Ken Fitlike Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Posted by Ken from his vodafone phone which he bought from Amazon.com while sitting in starbucks having his brekkie fitifuccyegibberinabootmin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I do not accept they were payments at all, they were loans, immoral ones perhaps but not illegal and therefore not cheating. I would also bet that the SPL do not have any rules in place for players receiving loans, regardless of the fact that they never need paid back. Can you "loan" me £500 please? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I do not accept they were payments at all, they were loans, immoral ones perhaps but not illegal and therefore not cheating. I would also bet that the SPL do not have any rules in place for players receiving loans, regardless of the question of them being paid back 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 As i previously posted it's absolutely ridiculous that people have been complaining about this. It's not, for the reasons I've given. Please don't respond to me by referring to Celtic minded websites or faux offence. Neither hold much interest for me. It's to do with the nature of the occasion and what's fitting in the way of marking it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Help please, losing my memory with age...........as some were classed as loans, can BDO (who have been awfy quiet) not look to recover them? Or can they not as they were from MIH ie a third party? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I said exactly the same thing on here ... they only do it for point scoring and it makes me vomit. I fully expect it to be replaced next season with a 'Rangers Say No To Child Abuse' Family Gala Day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Sure, I will put a repayment plan in place which will include 25% interest. B,b,but why do I have to pay it back? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 According to Neil Patey, no It was not Rangers that loaned this money it was the trustees, repayment was discretionary, the loans could be recovered from the players estates. So the players need to die afore the credtors get some cash? Hmmmmmmmmm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 So whats your point? Immoral? Illegal? Neither on this occasion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 According to Neil Patey, no It was not Rangers that loaned this money it was the trustees, repayment was discretionary, the loans could be recovered from the players estates. Do you think that the employees were told that recovery of the monies would be pursued, or do you think that they were told they wouldn't be? Do you think they would have accepted, and signed for Rangers if it was the case that they could be pursued for repayment? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 You can bleat all you like Fivestars .. but the cases that were conceded prior to the FTTT and that the relevant income taxes should have been paid were not loans. Nothing you say will change that FACT. As regards the forthcoming SPL tribunal it has been suggested that the money in these cases was recorded in players' contracts which were lodged with the SPL, which would surely mean that there would be no SPL punishment for them. As for owing some tax on these cases it's not a huge deal. Celtic had to pay some tax on Juninho's EBT after all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Very good and all the cases that were conceded prior to the FTTT what about those ... ?? The article from Scotzine which you place so much faith in? :lol: There were errors with 5 EBT's, where payments were made through EBT's which shouldn't have been. These payments appear to have been detailed in the players contracts and lodged with the relevant football authorities. Admin errors my young firey friend and definately not a case of double contratcs. Thats my view, you have your own view and we'll just have to wait and see who is right (me). As for the rest of the EBT's they are officially loans and not payments. Have a nice day 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) They were told repayment to the trustees was discretionary I think it was obvious they would never have to be paid back, it is up to the trustees if they want to recover that money and under my understanding they could not pursue the money till the play is deed. If it was obvious that they would never have to pay them back that makes it a payment. That's the common sense point. Were they really told that the trustees could, under their discretion, seek repayment - or were they told that that's how it would be dressed up to exploit a loophole and that it wouldn't happen? Do you think any repayments will be seeked, ever? Edited January 27, 2013 by Shades75 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 This is the problem with P & Bers, they want you give your honest opinion outwith the legal talk and moral stance of it all, soon as you give an inch they are all over you, back into the world of legality and rules. They are so predictable its hilarious. Most of them wouldn't know what an honest opinion was, the "lets paint Rangers in the darkest manner possible" posts never grow tiresome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Those were the 5 the tribunal dealt with .... not the ones conceded BEFORE and omitted from the hearing. Do keep up. Anyway I'm sure you'll be on here to apologise when the truth comes out .. or will your resignation come into force? Yeah yeah yeah i know, Andy Muirhead said so, i know. All hail the all knowing andy Muirhead, we're not worthy ...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 This is the problem with P & Bers, they want you give your honest opinion outwith the legal talk and moral stance of it all, soon as you give an inch they are all over you, back into the world of legality and rules. They are so predictable its hilarious. Not me. I've only been talking about what common sense tells us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) But not legally, legally they are still loans and I doubt the SPL have rules for loans. You've literally just lambasted p&bers for falling back to a legal argument after asking an opinion. Do you see the irony? Why do you find it so difficult to admit that, in common sense, monies which are given without repayment having to be made is not a loan? Edited January 27, 2013 by Shades75 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Leaving aside 1. the EBT was instigated by the player 2. Celtic sought the correct legal advice and opinion from HMRC. 3. It was fully disclosed 4. CELTIC and not a third party made all the relevant payments including any tax necessary. THE TAX DUE WAS PAID ... OLD RANGERS PAID FCUK ALL .... Cheating cnuts. Well thats a lie. Juninho received his EBT payment in 2005 and the money was declared in the club’s annual accounts – but not to the SFA or SPL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Correct, you have not, however this is a public forum and its like a game of tag, you prise something out, the others lurk, waiting for their opportunity, I could see this coming from the moment we started our chat last night. To be fair. I saw that happen and was disappointed by it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Most of them wouldn't know what an honest opinion was, the "lets paint Rangers in the darkest manner possible" posts never grow tiresome. Eerily reminiscent of all those "Why must the awful Commie papers be so nasty about Jeffrey Archer" pieces you used to get in the Mail, before it turned out he actually had pumped that prostitute then lied about it. There's a very good reason why it's so easy to "paint Rangers in the darkest manner possible" - it's because you club was owned and operated by crooks, and because even the most charitable interpretation of events can't disguise that fact. 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.