bennett Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Maybe because it was an important part of the whole sorry saga? And to paraphrase your snide wee remark, you do realise that the FTTT did not rule entirely in rangers' favour, don't you? Maybe if you set aside your laptop for a few hours, made a brew, and had a read through that document, rather than regurgitate the selected snippets that suit your agenda, you might be able to a. Offer a bit more of an informed opinion, b. Gain a wee bit of respect as someone who cares a wee bit about his club rather than just insulting people, and c. Stop looking a twat when you DO try and join the debate. Just sayin', likes. Yes Norman i'm going to set aside my laptop to read an online article Cupid Stunt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 145 pages, what is wrong with you? Why would anyone waste their time reading that, especially when most of it is beyond the understanding of most people. You do realise that the FTTT ruled in our favour, don't you? I know carious bloggers ripped the pish out of guys like you but you need to let it go now and stop making a kunt out of yourself Because Benny if you actually read the document then you'd find out that the SFA has a completely different set of governing laws than UK government law to which the tribunal did not consider them because the SFA associations rules were created for the practice of fair play amongst it's members and the tribunal only ruled on tax avoidance.There a few technicalities that Rangers got off on when it came to the tribunal to which mean feck all when the SPL commission hold their hearing. The SPL commission held by Lord Nimmo will adhere to the associations rules only and is not subject to UK legal government law.So out the window goes the BTC result majority in favour of Rangers in 80 cases that got them off on a technicality.What you should be worried about is the cases MIH/MGRT has pleaded liability too ! were any of these cases Rangers players ? At the FTTT some of the players and their agents who were shittin bricks at the time because they thought they would be liable for tax due on these so called loans if the FTTT went against Rangers gave their lawyers their side letter/contract or letter of wishes as evidence MIH would pick up the bill if any tax due was incurred on their non payable loan.They also gave their lawyers their official club contract which show both the official contract and the side contract have the same date as well as the players signature as well as their agent plus Rangers boardroom members signatures.Why should these former players show loyalty to the club when they stood to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds if the FTTT went against Rangers ?. Yes Rangers got the FTTT in favour of not paying tax on the majority of cases ! BUT NOT ALL OF THEM,but the SPL commission will see all the evidence the FTTT had and also the evidence that was ruled out by the UK law because of some technical ruling because of a legal loophole and also the cases that MIH/MGRT pleaded guilty too around 30 of them.The SPL commissions job is to find out if Rangers broke the associations rules only to which it would appear as there are real side letters/contracts and evidence of contractual payments disguised as loans as set out in the side letters/contracts.Add in former players testimony when questioned by the police about the side letters/contracts claiming they were mandatory and needed their signature it would appear very certain that Rangers paid players bonuses by a third party out with the associations ruling guidelines and is subject to the associations guidelines on breaking the rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) I heard Off the Ball earlier. I liked a lot of Proctor said - especially about Thistle. I'd have said that you and The Caley Jags are about the happiest places to be in Scottish football right now. Hey Kincardine, despite our board's shameful antics in the summer, it's not too shabby to be a Queens fan right now either. 19 points clear at the top and still in that Ramsden's Cup thingy. Edited January 20, 2013 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Hey Kincardine, despite our board's shameful antics in the summer, it's not too shabby to be a Queens fan right now either. 19 points clear at the top and still in that Ramsden's Cup thingy. :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) Nothing is above Scottish law, the SFA found this out already. Being caught offside isn't actually illegal Tedi. However, it's been deemed to be against the laws of the game and football sanctions exist for it. So too with player registration issues. Edited January 20, 2013 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 I do not think the SPL have any rules for loans. If they make them up then I am sure Rangers will have legal recourse. Of course I am not a legal expert Me neither Ted, but I believe the SPL have rules relating to "payments of any kind". It's where these 'loans' fall into this phrase that seems to matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Because Benny if you actually read the document then you'd find out that the SFA has a completely different set of governing laws than UK government law to which the tribunal did not consider them because the SFA associations rules were created for the practice of fair play amongst it's members and the tribunal only ruled on tax avoidance.There a few technicalities that Rangers got off on when it came to the tribunal to which mean feck all when the SPL commission hold their hearing. The SPL commission held by Lord Nimmo will adhere to the associations rules only and is not subject to UK legal government law.So out the window goes the BTC result majority in favour of Rangers in 80 cases that got them off on a technicality.What you should be worried about is the cases MIH/MGRT has pleaded liability too ! were any of these cases Rangers players ? At the FTTT some of the players and their agents who were shittin bricks at the time because they thought they would be liable for tax due on these so called loans if the FTTT went against Rangers gave their lawyers their side letter/contract or letter of wishes as evidence MIH would pick up the bill if any tax due was incurred on their non payable loan.They also gave their lawyers their official club contract which show both the official contract and the side contract have the same date as well as the players signature as well as their agent plus Rangers boardroom members signatures.Why should these former players show loyalty to the club when they stood to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds if the FTTT went against Rangers ?. Yes Rangers got the FTTT in favour of not paying tax on the majority of cases ! BUT NOT ALL OF THEM,but the SPL commission will see all the evidence the FTTT had and also the evidence that was ruled out by the UK law because of some technical ruling because of a legal loophole and also the cases that MIH/MGRT pleaded guilty too around 30 of them.The SPL commissions job is to find out if Rangers broke the associations rules only to which it would appear as there are real side letters/contracts and evidence of contractual payments disguised as loans as set out in the side letters/contracts.Add in former players testimony when questioned by the police about the side letters/contracts claiming they were mandatory and needed their signature it would appear very certain that Rangers paid players bonuses by a third party out with the associations ruling guidelines and is subject to the associations guidelines on breaking the rules. On the loans, it's worth noting that even HMRC's lawyer told the tax tribunal that they are not a sham. As for any letters, naturally their effect depends on precisely what they say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Nothing is above Scottish law, the SFA found this out already. Pishflaps Tedi The SFA found out that Rangers will greet and moan about anything they don't like and go to court.The transfer embargo was not on the list of punishments but Rangers still took it up the arse anyway The SPL commission will see what EBT cases MIH/MGRT have already pleaded guilty of tax avoidance of before the BTC outcome ! we all wait with baited breath to which of these cases MIH/MGRT has tried to sweep under the carpet were there players in these cases MIH/MGRT have conceded that they were taxable income and have been ruled by UK government law to be bonuses paid to Rangers players ? Also Green has signed a 5 way agreement to accept any punishments for the oldco ! this is a contractual agreement Green cannot get out off So if there are some cases MIH/MGRT have conceded too that were Rangers players the list of punishments will hold no limits if implemented as within the associations rules and there's feck all Green can do about it a third of points deducted from Rangers accumulated in the SPL or a 25 or 30 point deduction to the newco ,,,, expulsion or suspension from the leagues ,,,,, fines accumulating to amounts of a million pounds each ,,,, suspension from the Scottish cup for a set amount of years ,,,, possible monetary recompense for revenue gained from fielding improperly registered players ,,,,, removal of titles and cups gained by fielding improperly registered players ,,,,, a lengthy ban from competing in European competitions ,,,, and branded cheats If the commission finds in favour of fielding improperly registered players by the laws of the association ! any of the listed punitive measures above can be implemented and there will be no law court in the land that can over rule them as they have been legally & lawfully implemented unlike the embargo was because the embargo was not on the list of punishments for the level of seethe Rangers committed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 On the loans, it's worth noting that even HMRC's lawyer told the tax tribunal that they are not a sham. As for any letters, naturally their effect depends on precisely what they say. Your quite right there BWM on the wording of the so called loans. But what is being overlooked by Rangers fans are the cases MIH/MGRT has pleaded liability too before the BTC was ruled on ! were there Rangers players cases in the list of cases admitted too ?. Does Sir Minty give a flying feck about Rangers now or was he minimising the amount of tax he had to pay by admitting to EBT cases he could not win because there was compelling evidence his briefs could not win ? I'm sure Sir Mintys lawyers went through all the cases and told him which of them he would not win and which to plead liability for before the BTC and these would then not be used in evidence against the ones MIH/MGRT were going to defend in court. Of the 80 odd they got in favour of have limited amounts of payouts ie they were one off's to the players or were in groups of two that showed no regular pattern and looked of a discretionary nature and legally could not be classed as a regular payment. Then we have the worst offenders who got regular yearly payments from the trust and these ones appear to have been admitted to by MIH/MGRT before the BTC as I can't find them on the list ! Murray himself as he took 700K plus out of the trust each each year totalling over £6 million as well as Barry Ferguson's case 5 payments off 500K over five years totalling £2.5 million and I'm sure there are others like these that MIH/MGRT knew they couldn't win so paid the tax due on them. So even though you feel you won the BTC the ones that were admitted too before the BTC could be the nail in the coffin to some titles and cups removed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Nothing is above Scottish law, the SFA found this out already. He'll find that out the hard way, posters like Hellboy are reading complex documents which they don't fully understand. Yet they continue to rely on the word of a handful of bloggers who have already discredited many times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Wrong. So your saying that if you commit too and sign a contract you can just legally break the contract then ? As far as I'm aware that if you sign a contractual agreement your bound by it in the court of law !. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) Yes Norman i'm going to set aside my laptop to read an online article Cupid Stunt Hmm, neither Bennett nor his favourite rep-giver have heard of printers..... Anybody know what PDF stands for? Edited January 20, 2013 by WhiteRoseKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 He'll find that out the hard way, posters like Hellboy are reading complex documents which they don't fully understand. Yet they continue to rely on the word of a handful of bloggers who have already discredited many times. you appear to have a better and far more advanced knowledge base on the laws of association football and the complexities of the UK government laws than me ! Tell me swami in your all knowing universe how the SPL commission will pan out in favour of Rangers ? But I can tell the difference from associations football rules and UK government law Your logic Benny is ! we got a favourable BTC outcome and that is it let's just sweep the cases MIH/MGRT pleaded guilty too under the carpet and forget about it ! I don't think that's how the commission will see it Benny ! if any Rangers players case has been plead guilty too then it will become evidence in the SPL commission ! I'm pretty fucking darn certain that's how it works. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Hmm, neither Bennett nor his favourite rep-giver have heard of printers..... Anybody know what PDF stands for? Yes i'm going to print out a145 pages Norman. Lunatic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Your entire point was wrong, there is no signed agreement to accept new punishments, you are making this up. a truly 5 star answer Tedi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Hmm, neither Bennett nor his favourite rep-giver have heard of printers..... Anybody know what PDF stands for? Pretty Darn Fucked maybe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 He'll find that out the hard way, posters like Hellboy are reading complex documents which they don't fully understand. Yet they continue to rely on the word of a handful of bloggers who have already discredited many times. What are they fucking like! Much better to ignore documents pertaining to the case and throw insults at anyone who doesn't worship rangers, eh? Which blog did the FTTT verdict document appear on, then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 What are they fucking like! Much better to ignore documents pertaining to the case and throw insults at anyone who doesn't worship rangers, eh? Which blog did the FTTT verdict document appear on, then? Norman put a bit more effort in to your next cast, thats pretty insulting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Boyne Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Hmm, neither Bennett nor his favourite rep-giver have heard of printers..... Anybody know what PDF stands for? Pretend Diddy Fan ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 You said; Also Green has signed a 5 way agreement to accept any punishments for the oldco ! this is a contractual agreement Green cannot get out off You made this up, there is not much else I can say. I don't know about you but i cringe with embarrassment everytime Hellboy posts. The more that he pretends to be in the know, the more he's making an absolute kunt out of himself. 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.