Paquis Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 So you never read the blog and believe the pish that Charles Green putting up fantasy goals for you fans and trusting SDM in his bullish victory? If you are referring to Thomson's blog then, yes, I read it. Frankly, I don't think it is very good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 More selective reporting from the Ch4 bloke, i love he selects some parts, igonores others and then mixes it all together to meet his agenda. I actually had to check to see if that wasn't a spoof posted by bhairn, probably the worst case of cherry picking ever seen on the internet John Cravens Newsround has more credibility than Ch4 news. It really isn't very good. And I simply do not believe that HMRC have told him anything beyond that they are considering an appeal. With a possible police investigation into leaks, they are not going to be telling anyone anything right now. Neither do I believe he has spoken to any 'experts'. Otherwise he would have known that a majority decision is not sufficient cause for an appeal. Finally, he makes an error of fact right at the end: "Meanwhile the wider case for legislation on these loans looks even more overwhelming as the rest of us fork out more tax in return for spending cuts." Did nobody tell him that this already happened in the 2011 budget What a clown 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 It appears we won UEFA championship According to Dr Heidi Poon CA, CTA, PhD So far on according to some on P & B her findings have been the most relevant Wellshe states this on page 102 para 121 of her dissenting opinions 121. The occasion of Rangers winning the UEFA championship led to six sub-trusts being created for Mr Warwick, Mr Camden, Mr Islington, Mr Kensington, Mr Balham edit Paquis beat me to it Great minds think alike 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Institutional investors in Newco rangers. Crime links to bus tycoon are mere ‘gossip and conjecture’ Sandy Easdale, the convicted fraudster and one of Scotland’s biggest transport tycoons, has not been in trouble with the law for more than a decade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Is a typo in the text the best you can do? Probably fair just to concentrate on the bottom line facts then. Rangers weren't found innocent, but in fact guilty. Only not to the extent most had thought. That's guilty. Not innocent. The opposite of. HMRC served the tax demand. Rangers appealed. A diluted verdict was delivered. HMRC will probably appeal. Tables turned. This may take a while. The great unlikeables should probably keep their powder dry for a while yet. In the meantime you have your great adventure (which of course is where you actually (not really though)) want to be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Institutional investors in Newco rangers. Crime links to bus tycoon are mere 'gossip and conjecture' Sandy Easdale, the convicted fraudster and one of Scotland's biggest transport tycoons, has not been in trouble with the law for more than a decade. Pwopa nawty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Aye and you will continue to grasp at any straw you can get your grubby little mits on Why grasp at straws when there are so many undeniable facts to make sweet love to? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Why grasp at straws when there are so many undeniable facts to make sweet love to? I would leave your socks out of this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 1353952977[/url]' post='6844180']Is a typo in the text the best you can do? Probably fair just to concentrate on the bottom line facts then. Rangers weren't found innocent, but in fact guilty. Only not to the extent most had thought. That's guilty. Not innocent. The opposite of. HMRC served the tax demand. Rangers appealed. A diluted verdict was delivered. HMRC will probably appeal. Tables turned. This may take a while. The great unlikeables should probably keep their powder dry for a while yet. In the meantime you have your great adventure (which of course is where you actually (not really though)) want to be. And as I mentioned in another thread Rangers admitted that the majority of the EBTs were taxable and as a result these EBts were not taken I to consideration in the case they were only judged on about 20 of them ,it's like going to court for 50 cases of theft and saying yeah wellill admit 30 of these were theft but no that other 20 ,then not being found guilty on the 20 and going ...woohoo I won not guilty!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Oh come on, the vast majority of stuff we were accused of has turned out to be total and utter bollox with the accusers like the RTC running for the hills Not really. Most of, from what I know of what you were legally and administratively accused of has been proven true. With some major outcomes still to be decided. Only the intermediate verdict on how you are to be punished for tax evasion can give you solace. That admits all the facts, aside from the taxability, to be true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Two out of three judges ruled in our favour regarding the EBT's being loans. Get over it, no matter how you lot try to spin it, the judges ruled in our favour. Deal with it. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 And as I mentioned in another thread Rangers admitted that the majority of the EBTs were taxable and as a result these EBts were not taken I to consideration in the case they were only judged on about 20 of them ,it's like going to court for 50 cases of theft and saying yeah wellill admit 30 of these were theft but no that other 20 ,then not being found guilty on the 20 and going ...woohoo I won not guilty!! And yet Bennett and the Horde talk about cherry-picking - then again, they are the experts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 And as I mentioned in another thread Rangers admitted that the majority of the EBTs were taxable and as a result these EBts were not taken I to consideration in the case they were only judged on about 20 of them ,it's like going to court for 50 cases of theft and saying yeah wellill admit 30 of these were theft but no that other 20 ,then not being found guilty on the 20 and going ...woohoo I won not guilty!! You really need to stop making stuff up. There were 111 trusts of which 108 were actively used. 81 were for Rangers players and 27 for Murray Group employees (FTTT decision, para 96). The rest of your post is fiction and not very good fiction either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Two out of three judges ruled in our favour regarding the EBT's being loans. Get over it, no matter how you lot try to spin it, the judges ruled in our favour. Deal with it. What you mean is "two out of three judges ruled in our favour regarding the EBTs being loans in the cases where we hadn't already admitted they weren't." So why did rangers' representatives hold up their hands in the other cases? On a totally unrelated point, have they paid that shredder company their £444 yet? Because it looks like the bargain of the fucking century from where I'm standing! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Two out of three judges ruled in our favour regarding the EBT's being loans. Get over it, no matter how you lot try to spin it, the judges ruled in our favour. Deal with it. "all" or "some" EBT's? You (or someone - probably no-one) has been assessed as liable for tax due to the administration of EBT schemes. Guilty. If a man goes to court for murder but is found guilty of the reduced charge of manslaughter (in a plea bargain offered by his lawyers) can he claim a victory? Deal with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 What you mean is "two out of three judges ruled in our favour regarding the EBTs being loans in the cases where we hadn't already admitted they weren't." So why did rangers' representatives hold up their hands in the other cases? On a totally unrelated point, have they paid that shredder company their £444 yet? Because it looks like the bargain of the fucking century from where I'm standing! Norman just accept the judges decision and move on, ok for months now you have made an arse of yourself by believing everything that Irish Phil and the RTC Coward blogged but at the end of the day they were wrong. Now move on because no matter how you try to spin it, the result the always be the same. Rangers acted within the law. (This will do as a reply to that Shades guy too) -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 My link There's the link for transference of full SFA membership from oldco to newco,so the original full membership of the SFA from 1874 onwards carrries as before. Same membership,same club,same continuity. Transfer took place before formal liquidation. Edit too add,are you for real? There is absolutely nothing in that article your link provided stating that SFA Membership licence for the club was revoked. The order for liquidation came on the 14th of June after the CVA was rejected by the HMRC. At that point the SFA and SPL memberships were terminated with immediate effect because the club was to be liquidated.This is what is in the associations rulebooks defining a club when liquidation has been ordered on a member club. Rangers PLC or (Rangers FC in the SPL commission) ceased to be a club on that date the 14th of June when liquidation was immanent.It doesn't matter if the liquidation process wasn't in action but the fact that liquidation was going to happen that meant the licences were revoked or terminated with immediate effect. We should leave this till the SPL commission has given it's ruling. I wouldn't give too much to the MSM as they change their stories from day to day when trying to get viewers or mugs to buy the papers.Pre June 2012 Rangers are dead ! After June Rangers the club is separate from the company Rangers the club are definitely DEAD though but the clone lives Also I can't find the fucking rules and regulations on the official SFA website FFS coz it's a maze and won't let anyone see them ! does someone have a link to them ? PLEASE ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Brusch Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 This is what is in the associations rulebooks defining a club when liquidation has been ordered on a member club. Rangers PLC or (Rangers FC in the SPL commission) ceased to be a club on that date the 14th of June when liquidation was immanent. Do the associations in question struggle to use brackets correctly? And can the not spell "imminently"? If this is the case then anything they say will be met with a vote of no confidence I'd imagine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Norman just accept the judges decision and move on, ok for months now you have made an arse of yourself by believing everything that Irish Phil and the RTC Coward blogged but at the end of the day they were wrong. Now move on because no matter how you try to spin it, the result the always be the same. Rangers acted within the law. (This will do as a reply to that Shades guy too) Sorry that doesn't suffice as a reply to me. You (f**k knows who) have been found to have misused EBT trusts (in some cases) and are liable for tax on those sums. Is the above factual Bennett? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Norman just accept the judges decision and move on(1), ok for months now you have made an arse of yourself by believing everything that Irish Phil and the RTC Coward blogged(2) but at the end of the day they were wrong.(3) Now move on because no matter how you try to spin it, the result the always be the same. Rangers acted within the law.(4) (This will do as a reply to that Shades guy too) 1. I have - the whole decision. I suggest you do the same. It won't stop you making a complete c**t of yourself, but it may moderate the effect. 2. Except, eh, no I haven't, and neither has anyone else on here. 3. They were wrong in many things, equally they were right in many things. 4. Except they didn't, did they? Were they 100% exonerated? No they weren't. Did they hold their hands up to the charges where there was evidence? Yes they did. Did the two judges clear them because they thought they were inoocent? No they didn't. Did they clear them because they "had to"? Yes they did. 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.