SS-18 ICBM Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 you must be hof pissed at least there Tedi ! where you been ? watching the neighbours having sex ? We have found out here on P&B that side letters were found in a police raid in London that were presented at the FTTT as evidence of tax avoidance ! This info is from the official government website for Rangers FTTT have a look for yourself on page 119 Official government release on Rangers FTTT ruling Yes i'm going to print out a145 pages Norman. Lunatic. Dennis ,the page that hellbhoy referred to in his post would have been sufficient, but then i shouldn't expect a man of your low intellect to be aware of that simple fact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 We're making an absolute kunt out of my selves. Aye Dennis, we know you are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 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. This would be your opportunity to post something with evidence contrary to the information I have posted to which you have not and have just used typical Benny deflection,ignore and rubbish the posters post without actually providing anything that says you are right and I am wrong ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 This would be your opportunity to post something with evidence contrary to the information I have posted to which you have not and have just used typical Benny deflection,ignore and rubbish the posters post without actually providing anything that says you are right and I am wrong ! Regurgitated views (which you don't understand) from various bloggers and reading documents which are way over your head, is not giving us information. You're usually a decent enough poster when it comes to normal banter but you need to give this fixation a rest. Do your own thing and stop trying to copy young Dhensboy of all people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Kiera Knightly is a munter Well, I wouldn't get off even for a shite 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncolegrady Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 ^^^^ Drastic. Bombastic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Regurgitated views (which you don't understand) from various bloggers and reading documents which are way over your head, is not giving us information. You're usually a decent enough poster when it comes to normal banter but you need to give this fixation a rest. Do your own thing and stop trying to copy young Dhensboy of all people. It is a nightly occurence now, even bloggers who read this site must be cringing when they see their material used in such a way. OK you 2 ! post something that says your right and I'm wrong ! You must know more than me because you 2 seem to be continually saying I'm wrong all the time without actually evidence that you are right. Both of you continually claim the SPL commission will get booted out in court if they impose punishments ! do you care to supply your outstanding wisdom in your ideology ! I mean you two must be law experts to claim the SPL commission is illegal in it's intent ! do supply these UK laws that you seem to be well versed in that the SPL commission is illegal and if it is illegal then why is it being chaired ? I have posted my understanding of the FTTT release and I'll be honest it is a bit confusing with Mr Colour and Mr Placename ! but I feel I just the jist of it. MIH/MGRT were initially billed for taxes on 110 cases there about and MIH/MGRT then appealed ! would I have got that correct ? Of the 110 cases MIH/MGRT pleaded guilty too around 30 before the BTC ! would that be correct also ? So we have a 80/30 split on all the EBT cases ! would that be correct ? It doesn't look like MIH/MGRT won all the cases ! would that be correct ? But they did win 80 of the cases ! would that be correct ? So by your logic the 30 odd cases MIH/MGRT pleaded guilty too shouldn't be shown to the SPL commission ! that is not correct ! I am no legal expert but I think I have a better understanding of the law than you two ! or if I am not then you two are just being a pair of cnuts just because you can be and the WUM factor you present on this thread is only just to piss people off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 There is no signed contract for future punishments, this is just something you made up. The SPL has reserved its position in relation to the on-going investigation into employee benefits trusts Tedi what do you think that statement actually means ! it's the club that will receive any punishments from the ongoing investigation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 It means exactly what it says, CG wanted the SPL to stop the investigation, the SPL refused, this statement means they reserved right to continue the investigation, not at any point did Green sign any contract saying he would accept retrospective punishments, you are simply making this up. The SPL also wanted Rangers to give up their right to appeal, Rangers refused. Now let me get my head around this Tedi ! If the SPL commission finds in favour of the SPL and the SPL then decide to give punishments out to the club for fielding improperly registered players,you feel the club should not accept any fines,bans,points deductions or removal of cups and titles as a direct result of fielding improperly registered players ? Would that be a correct view on your way of thinking on the SPL commission ? I mean winning the Scottish cup by fielding improperly registered players will then involve the SFA then seeing as it's their cup competition and then directly involve the SFL as well with the League & Scottish Cups !. So we will have 3 organisations that will be directly affected by Rangers fielding improperly registered players,the SPL the SFA and the SFL.It's not just the SPL that is going to hand out punitive measures here as the SFA will also have been affected by improperly registered players by Rangers winning the Scottish Cup. Why in your opinion Tedi would Rangers not accept punishments if you claim to be the very same club ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 I think you could argue that legally loans are not payments. This where I think the SPL case will fall down, the SPL will have to declare that these loans were payments in order to find them guilty and then punish. If Rangers can create a legal argument to the contrary then the SPL are pretty fucked, I believe the SPL already know this, the unknown part, is the few that Rangers did admit, what were these for and to whom? You might be right. Would you therefore envisage a scenario whereby only some of the titles won during the period are stripped? ie those in which a limited number of players with taxable EBTs participated. And would you consider this fair? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 You might be right. Would you therefore envisage a scenario whereby only some of the titles won during the period are stripped? ie those in which a limited number of players with taxable EBTs participated. And would you consider this fair? To add to this - as well as the titles, there's the prize money. Would the rangers fans accept a financial penalty? Bearing in mind that most cases of incorrect registration involve single or few appearances by individual players, what would be deemed a fitting punishment for repeated and multiple offences? C'mon, Amigos, what do you think? Opinions please..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 The 3 amigos ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 The 3 amigos ! Yer a strange one, HB... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 This is just common sense HB, if the SPL take the decision to hand out punishments and Rangers disagree with these punishments then they are perfectly within their right to appeal. 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, the 5 way agree never contained any contractual agreement to accept future punishments, the SPL are free to continue the investigation, Rangers are free to appeal. If your correct then why was Green held to ransom to have a conditional licence first ? as far as I'm aware he signed off to get a licence at any cost from the SFA itself and had to sign an agreement to be held liable for all the oldco's footballing debts as well as any pending punishments. It's not just the SPL that's going hammer Rangers the SFA have the right to strip you off Cups as well ! it's not rocket science. So if a club is found guilty of fielding improperly registered players they should get off Scot free as far as your concerned ? you just know Green is going to use the we are a brand new club clause here but the cups and titles are still ours no matter what. Seriously here Tedi ! what do you think should be the correct course if Rangers are found guilty of fielding improperly registered players for 10 years ? go on tell me what you think should be the right punitive measures for a club who systematically fielded improperly registered players for 10 years ? I mean that's not just one player in one game because this will be multiple players over a decade FFS if found guilty !. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Yer a strange one, HB... I'm sure that's how they celebrated their hard earned one nil victory over 10 men at Peterhead like they just beat Man Utd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 No I do not consider this to be fair, the trophy`s were won on the pitch, I am beginning to think the SPL will not entertain this type of punishment. If any guilt is proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the appeal fails, then I think a monetary fine is the only feasible way for the SPL to go, its uncomplicated and also puts something back into the game, everything else brings nothing but bags of bad feeling from all sides without any gain. Personally I think the SPL will drop the case using the reason 'not enough evidence'. If Rangers had lost the FTTT then it would be easy for the SPL to class these loans as contractual payments, it did not happen the SPL do not have much of a case left. Again I am no legal expert, it is only an opinion. I'm no legal expert either Tedi but please do the maths here with me. There were over 110 EBT cases before the BTC ruling but only 80 odd went to the FTTT to be ruled on. 30 of these EBT cases were settled out with the FTTT as MIH paid the tax due on them. Then the FTTT ruled a favourable outcome on these 80 odd cases only. What and who were the other 30 cases settled out of court ?. These cases that were settled if they are players will be shown to the SPL commission as evidence of a taxable income and did they come with side letters/contracts during the police investigation ? Has MIH settled on the EBT cases that MIH knew they could not win ?. Just because MIH won 80 odd EBT cases it does not mean that Rangers got off Scot free if some or most of the 30 settled EBT cases involve former players.These will be most certainly used in the SPL commission if players were involved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 To add to this - as well as the titles, there's the prize money. Would the rangers fans accept a financial penalty? Bearing in mind that most cases of incorrect registration involve single or few appearances by individual players, what would be deemed a fitting punishment for repeated and multiple offences? C'mon, Amigos, what do you think? Opinions please..... Which players were incorrectly registered Normn? A bit more detail please... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Green flexing his muscles to the overawed Ibrox minions as a show of defiance to the corrupt institutions that are apparently Rangers enemies 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 I'm no legal expert either Tedi but please do the maths here with me. There were over 110 EBT cases before the BTC ruling but only 80 odd went to the FTTT to be ruled on. 30 of these EBT cases were settled out with the FTTT as MIH paid the tax due on them. Then the FTTT ruled a favourable outcome on these 80 odd cases only. What and who were the other 30 cases settled out of court ?. These cases that were settled if they are players will be shown to the SPL commission as evidence of a taxable income and did they come with side letters/contracts during the police investigation ? Has MIH settled on the EBT cases that MIH knew they could not win ?. Just because MIH won 80 odd EBT cases it does not mean that Rangers got off Scot free if some or most of the 30 settled EBT cases involve former players.These will be most certainly used in the SPL commission if players were involved. Which 30 cases? All we've seen as proof of this is some scribblings from Muirheads website which isn't exectly renowned for it's accuracy. Give us the details of these 30 cases and then we may see things your way, as right now you're arguments are without substance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Which 30 cases? All we've seen as proof of this is some scribblings from Muirheads website which isn't exectly renowned for it's accuracy. Give us the details of these 30 cases and then we may see things your way, as right now you're arguments are without substance. AH ! brokeback Benny comes down from the mountain asking for proof even when Benny has no proof to the contrary himself OK Benny you can help me out here ! seeing as your very smart you tell me how many people had an EBT trust fund then subtract 80 from that amount and then you'll get your answer it's very simple really isn't it. I'm sure there was well over 100 recipients of EBT's so when you find out how many were getting them you'll get your answer as to how many MIH settled out of 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.