Guest Kincardine Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 The ''main'' prediction was that Ran@ers would die...........that happened We are dead. 107,100 posts about us confirm this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 They were not privy to the evidence of the players and agents that testified the payments were part of the contract for their wages. What part of that do you not understand? Ah here we have it. HMRC would have arrived at a different conclusion over a several-year investigation if they had listen to Billy Dodds? Is this the straw that you're grasping? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 This was exactly what The FTTT examined. ie were the payments part of a contract or were they discretionary and reoverable advances. The FTTT rulded in our favour. If The 3 Monkies of The SPL arrive at a different conclusion then I'd be amazed and call foul. The first part of your post is correct. The FTTT came to the conclusion that the payments constituted loans. The second part however, requires a gigantic leap. The SPL monkeys can happily agree on the loans front, but then decide that titles must be stripped because players weren't properly registered to compete. That's why clubs have had Cup tie results overturned. I wish - repeatedly - that you'd stop pretending to misunderstand this demonstrably simple point Kincardine - why won't you acknowledge it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 The first part of your post is correct. The FTTT came to the conclusion that the payments constituted loans. The second part however, requires a gigantic leap. The SPL monkeys can happily agree on the loans front, but then decide that titles must be stripped because players weren't properly registered to compete. That's why clubs have had Cup tie results overturned. I wish - repeatedly - that you'd stop pretending to misunderstand this demonstrably simple point Kincardine - why won't you acknowledge it? The whole point of the FTTT was only on whether the trust was avoiding tax and that's about it,it wasn't whether Rangers had improperly registered players because that's the SPL's commissions job now. If any of the players EBT's MIH admitted to before the BTC was declared as a taxable bonus then players have been paid out with the associations rules and will automatically become a 3 point deduction for each game played by them. Murray has sold Rangers on and will be no concern to him whatever as he runs MIH now and probably does not care whatever the commission does. The commission is not a kangaroo court and will show in it's minutes later what evidence if any has lead to titles being stripped from the footballs history books for Rangers.If any of the former players EBT's have been declared bonus payments before the BTC it will definitely mean that Rangers have improperly registered players and will fall subject to the associations rules of punishments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Based on a tic blog IMO, or at least that is the excuse he will use when its pointed out how utterly impossible his suggestion is. And you can fcuk right off ya dodo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 They were not privy to the evidence of the players and agents that testified the payments were part of the contract for their wages. What part of that do you not understand? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Based on a tic blog IMO, or at least that is the excuse he will use when its pointed out how utterly impossible his suggestion is. Apparently they have a new seer who has started posting on here under the guise of Tam Payne and he knows things 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Apparently they have a new seer who has started posting on here under the guise of Tam Payne and he knows things Ben generalising again 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 The second part however, requires a gigantic leap. The SPL monkeys can happily agree on the loans front, but then decide that titles must be stripped because players weren't properly registered to compete. That's why clubs have had Cup tie results overturned. I wish - repeatedly - that you'd stop pretending to misunderstand this demonstrably simple point Kincardine - why won't you acknowledge it? I understand this point perfectly well. I just do not see how we could register discretionary and recoverable non-contractual advances. To make it simple, how could we lodge a contract about payment when that payment wasn't part of a contract? If there is any sanity amongst The Three Monkeys then they will return a verdict that says The SPL's rules weren't designed to cover this case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 The whole point of the FTTT was only on whether the trust was avoiding tax and that's about it,it wasn't whether Rangers had improperly registered players because that's the SPL's commissions job now. If any of the players EBT's MIH admitted to before the BTC was declared as a taxable bonus then players have been paid out with the associations rules and will automatically become a 3 point deduction for each game played by them. Murray has sold Rangers on and will be no concern to him whatever as he runs MIH now and probably does not care whatever the commission does. The commission is not a kangaroo court and will show in it's minutes later what evidence if any has lead to titles being stripped from the footballs history books for Rangers.If any of the former players EBT's have been declared bonus payments before the BTC it will definitely mean that Rangers have improperly registered players and will fall subject to the associations rules of punishments. I honestly don't know if the outcome's as clear cut as you suggest. The point however, is that the commission will be examining player registration. Nothing could have interested the FTTT less. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 The guy from the bigot Andy Muirhead`s website Scotzine? Yeah him. Who the "they" are who think he's a seer remains a mystery though.* * bennett's talking mince. Mystery solved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 The guy from the bigot Andy Muirhead`s website Scotzine? Thats the one, he's on the old firm board doing his stuff 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Thats the one, he's on the old firm board doing his stuff Who's "they"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) I understand this point perfectly well. I just do not see how we could register discretionary and recoverable non-contractual advances. To make it simple, how could we lodge a contract about payment when that payment wasn't part of a contract? If there is any sanity amongst The Three Monkeys then they will return a verdict that says The SPL's rules weren't designed to cover this case. There's a part that talks about "all payments to players, including those from a third party", or something very similar. For me, it's entirely to do with how the EBTs fall into this. Despite what Bennett says we all do, I don't claim any expertise or insight in such areas. That's why the decision is left to those who do. I suspect you may be right about the verdict to be reached, but I think this direct parallel you draw between what the FTTT found, and what the SPL Commission must find, is flawed. I also suspect that you'd be less keen on this 'parallel', had the FTTT found differently. Edited January 19, 2013 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Whoosh n that See, thats fucked it up so it has. WKR will be gutted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 What is it with all these Celtic bloggers and their need to hide behind website`s proclaiming to be Scottish Football information sources? The Scottish Football Monitor The Rangers Tax Case Scotzine Phil McMadeupName Scotslaw and the disgraced lawyer All Celtic fans, all pretending to have websites covering things they rarely ever touch on, what is wrong with admitting the team you support and being up front about your subject matter? Don't know. Don't care. I just wondered who bennett thought this Tam Payne guy was the seer for when he said "they". You know bennett? Party line toeing bennett? My teeth are itchy with aw the irony. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 See, thats fucked it up so it has. WKR will be gutted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 I honestly don't know if the outcome's as clear cut as you suggest. The point however, is that the commission will be examining player registration. Nothing could have interested the FTTT less. Some of the EBT payments were admitted too weren't they ? Now in the case of Barry Ferguson he got £2.5 million over 5 years split into 5 payments of £500,000 a year.It would appear to anyone looking at that they are not discretionary are they and are regular bonuses ?. If Murray has admitted to that particular case then the SPL commission will see this as Barry Ferguson receiving bonuses out with the associations rules as the HMRC would have already deemed it taxable bonus income even without the side letter.This would then make Barry Ferguson an improperly registered player. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 They were contractual and the payments were expected Then we'd have been found guilty by the FTTT. This was the crux of their failed case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 I also suspect that you'd be less keen on this 'parallel', had the FTTT found differently. Not at all. Had we'd been found guilty by The FTTT then I'd have expected us to be battered by The SPL patsies for exactly the same reason. They now have the task of either stating 1. we have no case to answer or 2. in defiance of all common sense we are culpable of 'something' but they aren't quite sure what that 'something' is. 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.