Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

Yeah, discretionary payments made through a trust, liable for income, on which no income was paid - all a load of fuss over nothing.

i'm talking here about the evidence presented in the program.

the first quote is half a sentence.

the second quote refers to something specified earlier in the document.

the third one is confirmation of the use of EBTs.

now is it more likely that daly left out pertinent info or that he has took quotes deliberately out of context?

* even although the evidence here is weak i think rangers will correctly lose the case,

* i'm interested in anyone who has knowledge or an opinion on why EBTs were first signed off by the treasury and hmrc?

* has anyone asked what the sfa believed was happening with the millions pouring out rangers into EBTs every year that they had documentary evidence of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any of the 298 current guests are indeed journalists and are looking for a quote for their paper tomorrow, how's about this- "f**k off and die rangers, you cheating b*****ds".

And you can quote me on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he did - he accessed them via a source from within HMRC (allegedly :ph34r: )

so he saw them and those three parts are what he chose to include in his documentary?

if there is more pertinent info i find it strange it wasn't included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try almost 1200 you soon to be extinct cawkswallower.

One of the highlights of this thread has been, and continues to be, the cavalier mangling of the English language (and the spelling therein) in order to produce new and graphic terms of abuse. Keep it up, chaps!

(one assumes the chapesses are too ladylike to refer to anyone as a bawslurper, knobpluke or arsefondler)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prince and the porn star stole the show. Looking forward to the reaction tomorrow. Bit puzzled, mind you, that the Beeb can come up trumps with this sort of stuff, while continuing to employ those totally discredited brown-nosing hacks Thick Young, Traynor and co. Death by a thousand cuts! Night all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was pretty tame IMO.

Wot?

Confirmation that the EBTs were undeclared secondary contracts?

Graeme Souness being paid £30k by the Rangers dodgy tax trust long after his employment or any legitimate payments from the club had ceased, in what appears to be return for conning Blackburn Rovers into offloading a three legged dog surplus to Rangers requirements on them when he was the Blackburn manager?

(Which brings open the question whether the Rangers Trust has been used for massive bribery throughout Rangers dealings in world football as of yet to be investigated)

David Murray funding Rangers virtually entirely via Bank Of Scotland loans, who once taken over by Lloyds TSB when the banks began to collapse and quite rightly wanted to see the colour of Murray's own money as security - and hence time for a sharp exit?

Craig Whyte's "off the radar wealth" being that he was really just a front man for the Prince of Monaco, who wanted to own Rangers but wanted it kept quiet?

Quarter of a million of Rangers trust money that supposedly went to Banstead Athletic FC but they have never even heard about (straight out of the Bill Hiddleston at Third Lanark one, that!)

Haudit and Daudit being up to their eyeballs in Whyte's dodgy takeover scheme and funding via Ticketus in the first place, showing their £25 million writ against Rangers old lawyers to be a complete smoke and mirrors job more to con prospective new owners that there was £25 million more money coming in to pay off Rangers monster debts

What the hell else did you want? Everyone in Rangers had sold their souls in EBTs to the devil, in return for which they shagged goats and Chick Young every Sunday on the full moon on an alter drenched with the blood of the most succulent lambs?

:blink:

Edited by WaffenThinMint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so he saw them and those three parts are what he chose to include in his documentary?

if there is more pertinent info i find it strange it wasn't included.

it may be down to legal reasons that other parts where not included, from simple things of publishing confidential letters or materials that will be used in courts so as not to have any pre judgements made

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...