles that matter most of all. You wouldn't know dignity if it bit you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 It's thoroughly amusing how desperate you are for oldco to keep their illegally gained trophies. Any technicality will do eh? Who cares if you supported cheats - it's the the sparkly baubles that matter most of all. You wouldn't know dignity if it bit you. there has to be a balance struck between keeping illegally gained baubles and potential widespread window panning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) "In our opinion these issues raise clear questions of law. To the extent that legal principles have been misapplied, the court can and must interfere with the decision of the First-tier Tribunal" ....Illegal. Edited November 13, 2015 by THE KING 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Needless to say no-one in the media will point out glibs mistakes. "er, sorry dave, you weren't demoted. You had to re-apply, which by the way, didn't follow the standard process. Still, it's for the greater good". What a fucking c**t of a human being!! Shove your threats up your arse you fucking shitweasel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Using a means to reduce our level of tax didn't breach footballing rules.....that it led to our admin has been dealt with. Our implementation of said scheme has also been dealt with. The only place the rhabid hordes have to go is in either making up rules to be applied retrospectively, reopening the LNS enquiry or shutting the f**k up. The undisclosed use of side letters - an integral aspect of Rangers' operation of the scheme, absolutely broke football rules. You know this. Please don't describe all those who favour title stripping as members of a "rhabid horde". It makes you appear irrational and incapable of mature discussion. I would favour reopening the LNS enquiry, or convening a new enquiry which could override it. I think this is valid because the initial one was instructed to operate on the basis that Rangers' tax dodge had proved legitimate and successful in reducing the club's tax obligations. That picture has now changed, perhaps not forever, but the assumptions on which LNS relied are no longer firm. It appears that his verdict might have been shaped by a state of play then current, which no longer holds, at least right now. As you've said, Rangers' behaviour over this is, in any moral sense, indefensible. If the only defence is that a decision reached, based on a since changed reality, is binding and fixed, that can surely provide no satisfaction and pride, just a degree of embarrassment. It's odd that you don't seem to get any Rangers fans who would rather give up winnings so tarnished, than cling to them anyway. 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.