WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 If you have plenty of money to drag this through the courts, then why wasn't that money used to save your old club? What legal wizzardry do you intend to use? Other than the obvious emotional ones i.e. we are ra peeple. Also, FIFA is not gonna be happy when they see a bunch of seething zombies take legal action over something which should be relatively meaningless to them. The fact is your team is in no postition to make threats or demands to anyone and will have to accept whatsevers coming their way. Do those no-win no-fee chaps advertise on Rangers TV? Maybe they could work out some kind of deal... Nah, silly me, there's a reason they advertise as no-win, no-fee, isn't there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 its the rangers way... 8000 posts in 6 months from 6 posters, very few willing to enter into discussion on any topic. Bad day for you Dave. You agree that more than 90% of this thread's bile comes from the Ds&Ps. Oh and please don't try and issue a challenge about what we can discuss. Many of us are willing to enter honest debate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magoo9uk Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I'll type this slowly, Tedi, because I know you can't read very fast: I like facts. These are not facts. They are lies, Tedi. Understand? Lies. And by repeating them, when someone has pointed them out as lies, tars you with the same brush as the scum who post on here as rangers fans, sadly trying to validate their lives when the "institution" which has defined them since birth is no more. Throwing abuse at those who disagree with your worldview may be fun when you're at the top table - when you're new club is in the basement it merely makes you look like petulant, foulmouthed brats. I particularly like the "trying to validate their lives" part. Delicious irony from P & B's number 1 Rangers obsessive. :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I particularly like the "trying to validate their lives" part. Delicious irony from P & B's number 1 Rangers obsessive. :-) The "obsessive" patter is so 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I particularly like the "trying to validate their lives" part. Delicious irony from P & B's number 1 Rangers obsessive. :-) What I especially liked was him castigating Tedders for repitition and then repeating 'lies'. Does saying 'lies' twice make them bigger and better lies? Oh and I also liked the 'tar' comment. Does that make him a tarrer? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Dave says it is ok to speculate. Dave's not the boss of me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I would disagree with this as all I did was ask a question. In all honesty I don't believe any titles should be stripped as the players acheivements should not be taken away from them. They won on the pitch and that's all that matters really. Yes they won them on the pitch but they fielded better players than they otherwise could have afforded. Imagine a weakened Rangers team against a full strength Motherwell or any other SPL side if they didn't use EBT's,they most certainly would not have won all of the games they narrowly scrapped by.They probably would have not have won as many cups and titles if they did not use EBT's. It's also Rangers not playing by the rules either which breaks sporting integrity by using methods which were dodgy to gain a superior edge over their opposition effectively buying the league with money they should not have had if they played by the associations rulebook. I won't accept that Murray could have paid the players the full wages either without using EBT's,the simple fact that he didn't pay them by the rulebook says he did not have the money and Rangers had a fixed budget that was stated in their accounts. Rangers were cheats plain and simple !. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Bad day for you Dave. You agree that more than 90% of this thread's bile comes from the Ds&Ps. Oh and please don't try and issue a challenge about what we can discuss. Many of us are willing to enter honest debate. To be fair, Kincardine, while 90% or so of the input on here comes from non-rangers fans, a much higher bile-post ratio is evident in the contributions from one team. Can you guess which one? You are normally up for a sensible debate, and will adapt your cut and thrust to the matter at hand. I have had some quite robust exchanges with yourself over the months, and believe me when I say I respect you for your loyalty to your team, and the respect you show to other posters. Unfortunately, you are in no way representative of the rangers fans on here. Whether it's Bennett and his wee acolytes, or the "pop-up orcs" that have been coming and going in recent months, they seem to delight in the stereotype which they deny. Their biggest failing is their inability to criticise their fellow rangers fans, even when they are overstepping the bounds of decent behaviour. Please don't fall into that trap, as I'm sure that you, at least, would never associate with the likes of Carlito, Ally88 and the rest in real life. Apologies if this seems somewhat sycophantic, but with Youngsy going quiet, we could do with a sensible poster to put the rangers view across. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Dave says it is ok to speculate. We speculated, you confirmed it. No, Tedi, I didn't. You and your wee mates simply carried on constructing an "amusing" fantasy in an attempt to discredit me. So, can you show me where I have confirmed any of these statements? No you can't. Because you're a liar. Even if I give you a pass on your months of bollox, the post I've quoted here is a lie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Bad day for you Dave. You agree that more than 90% of this thread's bile comes from the Ds&Ps. Oh and please don't try and issue a challenge about what we can discuss. Many of us are willing to enter honest debate. not at all.... about 90% of posts come from non rangers fans.... certainely 10% of ALL posts have come from only 6 people, and pretty much all in the last 6 months. put it this way, whilst non rangers fans have freely discussed permeatations, possibilities and potential outcomes of this sorry debacle which has disgraced scottish football, only a couple of rangers fans entered any discussion before July, and even then i wouldn't say that any were posting with regular occurance. However, since July, a drastic increase in Rangers fans have began posting on here. quite a few posting on average 20+ posts a day! the majority of which make no effort to enter into discussion or debate. i am happy for all rangers fans to discuss any aspect on this thread..... but lets be honest, it would take a huge change of mindset for most rangers fans to suddenly start treating this thread as a point of discussion! i will happily agree that a couple of rangers fans are willing to debate. some, the most vocal and those who shout the loudest, use this thread as some sort of extension of the old firm forum, where abuse and oneupmanship was part and parcel. i think a lot of rangers posters have been used to the old firm forum where opposition supporters basically start threads slating the opposite team with point scoring the order of the day. and have taken their attitude and posting style from that forum and used it on here. completely missing the point that this is a forum for discussion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Any luck with that associate SFA membership yet HB? are you sucking it right up? Ah I see your still being a fud by changing peoples posts in your replies Let me see ! I still got it right that Rangers couldn't vote on reconstruction ! which was the point I made to you but you can't help being a fanny though trying to make yourself smarter than you actually are on P&B. Tedi when I get things wrong I'll admit to it and then move on but not you ! you can't help making a complete fud out of yourself by maintaining a position you can't get out off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) He operated a legal tax avoidance scheme, this is what allowed him to pay these wages Celtic had a similar wage bill but just did not play as well on the pitch, plain and simple. so it wasn't a loan? Did he make the governing body aware of this method of payment of wages via a second route? Edited to add: i do not sit a desk along from Dhenboy at work, thats just spooky!!! Edited January 16, 2013 by dave.j 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 i think a lot of rangers posters have been used to the old firm forum where opposition supporters basically start threads slating the opposite team with point scoring the order of the day. and have taken their attitude and posting style from that forum and used it on here. completely missing the point that this is a forum for discussion. Dave - you're living in fairyland where all the good guys are Ps&Ds and all the bad guys are Bears. I've had enough ad hominem attacks this past year to know this is true. The truth is that there is too much personal abuse and too little discussion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 So it wasn't a loan after all .. fcuk me Tedi get your story right .. you are imaginative though. :lol: Were these wages declared to the SPL? Not to mention an off-beat whimsical fantasist. With this incredible ability to tie himself in knots, surely a Circus career beckons? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 He operated a legal tax avoidance scheme, this is what allowed him to pay these wages Celtic had a similar wage bill but just did not play as well on the pitch, plain and simple. ? WTF ? seriously Tedi ! you keep banging on about the lawful legality whilst we are discussing the the commission's view on the dodgy tax avoidance method. We are now on the SFA's rulebook on whether Rangers cheated or not,it has feck all to do with the law courts here. Under the SFA's and SPL's rulebooks as it stands and it's the associations rules on fair play and sporting integrity and not the legal systems loophole approach,did Rangers pay players bonuses that were not shown in their accounts ? The BTC outcome isn't in question here but have Rangers broken the rules they agreed to play by as a member. The commission will use the associations rulebooks to the letter and will include witnesses for and against Rangers in the quest to find out if Rangers cheated the opposition. And I hope the HMRC win their appeal just to pish you off 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Dave - you're living in fairyland where all the good guys are Ps&Ds and all the bad guys are Bears. I've had enough ad hominem attacks this past year to know this is true. The truth is that there is too much personal abuse and too little discussion. You've got that right - although you have to admit Dave has a point regarding the "OF Forum" attitude spilling over into this area. Specifically the inability of some to shed the "not one of us, must be one of THEM" mindset. It gets fucking tedious, and it's insulting to boot. As many have pointed out, if we wanted to follow either Cheek, we would. BTW, will you not get in trouble for using Latin? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 So it wasn't a loan after all .. fcuk me Tedi get your story right .. you are imaginative though. :lol: Were these wages declared to the SPL? Feck me Dhenny I missed that wee nugget there I think Tedi is about to have another meltdown again So Tedi says that Rangers paid players wages by the EBT method ! great work Tedi definitive proof Rangers cheated straight from the horses mouth So we all know that Rangers fans know Rangers cheated but want to be fuds about it as Tedi's mask slipped off for a couple of seconds and revealed the real truth 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Ah back to your usual posting style, pleasing You made something up, got corrected and dug yourself a deeper hole and made a kunt out of youself, congratulations. You just made up some more stuff, you never mention the vote on reconstuction in your 1st post, you introduced it to try and dig yourself out of a hole in your second post. I admit my mistakes Tedi ! but got right that Rangers couldn't vote on reconstruction but you just missed that out didn't you and that Rangers were an associate member somewhere. So tell me again that Rangers paid their players wages by EBT 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 He operated a legal tax avoidance scheme, this is what allowed him to pay these wages Celtic had a similar wage bill but just did not play as well on the pitch, plain and simple. It is my understanding that all payments were declared yes. So, all payments were declared, and the tax avoidance scheme made these payments possible. Is that what you're saying here? If so, where do the "loans" come into it, which (for the moment) allowed rangers off the hook in the BTC? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 It is my understanding that all payments were declared yes. From my blunder about Rangers being an SFA associate member to Tedi's epic fuckup here classic :lol: :lol: The LOANS TEDI were not declared in the accounts,only that money was being paid into the trust and how much. 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.