beermonkey Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Just for the sevco clowns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) I didn't. I had one definition. Remember I asked: Should every indebted club be regarded as 'financial dopers'? Should clubs that, say, made a rights issue be described as 'financial dopers'? No-one has addressed these questions. OK I'm going to level with you ! YES ! every club that has debt could be called financial dopers by spending money that is not actually in the bank.Football is a business and has derivative value ie: with bums on seats/sponsorship & cup runs revenue.This is debt/financial doping is on record that the club uses against future sales & so on.Minimal doping level & legal. One other is the club taking on huge bank loans to buy high performing or world class players placing the club into possible financial ruin and future jeopardy.Medium doping level.This has now been declared illegal by UEFA for financial fair play. Also the other financial doping was the owner putting money into the club that the club did not earn as a franchise ie: the club ran up huge debts but the owner underwrit it by paying off the debts with his own money.Maximum doping level and legal. Rangers case is different to the above and the kind off doping and level of doping Murray implemented was off the record ie; he was the owner but was not stating in the clubs finances that he invested money into the club to pay players wages by using an offshore account by a dodgy pension fund scheme.Which would place it in the criminality section by TAX EVASION or AVOIDANCE ! depending on the BIG TAX CASE outcome. Edited September 18, 2012 by hellbhoy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 I didn't. I had one definition. Remember I asked: Should every indebted club be regarded as 'financial dopers'? Should clubs that, say, made a rights issue be described as 'financial dopers'? No-one has addressed these questions. No. Happy now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 I asked: Should every indebted club be regarded as 'financial dopers'? Should clubs that, say, made a rights issue be described as 'financial dopers'?. OK I'm going to level with you ! YES ! every club that has debt could be called financial dopers by spending money that is not actually in the bank. No. Happy now? Well thanks for the insightful replies - especially from Baxter. Good to know that Dundee fans have no truck with financial impropriety. Hellboy, you raised some decent points. I generally disagree but what you said is worthy of comment. I'll post back tomorrow night. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Well thanks for the insightful replies - especially from Baxter. Good to know that Dundee fans have no truck with financial impropriety. Hellboy, you raised some decent points. I generally disagree but what you said is worthy of comment. I'll post back tomorrow night. I made amendments to that statement as the owner can throw as much money into the club as he wishes too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 I see Tedi "thick as mince" Fivestars is on another reddie rampage again .. sorry but no greenies left to balance it out maybe someone else can assist ... Tedi in meltdown mode again as he realises he has been duped yet again ... I had a spare Greenie and rebalanced Claymores account . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Do you know what is really worrying here? I asked a very simply couple of questions and, bar 1, no-one can actually give a reasoned reply. Let me remind you. What I asked was: Should every indebted club be regarded as 'financial dopers'? Should clubs that, say, made a rights issue be described as 'financial dopers'? Can you explain what you actually mean by the term? Is it at all possible that you can even try to address my very sensible questions? I think my reply was pretty reasoned. I stated the term "financial doping" might not apply in rangers' case. The terms "stealing" and "cheating", however are entirely apposite. And "f**k off" isn't abusive like TBB isn't offensive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 http://leggoland2.blogspot.co.uk/ Rangers in racism row 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Rangers accounts, you say? The EBT scheme was declared in those every year. And your point is????????? The obligation is on the club to inform the footballing authorities of ALL contractual payments that are due to be made to a player when they register the player with the SFA. Unless I missed something, the annual accounts lists an amount of money paid to a renumeration trust for the benefit of certain employees. Not that it matters really but humour me and show me where the annual accounts list the amounts paid into the individual sub trusts that could only be used be individuals and who these individuals are. A simple analogy is that I file accounts every year for my company that lists wages, pension contributions, NI, water, gas etc. I still have to produce an individual tax return so that HMRC know exactly how much of that wages figure was paid to myself. I cannot not pay tax and then say - Well HMRC it's your fault cause I filed annual accounts that showed that the company was paying wages and you knew that I was an employee....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 What I asked was quite clear. It was, to remind you: "Laying aside the EBT and registration issues (which I'm happy to dicuss elsewhere) does 'financial doping' only apply to Rangers or to any club which has ever over-extended itself financially?" Itwazname made a sensible post to reply to my question. You, however, need to learn to read. Financial doping is just a current buzzword but I think in the sense that it is currently being used then it is more applicable to Rangers than other in debt clubs. I have a large amount of debt - my mortgage, car repayments, etc, but I'm currently servicing them and have the means to do so. Could I pay them back tomorrow if they were called in? No. But I don't deserve to be labelled as bankrupt because I have a mortgage. Most clubs have a mortgage, Rangers were bankrupt. Sorry but its the best analogy I can think of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 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. You haven't and you never will 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasda Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Pages and pages of stuff! The SPL investigation is about dual contracts, nothing to do with the legality or otherwise of EBT's or "financial doping" whatever that journalistic shorthand might mean. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) If that's how you define it then many Scottish clubs, if not most, are guilty of financial doping. It's not just Scottish clubs either and that is why UEFA brought in the financial fair play regulations, now clubs have to prove they are being run without financial doping or they do not get to enter UEFA competitions. It's just a shame your old club overdosed on the financial dope before they could sort themselves out. UEFA are starting to root out this form of cheating, it's hilarious that the self proclaimed "world's most successful club" were one of the first to go down the gurgler after the legislation took effect. You are, again, using my simple questions to vent about anything regarding Rangers. Let me post, again, what I asked. Should every indebted club be regarded as 'financial dopers'? Should clubs that, say, made a rights issue be described as 'financial dopers'? Can you explain what you actually mean by the term? These are not difficult questions. Why is it impossible to get a sensible reply? "Financial doping"? Are the clubs who dumped debt via CVAs (some of them more than once) guilty of "financial doping" too? (Just wondering.) Yes very much so but they managed to settle their debts. I have never once denied or deflected regarding our imprudence. Shame on you saying this. Not once have I failed to reply to a straight question on these threads. I asked about how to define, "financial doping'. No c**t has given me a serious reply. I had a comment back about 'criminality'. I, again, asked about that and no c**t has given me a serious reply. I will, thus, ask you to show you where I have deflected from anything. You were given the Collin's English dictionary definition of financial doping by itwiznaeme, you and bearwithme both asked if other Scottish clubs were guilty of this, I replied "very much so" now you are deflecting those answers away. You really are very poor at following the thread on here, how can you possibly follow all the information out there properly if you cannot even hold a conversation properly on an internet forum. Debating in the written medium is not like debating vocally, the quote button never lies. Edited September 18, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Kincardine managing to mire himself and others in pointless semantics yet again. Dear lord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Kincardine managing to mire himself and others in pointless semantics yet again. Dear lord. Is that another way of saying he's deflecting the conversation? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Financial doping is just a current buzzword but I think in the sense that it is currently being used then it is more applicable to Rangers than other in debt clubs. I have a large amount of debt - my mortgage, car repayments, etc, but I'm currently servicing them and have the means to do so. Could I pay them back tomorrow if they were called in? No. But I don't deserve to be labelled as bankrupt because I have a mortgage. Most clubs have a mortgage, Rangers were bankrupt. Sorry but its the best analogy I can think of. Presumably you aren't being paid through a dodgy tax-avoision scheme, either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Presumably you aren't being paid through a dodgy tax-avoision scheme, either. Not at all. My work are simply loaning me some money each month, although between me and you they have given me a letter saying they aren't ever going to ask for the money back. I actually can't afford my mortgage and car repayments but I'm going to buy a new TV and an iPhone this week anyway, whats the worst that can happen? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Presumably you aren't being paid through a dodgy tax-avoision scheme, either. Is that worse than "avoidance" but not as bad as "evasion"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Is that worse than "avoidance" but not as bad as "evasion"? I can never remember whether it's avoidance or evasion. Much like a common footballing cliche, in the end I did neither. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 I can never remember whether it's avoidance or evasion. Much like a common footballing cliche, in the end I did neither. If you "avoid" it you are a genius/social pariah (delete which ever is inapplicable) if you "evade" it you are a thief/it wasn't us it was Craig Whyte and David Murray (delete whichever is inapplicable). 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.