Homer Thompson Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 How? It is a more binding a ruling than the Court of Session one I believe. [Ching]£££[/ching] Still not sure how that makes it better for them to lose What are the better off losing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njord Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Still not sure how that makes it better for them to lose What are the better off losing? "If" they are backing BDO, getting a SC ruling would be final. Win/win by losing. Takes away all sorts of appeals in future when they start going seriously after folk on ebt shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 "If" they are backing BDO, getting a SC ruling would be final. Win/win by losing. Takes away all sorts of appeals in future when they start going seriously after folk on ebt shite. Oh, you mean losing on the right to appeal? I get you now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 it was a while ago so i apologise in advance if i am wrong but I'm sure there were reports going round that HMRC kept fighting this case not only because it was the right thing to do but they wanted to set a legal precedent because there was a fair few bigger companies they wanted to go after. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 For what reasons would BDO appeal? - is it to keep as much money as it has a hold of for Old Rangers? - is it to keep as much money as it has a hold of for the Creditors of Old Rangers? - is it to help or hinder HMRC? - is it something else? Ask Phil? . Now, throwing in another factor; if Craig Whyte succeeds in getting *his* name onto the creditors list, then BDO winning the appeal against HMRC will mean that HE will get more of the pot than if they lose. And THIS must really be messing with the minds of the rangers mob, if Whyte succeeds then there are 2 possible outcomes: HMRC lose and Whyte wins. or HMRC win and Whyte loses. I kind of hope that Craig Whyte does get himself on to the list of creditors - then we will see who the rangers lot hates more, Hmrc or Whtye??!!!!??!!!! Whyte has been declared bankrupt... Whyte is facing fraud charges.... http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14040779.Rangers_oldco_liquidators_set_to_take__Big_Tax_Case__to_a_Supreme_Court_appeal/ Bdo set to take it to Supreme Court Didn't Graham spiers and ch4 recently call us cheats......now if the court of session verdict was to be over turned... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 it was a while ago so i apologise in advance if i am wrong but I'm sure there were reports going round that HMRC kept fighting this case not only because it was the right thing to do but they wanted to set a legal precedent because there was a fair few bigger companies they wanted to go after. Almost certainly true. However, as things stand, they've won. What Njord is saying, I think, is that it would be better for HMRC if BDO are allowed to appeal. HMRC then get a SC ruling behind them to do as you say and go after others. Presuming the SC dont over turn the CoS decision, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Whyte has been declared bankrupt... Whyte is facing fraud charges.... Does that have anything to do with Whyte trying to get himself back on to the list of Creditors? Incidentally, as one of the rangers lots, who would you favour: Whyte or HMRC?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Ask Phil? Whyte has been declared bankrupt... Whyte is facing fraud charges.... Didn't Graham spiers and ch4 recently call us cheats......now if the court of session verdict was to be over turned... Wouldn't matter Vickster. Even if you believe "no sporting advantage" was gained a monetary advantage was gained by breaking the rules. Gaining advantages (of any kind) by breaking rules is the definition of cheating. So, as I'm sure you'll be glad to know, your pal Spiers and c4 will be safe from any (dignified) litigation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Does that have anything to do with Whyte trying to get himself back on to the list of Creditors? Incidentally, as one of the rangers lots, who would you favour: Whyte or HMRC?? Well if hes been declared bankrupt, won't any money go to his creditors? If he's found guilty won't that be seen as proceeds of crime? Also sure that he sold his claim against Rangers to some legal firm? Wouldn't matter Vickster. Even if you believe "no sporting advantage" was gained a monetary advantage was gained by breaking the rules. Gaining advantages (of any kind) by breaking rules is the definition of cheating. So, as I'm sure you'll be glad to know, your pal Spiers and c4 will be safe from any (dignified) litigation. Spiersy and co were quick enough to apologise after the ftt verdict. The court of session verdict seen quite a few journalists losing it and mouthing off without giving it much thought. Maybe your legal knowledge is correct and there will be no litigation, wouldn't mind seeing a few up in court or even just being compelled to apologise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Well if hes been declared bankrupt, won't any money go to his creditors? If he's found guilty won't that be seen as proceeds of crime? Also sure that he sold his claim against Rangers to some legal firm? Spiersy and co were quick enough to apologise after the ftt verdict. The court of session verdict seen quite a few journalists losing it and mouthing off without giving it much thought. Maybe your legal knowledge is correct and there will be no litigation, wouldn't mind seeing a few up in court or even just being compelled to apologise. Apologise? For calling a bunch of cheats... cheats? That's kinda childish even by your standards Benny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Freshen your bait up a bit ffs.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Freshen your bait up a bit ffs.. Are you actually denying rangers cheated? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Are you actually denying rangers cheated? I bet if you ask, he'll also deny they died, :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I bet if you ask, he'll also deny they died, :lol: I can almost understand that. But thinking people should be pulled before a judge for calling rangers cheats after they got fined for cheating is just so utterly out there. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 You'd think sevco loyal would wondering why the old clumpany was paid the then Blackburn Rovers managers Graeme Souness £30k tax free through an illegal scheme. What was the payment for? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the 67 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 You'd think sevco loyal would wondering why the old clumpany was paid the then Blackburn Rovers managers Graeme Souness £30k tax free through an illegal scheme. What was the payment for? REAL ranjurs man 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) You'd think sevco loyal would wondering why the old clumpany was paid the then Blackburn Rovers managers Graeme Souness £30k tax free through an illegal scheme. What was the payment for? How's auld yella teefs film funding going these days Edited November 20, 2015 by forever_blue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 How's auld yella teefs film funding going these days who cares. except you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 How's auld yella teefs film funding going these days In English please 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 who cares. except you Oh sorry I thought that dodgy tax shenanigans where the most heinous of crime to the plastic and diddy hordes , or is it only when it involves Rangers , my mistake 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.