bennett Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Another good one from Michael Grant in the Herald this morning - http://www.heraldsco...within.18889295 Pasted here for people who can't be arsed registering with the Herald, although registering is worth it I think. I'm sure that Hugh Adam resigned as a Director in Rangers in September 2000 yet has commented upon the payments made through EBT's between the years of 2001 - onwards. A man who appeared confused and appeared to have problems with his memort when interrogated by a respected journo on CH4 news. An interesting from ex Celtic view man Grant "Should the SPL have used another law firm to avoid all accusations of conflict of interest? Maybe" No maybes about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoist Must Stay Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I don't see any mention of time limits on paying this money, I don't dispute Utd were due it, however CG has made it clear that as far as he and Rangers are concerned that responsibility for this payment rests with the SPL as agreed by letter on the 15th May The SPL dispute this and have asked the SFA to judge the matter, not much anybody can do till then so I don't see a valid reason why Rangers would be ejected from this years competition I suggest that you upload the letter for everyone to read along with all other letters of correspondence between Charles Green and the SPL. Not all of us Rangers fans are as gullible and naive as you are. Only the most foolish of Rangers fans believe everything that comes out of that lying b*****d Charles Green's mouth. I suggest you upload the letter if you disagree. You made the claim of there being a letter of agreement. Back up your claim by uploading the letter or supplying a source/link to the letter. Anything less than you supplying a source/link to the letter of agreement that you claim exists between Charles Green and the SPL will show you up as being the gullible and naive fool that so many have been calling you during the past few weeks.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I suggest you upload the letter if you disagree Only the most foolish of Pacific Shelf fans would make a Rangers supporting Alias Very similar in posting style to the Jakey Itwiznaeme. Not even attempting to hide it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurcher Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I'm sure that Hugh Adam resigned as a Director in Rangers in September 2000 yet has commented upon the payments made through EBT's between the years of 2001 - onwards. A man who appeared confused and appeared to have problems with his memort when interrogated by a respected journo on CH4 news. An interesting from ex Celtic view man Grant "Should the SPL have used another law firm to avoid all accusations of conflict of interest? Maybe" No maybes about it. The article states that the investigation is going back to July 1st 1998. There are maybes about it, as he states they are the SPL's lawyers, and as such have acted on Rangers behalf before anyway. Were you complaining then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Traynor`s latest grounded article the bit in red shows he has P&B 100% right, wonder wot his pal Cosgrove thinks, since he reads and posts on these forums, cmon cossie let us know http://www.dailyreco...r-years-1327563 I never thought i'd see the day when the voice of reason and sanity would come from Jim Traynor. This whole investigation is nothing more than a costly farce. Added to his slapping down of Cosgrove on saturday, old Bullnecks went up a bit in my estimations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 The article states that the investigation is going back to July 1st 1998. There are maybes about it, as he states they are the SPL's lawyers, and as such have acted on Rangers behalf before anyway. Were you complaining then? That has to be the most blatant piece of PR i've ever read from the ex Celtic view man, any lawyers used for the investigation should be free from claims of conflict of interest and hiring Celtics legal team smacks of gross negligence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Green has since then agreed to pay all footballing debts. The letter you quote agreed to do so from any monies owed by the SPL to Rangers .. there was none. .. this has been explained by all and sundry on here .. which bit is hard to understand? Green owes it pure and simple. A question you should be asking yourself. Going back through the last 24 hours posts it's clear that Tedi has taken the time to explain everything to you carefully, trying to make sure that you don't get confused and you understand it. Personally Tedi has far more patience than me, as i'd have told you do one long ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoist Must Stay Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I like this one, can we keep him If you really are a Rangers fan, then you are one of the few sensible ones around, certainly more sensible than 99% of the ones I know personally. Although backing Sally as manager kind of puts that sense into doubt somewhat, but all us non-orcs want him to stay too, so mair power tae ye! Unlike too many Rangers fans on here who care more about about glory (titles) and triumphalism (titles) i care about the long-term survival of the club. Most of the Rangers fans posting on this thread have given me the impression that they would much rather the new club cease to exist than have the old club admit its guilt and lose the titles that it is destined to lose anyway due to it breaking the rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 EBT's were legal (not illegal) during the 10 years that Rangers were using them if/when used correctly. Rangers did not use the EBT scheme correctly. There is a difference. No one has yet ruled our EBT implementation was incorrect. And so to you - Rangers fan? My arse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 No one has yet ruled our EBT implementation was incorrect. HMRC have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoist Must Stay Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 No one has yet ruled our EBT implementation was incorrect. And so to you - Rangers fan? My arse You really are a stupid little boy and are one of the reasons why i believe children should not be permitted to use the internet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 No one has yet ruled our EBT implementation was incorrect. And so to you - Rangers fan? My arse 100% certain that the HMRC have already ruled the use of EBTs to be improper and Rangers are appealing that to a tax tribunal. You sevconians really do look at the world in a weird way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Aww thanks Norman, I love you too <3 Where have u been pal, missed u I've got a life in the real world - you know, family, job, all that malarkey. How's things in Sevconia? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 So if Rangers had paid the tax bill then everything would have been ok? Better than OK, to be fair, because they would have died years before they actually did. Still, we'll make do with the currant situation (), because watching you lot squirm, deflect and deny while quoting your new prophet Traynor is a proper giggle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Rangers Then Rangers Now Rangers Forever....we'll see how long that pretence lasts when one of the creditory challenges them as a phoenix and wants bills paid. £120M in debt plus CG bought assets for a loan of £5.5M, still saying it is the same club with no debt. Yet they have a company called RFC 2012 PLC which is Rangers itself and thats why the SPL view RFC 2012 PLC as Rangers FC, plus title stripping will be on its way at October. And how many of the criteria do Sevco meet for the HMRC to go after them? INS45005 - Successor companies: Background: What is a successor company? For the purposes of this guidance successor companies (often called ‘phoenix companies’) are companies set up to continue the trade of the previous failed company with the same directors or company secretaries, often trading from the same business premises with the same assets and employees. The previous liquidated company and the successor company can be linked in several ways, but the following links are ones which may give a reason to consider whether the successor company and the previous company deserve further consideration: Are the directors the same or is there evidence that the directors of the previous company are connected with those of the successor company, or involved in its management? Is the successor company carrying on the same trade as the previous company? Are the employees the same? Is the trading or company name the same or similar? Are the trading premises the same? Did the successor company acquire assets from the previous company? Oh, its Pheonix Blue Nights right enough 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Did the English FA investigate Arsenal? No, because Arsenal weren't cheating the FA No, because Arsenal weren't paying players by metaphorical brown envelope. And if they were, it's not a sporting issue but a tax issue, and anyway... No, because Arsenal declared their players' contracts in full to the FA No, because the tax issue and the dual contract issue are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS, only linked in rangers' case by their following the tax evasion advice of a pornographer. Oh, and failing to understand how to implement said advice, moving the morally questionable into the legally wrong. So it's not just the fans who are stupid..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Except the SPL have already admitted that they cant punish the new company currently running Rangers Football Club, the condition attached to the transfer of membership (SFA) was that the new company accept existing punishments they have no jurisdiction or remit to apply new ones Before norman nabs me "yees norman I know that they also had to pay existing football debts" I have heard they are all now paid And there's a team plays down at ibrox swears they're rangers, But they're all liars and I'm not sure about you. (Sorry, Kirsty). Have you asked those nice Austrian lads about whether they've been paid? Chelsea? Man City? That 500k Charlie Boy boasted about went a long way, didn't it? It doesn't even cover what the tribute act owe in the UK. Oh, and it's "yes". Three fucking letters, ferchrissake. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) Remember the BBC interviewed CG, that he said that the "EBT investigation has got nothing to do with me and i don't listen to the fans at Ibrokes." Which gives a big conclusion that he's just here for the big money when the cludgie is title stripped and possibly expelled from the SFL. Linky Edited September 17, 2012 by Bairnforever1992 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagmaster Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Do you think the quality of the SPL (excluding the old firm) is better now than it was in 2004-2008? By this I mean teams like Hibs, Hearts, Motherwell etc? Yes I do, perhaps with the exception of Hearts so far this season! Also believe that Celtic has seen a drop in quality. Inevitably it has made for an interesting start to this SPL campaign. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I've got a life in the real world - you know, family, job, all that malarkey. How's things in Sevconia? And how is mother these days Norman? Same old ups and downs Norman, a couple of decent results at Ibrox then complete collapse away from home. We've a big game against QotS tomorrow, could be a tricky one with our in jury woes and McCoist not being very good at managing. 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.