T_S_A_R Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 No but he did say that suspension may have been. Who do you believe would raise another case in the CoS and for what? the part of the judgement you have quoted is glennie quoting the sfa's lawyer. unlucky mate 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I'm a wee bit pished here, but for what it's worth........................... TSAR is maybe giving some balance to our huge debate. Most of us want them gone, but our hopes may not balance with our reality. cheers mate. i'm only trying to stop people making a huge arse of themsleves like yer man stoned sailor has just done. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 This point. http://www.pieandbov...ost__p__6297889 Oh how right you were, Mr Legal Expert who has come down from heaven to put all us common mortals in our place. Platini's out on his erse, UEFA is still grovelling before the Swiss courts and Sion won the Europa League and the Swiss championship. And now you have returned to spout out even more of your pseudo-legalistic shyte. Why don't you just fvck off back to FF where you belong? Edit. You would be better off using your fingers to have a quick w*nk than type out the crap you do now! I'm surprised you missed this as it was not only quite a big post but it also contained an enormous amount of the garbage you posted several months ago. did sion ever have their day in court? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 There is no law in the land that insists a loan must be repaid. OK you go to court then defending Rangers with that argument then,when the Judge asks you "why has there not been a single payment back by anyone of the 73 people who got loans over 20 years and some of the employees have now retired from football but haven't received a EBT pension payment.?".Bearing in mind that these are some of the most well paid footballers in SPL history and could easily have paid them loans back.Go on defend that coz that's what the gers lawyers are using ?. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 What Whyte subsequently did in using PAYE and VAT a a current account is far worse to me, it's certainly trading whilst insolvent and comes under the Directors Disqualification Act (not that he'd give a flying f**k about that), and is what the current punishment is considering. you seem clued up. any idea why hearts got a winding up order and rangers didn't? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 the part of the judgement you have quoted is glennie quoting the sfa's lawyer. unlucky mate Damn it too pished for this, I'll tell you what I'll leave you with your victory which I believe will turn out to be as Pyrrhic as Rangers day in court, I'll just wait until the result of the next appellate meeting and get back to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 These were referred to by the scotslawthoughts blogger http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/football/exclusive-lord-glennie-sfa-tribunals-had-no-power-to-impose-additional-sanctions.17769119?_=9a98af001a57b6a9f8013ae51acf8ac2a05b5cd8 And http://www.heraldscotland.com/sites/default/files/glennie%20report.pdf Might be of use 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) did sion ever have their day in court? UEFA didn't lie down before the Swiss justice system as you tried to beat into eveyone's brain. You got it wrong but you are still trying to act as though you are an expert on legal issues. Edit. And yes Sion did have their day in court as you pointed out on several occasions. Why didn't they take this further when they were deducted points? Because it finally got into Constantin's head that he had fvcked up and was never going to win. Edited June 2, 2012 by WeeHectorPar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 you seem clued up. any idea why hearts got a winding up order and rangers didn't? As did Falkirk. No, I don't. Perhaps because of an assumption that Rangers were big enough to trade through it? I think HMRC have been incredibly cagey around Rangers from the off, I'm not sure whether this is due to PR issues 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Damn it too pished for this, I'll tell you what I'll leave you with your victory which I believe will turn out to be as Pyrrhic as Rangers day in court, I'll just wait until the result of the next appellate meeting and get back to you. see you then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roverthemoon Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 A whole day to catch up on but this Scotland on Sunday article is the business http://m.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/will-the-spl-survive-without-rangers-1-2335890 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 OK you go to court then defending Rangers with that argument then,when the Judge asks you "why has there not been a single payment back by anyone of the 73 people who got loans over 20 years and some of the employees have now retired from football but haven't received a EBT pension payment.?".Bearing in mind that these are some of the most well paid footballers in SPL history and could easily have paid them loans back.Go on defend that coz that's what the gers lawyers are using ?. Because we haven't demanded it. That's not illegal Yer Honour. Next. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Edit to add- look, I'm not trying to defend what Rangers did, but we must be clear - what Murray set out to do with EBTs was not illegal. Immoral? Arguably. Unfair advantage, IMO, yes. What Whyte subsequently did in using PAYE and VAT a a current account is far worse to me, it's certainly trading whilst insolvent and comes under the Directors Disqualification Act (not that he'd give a flying f**k about that), and is what the current punishment is considering. EBT's are or were legal but the way Murray used the trust is illegal because there were plenty of ETB trusts that used the system perfectly legally for the purpose the loans were intended for and these loans were duly paid back and why there is still EBT's today but with tougher legislation ON LOANS they need to be paid back or show payments are being made for the loan. What Whyte did was ! well what a shark would do if it seen a bleeding corpse ! go in for the kill coz the shark knows the animal WILL die eventually.It is at the feet of SDM that what was a modestly proud club to the biggest footballing villain the world has ever known in footballing terms. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 UEFA didn't lie down before the Swiss justice system as you tried to beat into eveyone's brain. You got it wrong but you are still trying to act as though you are an expert on legal issues. Edit. And yes Sion did have their day in court as you pointed out on several occasions. Why didn't they take this further when they were deducted points? Because it finally got into Constantin's head that he had fvcked up and was never going to win. how did i get it wrong when sion gave up. no one knows why constantin gave up. it could have been polticial pressure or a bung. i have much more faith in the european court of justice. switzerland is a horrible, nazi gold stealing tax haven. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 1338679205[/url]' post='6298180']A whole day to catch up on but this Scotland on Sunday article is the business http://m.scotsman.co...ngers-1-2335890 While some say the SPL would collapse without the Ibrox club, our analysis suggests the financial implications might not be so dire THE cost of Rangers being lost from the Scottish Premier League could average out at only £375,000 to the non-Old Firm clubs next season. Detailed analysis conducted by Scotland on Sunday demonstrates that top-flight sides need not be facing catastrophe if five of them were to vote against admitting a newco Rangers into the set-up – the sporting integrity dilemma that will be faced if prospective Ibrox owner Charles Green cannot obtain a company voluntary arrangement (CVA). 2 games vs the currants and the proportionate share of tv and sponsorships? Still seems high to me. They're right that it's no financial disaster if they die or if the 'bearcott' bites. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 As did Falkirk. No, I don't. Perhaps because of an assumption that Rangers were big enough to trade through it? I think HMRC have been incredibly cagey around Rangers from the off, I'm not sure whether this is due to PR issues along with the real role of ticketus and the how long the sfa knew about ebt's for (considering they have annual accounts for every club) that is one the big questions that no one is asking regarding this saga. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madeirabhoy Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Because we haven't demanded it. That's not illegal Yer Honour. Next. which is the equivalent in law terms, of being asked 'you killed someone, why should we not put you to prison....'because you cant prove it.......next..' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 which is the equivalent in law terms, of being asked 'you killed someone, why should we not put you to prison....'because you cant prove it.......next..' Completely fatuous. You cannot prove something that is yet to happen. In the case of the EBTs, I am yet to demand repayment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 which is the equivalent in law terms, of being asked 'you killed someone, why should we not put you to prison....'because you cant prove it.......next..' There were plenty of EBT systems that were being used according to the law. The scheme was set up initially for managing directors who would spend their lifetime till retirement at the same company. Loans were a sort of bypass on banking interests if you took a loan you pay back what you borrowed saving a small fortune in interest fees.There are a few other things in the EBT scheme like health care,physio therapy,dental care,eye care and so forth you could claim from it tax free if you use the off shore tax free accountant method.The scheme and the HMRC know it's a scam but Rangers have ripped the erse right out of it.Lastly the EBT system is in fact actually is a tax avoidance scheme but is in reality a retirement fund tax avoidance scheme. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) how did i get it wrong when sion gave up. no one knows why constantin gave up. it could have been polticial pressure or a bung. i have much more faith in the european court of justice. switzerland is a horrible, nazi gold stealing tax haven. If you'd got it right they would not have given up. So you got it wrong just like you've got it wrong this time. Stop acting like a know-it-all, obnoxious, little 5 year-old b*****d. Accept that others have an legitimate opinion. Edited June 2, 2012 by WeeHectorPar 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.