Jim McLean's Ghost Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I think you got the point regardless. This further response just proves my previous "abuse" to be correct. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Except your misquoting me and being your usual shining example of a total arsehole Arsehole perhaps, but at least he can spell Tedi, try improving your grammar and spelling. Will make your post(s) more easily understood. Edited November 28, 2012 by thelegendthatis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 This further response just proves my previous "abuse" to be correct. I'm pleased for you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Except your misquoting me and being your usual shining example of a total arsehole And I misquoted you ....where exactly? Arsehole - subjective opinion. No problem with your opinion. Liar - objective conclusion reached through the absence of any proof or substantiation. Any problem with that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 The one thing the SPL and SFA do state is that all contracts must be lodged and now Rangers have a legal ruling that backs up their claim about their handling of he paperwork. Is this actually the case? My understanding is that "all payments" must be lodged. The fact that some such payments have been deemed not taxable doesn't seem directly relevant. Rangers' legal ruling asserts that the EBT system was operated legally. It doesn't attempt to make any judgement on the appropriateness or otherwise of the paperwork required by football's governing bodies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Yes. Yes they can. I was around Ibrox the day Charlie was valuing the place - I knew because he had a scrap of paper, a pen and a calculator. He shouted at a guy in a hard hat that he couldn't be fucked with it anymore and that £80m 'will just have to do'. I knew there and then I'd be investing. The law takes priority over creditors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Genuine question time: What did Daly actually get factually wrong,even in the light of last week's ruling? He implied very strongly that EBTs were contractual and by taking statements out of context he hid the true content of the side-letters. If you look back in the thread to when the program aired T_S_A_R called him out on this. Daly also didn't give any weight to the possibility the Rangers scheme was legal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I thought you didn't want the real Rangers saved - I might have picked you up wrong from the previous 3972 pages but I thought you wanted the entire bigoted, cheating, triumphalist, stinking, sectarian outfit hung, drawn and quartered and sent to the firey pit for all eternity. Yeah, but Santa says I'm getting a bike...... I want them dead, make no mistake, but SS's suggestion means: 1. The creditors get (some of) their money back. 2. Fans of rangers don't have to live a lie. 3. Scottish football can take advantage of the OF stranglehold being broken to restructure the game as something more egalitarian. 4. The organisation at ibrox, and the rest of the clubs, can take this whole sorry saga as a warning, and run within their means. Unfortunately for the berrz, this means they'd have to get used to the idea of never getting that big-eared trophy, but chasing it killed the club, so prioritise time, maybe... Face it, they were never going to be allowed to die - not while they still have power and influence in the Scottish game. I just feel that this is a solution which could satisfy all sides, while not entirely pleasing any. Anyway, I still cannae find anything to pin on thae green buggers, for next year's saga.... BTW - that should be "fiery", but I kinda like the look of "firey"! -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Genuine question time: What did Daly actually get factually wrong,even in the light of last week's ruling? I believe Daly said we'd been using EBT's as wages and not as loans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 He implied very strongly that EBTs were contractual and by taking statements out of context he hid the true content of the side-letters. If you look back in the thread to when the program aired T_S_A_R called him out on this. Daly also didn't give any weight to the possibility the Rangers scheme was legal. ^^^^ Doesn't know what "factually" means. ^^^^ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 He implied very strongly that EBTs were contractual and by taking statements out of context he hid the true content of the side-letters. If you look back in the thread to when the program aired T_S_A_R called him out on this. Daly also didn't give any weight to the possibility the Rangers scheme was legal. I best remember the Sasa Papac example. Daly had evidence that Papac's pay had been reduced and when this was queried within Ibrox, someone confirmed that this was because he was instead being paid via the EBT scheme. I think Bain was involved in the correspondence, bit I could be wrong. Was there anything in the ruling to indicate that this wasn't a true portrayal of events? For me, any implication provided by this tale is utterly valid. That a legal technicality permitted a different interpretation, doesn't change that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 ^^^^ Doesn't know what "factually" means. ^^^^ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Now that the BTC has been settled, Rangers admitting to some wrong doing, Rangers being found to be liable in some cases and cleared in others, would Sevco fans be interested in pushing Green to do the right thing? Rangers have the opportunity to totally wipe the slate, to gain back their dignity, pride and club. All Chucky would need to do is to roll up at the meeting on 5th December and offer to buy the old club, take on it's debts (no massive tax bill now) and agree terms with the creditors who remain. No right minded person would argue against continuation then, as a club they would be Rangers in reality and not just their heads, all would be good. If "Rangers" fans are interested in justice would this not be the way forward? The oldco is being liquidated and as a result of this the club has been placed in div 3, lost most of it's players and lost money due to it. Buying the oldco back wouldn't reverse any of that so we'll stay where we are and continue the rebuilding. Plus we have £94 million still to pay HMRC © Mad Norman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Is this actually the case? My understanding is that "all payments" must be lodged. The fact that some such payments have been deemed not taxable doesn't seem directly relevant. Rangers' legal ruling asserts that the EBT system was operated legally. It doesn't attempt to make any judgement on the appropriateness or otherwise of the paperwork required by football's governing bodies. Well the trial didn't try to answer what payment meant as a legal term, that would be too broad and painful to deduce, but it did decide that 1. Money placed into a trust for the benefit of the player was not a payment to a player 2. Monies withdrawn by players were legitimate loans and not payments from the trust (taxable as personal income for the recipient) So in that sense Rangers never made any payments to players via EBTs. Edited November 28, 2012 by Jim McLean's Ghost 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 The oldco is being liquidated and as a result of this the club has been placed in div 3, lost most of it's players and lost money due to it. Buying the oldco back wouldn't reverse any of that so we'll stay where we are and continue the rebuilding. Plus we have £94 million still to pay HMRC © Mad Norman. We've been over that 94 million before, and it's only one of many things I and others have been wrong (so far) on. If only we could all be infallible while we sip our cocktails in Bar 67, Eh, Bennett? As you say, as a result of their behaviour, rangers are in liquidation. A new club is currently plying its trade in D3, where it was preferentially placed with disregard to due process. Obviously, you and the other rangers fans want to see rangers play at the top level again. Would you not rather it was rangers, rather than a facsimile club? Then you could talk about rebuilding, and returning, without everyone knowing it was a sham and that the new club will be playing in each division for the very first time as they rise through the divisions. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Again with the fucking cherry-picking! Whyte incurred those debts on behalf of rangers - certainly the HMRC debt, the Ticketus money will keep m'learned friends busy for a while yet - and as a Director, he was acting as an agent of the club. As an Executive, he was empowered to take desisions on behalf of the club, and did so. It is the club's debt, not his. The point SS was making, and which I agree, is that before liquidation is finalised, there is still a chance to save rangers. The rangers' fans frankly pathetic trumpeting of the Tribute Act as the same club may have muddied the waters, but if Charlie can come to a deal, and structure what is now a much lower debt (with much lower wages, to boot), rangers - the real rangers - could still be saved. Do their fans not want this? Whyte is under a police investigation re;his acquisition of the club and other financial transactions so there is no way that anyone other than him should be held accountable for his actions. HMRC are pursuing Whyte on this,do you seriously think that his actions deserve these debts being paid irrespective of what he has done by others. Sorry,people want creditors paid,then as far as i'm concerned it would only be the smaller creditors,it's called a compromise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Yeah, but Santa says I'm getting a bike...... I want them dead, make no mistake, but SS's suggestion means: 1. The creditors get (some of) their money back. 2. Fans of rangers don't have to live a lie. 3. Scottish football can take advantage of the OF stranglehold being broken to restructure the game as something more egalitarian. 4. The organisation at ibrox, and the rest of the clubs, can take this whole sorry saga as a warning, and run within their means. Unfortunately for the berrz, this means they'd have to get used to the idea of never getting that big-eared trophy, but chasing it killed the club, so prioritise time, maybe... Face it, they were never going to be allowed to die - not while they still have power and influence in the Scottish game. I just feel that this is a solution which could satisfy all sides, while not entirely pleasing any. Anyway, I still cannae find anything to pin on thae green buggers, for next year's saga.... BTW - that should be "fiery", but I kinda like the look of "firey"! I didn't think I had spelt it right but then I thought, "Naw, who could misspell fiery"?!! I was merely mischief making with my previous post, I wouldn't mind them being a continuation if they paid most of their debt instead of waddling away from it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Well the trial didn't try to answer what payment meant as a legal term, that would be too broad and painful to deduce, but it did decide that 1. Money placed into a trust for the benefit of the player was not a payment to a player 2. Monies withdrawn by players were legitimate loans and not payments from the trust (taxable as personal income for the recipient) So in that sense Rangers never made any payments to players via EBTs. There are leaps in your logic here. The ruling saw the money offered via EBTs as legitimate loans; as opposed to contractual wages. That doesn't mean they weren't payments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Whyte is under a police investigation re;his acquisition of the club and other financial transactions so there is no way that anyone other than him should be held accountable for his actions. HMRC are pursuing Whyte on this,do you seriously think that his actions deserve these debts being paid irrespective of what he has done by others. Sorry,people want creditors paid,then as far as i'm concerned it would only be the smaller creditors,it's called a compromise. If Craig Whyte had have taken the VAT and PAYE and stuck it in his hip pocket, then you'd probably have a case. But he didn't. He used it to fund Rangers' continuing business requirements. Rangers were the only beneficiary of an illegal act. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I believe Daly said we'd been using EBT's as wages and not as loans. Just watched a bit on YouTube for a quote. Speaking about Ronald Wattereus contract. "not only were the payments not descretionary but..." That is factually incorrect according to the court. 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.