Mason Boyne Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Correct - because rangers are dead. Today's inquest merely suggested that the suicide was perhaps unnecessary. HTH Raging , no matter what spin you put on it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 We've all got stuff wrong. That's what's been fun on here. And continues to be so. Because this clusterfuck isn't over. I'm sure you realise that, even if some of your, er, differently educated fellow bears are popping the champagne corks (alright, White Lightning). So at 21.34 you said, "Anyhoo, I'm off to have a proper look at that verdict document". At 22.00 you're back posting again. Now I know I am educationally challenged and semi-articulate but the legal document you made such a show of reading runs to 145 pages. It is just not possible for you to read that document in full and make sensible comments. Admit it. You just can't help posting about Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Boyne Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 So at 21.34 you said, "Anyhoo, I'm off to have a proper look at that verdict document". At 22.00 you're back posting again. Now I know I am educationally challenged and semi-articulate but the legal document you made such a show of reading runs to 145 pages. It is just not possible for you to read that document in full and make sensible comments. Admit it. You just can't help posting about Rangers. He's a p&b legal eagle though ! Where are rhemden etc ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Correct - because rangers are dead. Today's inquest merely suggested that the suicide was perhaps unnecessary. HTH All those clandestine meetings for nothing, all the digging and all the spying and you're still as clueless as ever 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 hmm... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) Wel I'll admit I didn't see that coming and I've suffered a little seethe over it. It doesn't really change a great deal, but I can see why it feels like a vindication for Rangers fans, undermining as it does, the 'tax dodgers' label. There was never any real debate about the morality of the scheme, but this ruling on its legality suggests that Rangers were fleecing their players and their representatives, just as much as the taxpayer. Materially, it should make no difference to the 'title stripping' debate at all. When Brechin and Spartans had results re-assessed in individual matches, it wasn't because they'd broken the law of the land, it was because they'd fielded players who weren't properly registered. By such logic, Rangers should still be denied trophies. However, I fear that this may knock the wind out of the commission and I wouldn't be surprised to see a climbdown. As to the claim that the thread has been redundant, that's ridiculous. The administration happened, as did liquidation, as did the Newco being rejected by the SPL and put in the bottom tier by the SFL. The fact that these things didn't necessarily have to happen doesn't alter that they did. HMRC aren't great at this football lark, are they? Edited November 20, 2012 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Oh we are, your every tear stained reply is exactly what I was looking forward to since this result became public 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Materially, it should make no difference to the 'title stripping' debate at all. When Brechin and Spartans had results re-assessed in individual matches, it wasn't because they'd broken the law of the land, it was because they'd fielded players who weren't properly registered. By such logic, Rangers should still be denied trophies. However, I fear that this may knock the wind out of the commission and I wouldn't be surprised to see a climbdown. the tribunal has found that the payments weren't contractual and that it wasn't even up to rangers whether or not they got the money. if the sfa rules of the time strictly prohibited employee benefit trusts then they should proceed. it seems unlikely that they did however and i don't see the spl or sfa going out on a limb legally if there is any chance of them losing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) So at 21.34 you said, "Anyhoo, I'm off to have a proper look at that verdict document". At 22.00 you're back posting again. Now I know I am educationally challenged and semi-articulate but the legal document you made such a show of reading runs to 145 pages. It is just not possible for you to read that document in full and make sensible comments. Admit it. You just can't help posting about Rangers. Nah, I'll admit I've been fighting with my fecking printer - one of the kids dropped some card down the back - not recommended HP-fodder. All better now - see you in the morning. ETA: Change of heart - it's emailed to work, the taxpayer can pay for the printing. Seems only fitting.... Edited November 20, 2012 by WhiteRoseKillie -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) Quick query. Listened to some of Sportsound while driving earlier, and saw the piece on Reporting Scotland just then. On the radio they said Rangers had been exonerated in a majority of players (or officials?) cases - but not in a minority of cases, where the paperwork was judged by 2 or all 3 of the tribunal to be sufficient evidence of contractuality. Has it been stated who those players were (if infact players)? Obviously, that would be relevant to SFA/SPL, but could those players also be pursued for some or all of the money? EDITED: for clarity Edited November 20, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian86 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 So Rangers were euthanised to avoid this tax liability. Turns out they could have survived... Only me that finds that even funnier? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Quick query. Listened to some of Sportsound while driving earlier, and saw the piece on Reporting Scotland just then. On the radio they said Rangers had been exonerated in a majority of players cases - but not in a minority of cases, where the paperwork was judged by 2 or all 3 of the tribunal to be sufficient evidence of contractuality. Has it been stated who those players were? Obviously, that would be relevant to SFA/SPL, but could those players also be pursued for some or all of the money? Was it definitely players? I'd have thought a similar method would have been used for them all. Even the managers could have been paid similarly - bonuses, performance-related, etc. The ones I reckon stand out are the ones like Murray, Ogilvie and any other directors. Oh, and wtf is the Souness on all about? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 So Rangers were euthanised to avoid this tax liability. Turns out they could have survived... Only me that finds that even funnier? Funny, yes. Funnier? That would be just mean...... So probably yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian86 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 And as for not fleecing the tax payer, Rangers were still avoiding tax, no matter the legal details of their chosen scheme. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Wel I'll admit I didn't see that coming and I've suffered a little seethe over it. It doesn't really change a great deal, but I can see why it feels like a vindication for Rangers fans, undermining as it does, the 'tax dodgers' label. There was never any real debate about the morality of the scheme, but this ruling on its legality suggests that Rangers were fleecing their players and their representatives, just as much as the taxpayer. Materially, it should make no difference to the 'title stripping' debate at all. When Brechin and Spartans had results re-assessed in individual matches, it wasn't because they'd broken the law of the land, it was because they'd fielded players who weren't properly registered. By such logic, Rangers should still be denied trophies. However, I fear that this may knock the wind out of the commission and I wouldn't be surprised to see a climbdown. As to the claim that the thread has been redundant, that's ridiculous. The administration happened, as did liquidation, as did the Newco being rejected by the SPL and put in the bottom tier by the SFL. The fact that these things didn't necessarily have to happen doesn't alter that they did. HMRC aren't great at this football lark, are they? Monkey, another decent post from you and I'm happy to give a few thoughts in reply. You rightly said, "It doesn't really change a great deal, but I can see why it feels like a vindication for Rangers fans, undermining as it does, the 'tax dodgers' label." We are still tax dodgers. Our admin was down to no payment of tax. However, we're not guitly of tax evasion - which was the basis of today's judgement. You also said, "Materially, it should make no difference to the 'title stripping' debate at all." I would disagree. The SPL could, of course, pursue us for the stripping of titles. This would show hubris in the extreme if they did so. You then said, "claim(ing) that the thread has been redundant, that's ridiculous. I made that claim and stand by it. I asked for the thread to be closed on the basis that its premise is flawed. My thread was locked and I haven't had any reply about that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Was it definitely players? I'd have thought a similar method would have been used for them all. Even the managers could have been paid similarly - bonuses, performance-related, etc. The ones I reckon stand out are the ones like Murray, Ogilvie and any other directors. Oh, and wtf is the Souness on all about? Well that was why I was asking really... from what I caught on the radio they said some cases had gone against them but they didn't say which people, plus they said the original loans themselves can only be repaid to the trust (although presumably the individuals could still be pursued for some of the tax?). But on Reporting Scotland they were talking about players and the liquidator - though again, no examples given. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 So Rangers were euthanised to avoid this tax liability. Turns out they could have survived... Only me that finds that even funnier? Um no. It's only you that's so stupid as to make such a post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 ^^^ The orc mentality! Seriously, are there really orcs that think that fans of Celtic or any other Scottish club are not literally laughing right now at this long ongoing comedy that is going on at Ibrox? 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.