Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[captain kirk]

You are assuming two things - that without EBT's these players would not have signed. And that if they had indicated as much, that Murray would not have found an alternative solution.

Ridiculous assumptions to make when it's crystal clear that Murray was ever-willing to be irresponsible in his spending.

As for your claim re the bevvy?

Aye your right , I'm sure that 50million minty spent on the squad rather than paid in tax made no difference to the team.

[Bendarroch]

 

do you seriously believe all this pish that you post?

Fingers in the ears going 'la-la-la-la' then wandering off to attend this week's meeting of the Flat Earth Society.

I'm not the one choking on the panel's verdict. I've accepted it with good grace - just like me fellow Rangers supporters.

Curiously - those singing 'la-la-la-this-isn't-happening - seem to be all those struggling to come to terms with the LNS conclusion.

Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage . Not even a wee bit.

[AUFC90]

I never said it did, you really are shite at this.

U said about your new club getting the old clubs prize money and I said that they had never played in the SPL SORRY

[AUFC90]

itsanewclub.blogspot.co.uk

Christ, how could so many people including the great watty be so wrong

[Bendarroch]

Aye your right , I'm sure that 50million minty spent on the squad rather than paid in tax made no difference to the team.

I'm going to assume you already know that Murray was prepared to be fast and loose with spending on players.

The idea that Murray would just not have bothered to sign these players without EBT's is risible.

He has claimed that the EBT scheme's were to save money - I can't help it if you don't believe him. I personally think he would have had us in even more trouble if the EBT's were not available.

[captain kirk]

I'm going to assume you already know that Murray was prepared to be fast and loose with spending on players.

The idea that Murray would just not have bothered to sign these players without EBT's is risible.

He has claimed that the EBT scheme's were to save money - I can't help it if you don't believe him. I personally think he would have had us in even more trouble if the EBT's were not available.

The crazy world of rangers fans eh what are yous like? So just get this right here you are saying the 50million pound Murray spent on the squad rather than paid in tax (which he may yet be found guilty in) had no effect either way on the squad?

Coocoo coocoo

[captain kirk]

So what if it did, all of it was legal.

Not been proven yet.

[AUFC90]

I never said anything of the sort, you are just making this up.

Sorry pedant, u suggested it

[Bendarroch]

The crazy world of rangers fans eh what are yous like? So just get this right here you are saying the 50million pound Murray spent on the squad rather than paid in tax (which he may yet be found guilty in) had no effect either way on the squad?

Coocoo coocoo

I'm saying that no access to EBT's would not have changed Murray's spending. He would have found an alternative and likely caused even more trouble.

[AUFC90]

I'm going to assume you already know that Murray was prepared to be fast and loose with spending on players.

The idea that Murray would just not have bothered to sign these players without EBT's is risible.

He has claimed that the EBT scheme's were to save money - I can't help it if you don't believe him. I personally think he would have had us in even more trouble if the EBT's were not available.

Well Murrays group stated at the FTT that the scheme was to attract better quality players. If the whole point was to attract better quality players then the whole point was to gain an advantage. It's not rocket science.... Well at least in the real world its not

[captain kirk]

Yes it has, HMRC lost, that is the current verdict and position...suck it up

....and so if it's under appeal the judicial process is still ongoing ergo , any previous rulings are on hold, Suck that.

[Bendarroch]

Well Murrays group stated at the FTT that the scheme was to attract better quality players. If the whole point was to attract better quality players then the whole point was to gain an advantage. It's not rocket science.... Well at least in the real world its not

This might come as a shock to you - every club seeks to gain an advantage as best they can.

Do you think Hearts, Abhergreen, Killie (and more) are up to their arse on debt by accident?

Edited March 6, 2013 by Bendarroch

[AUFC90]

Pedant?

I simply never said it or suggested it, you really are shite at this.

So when.you said that perhaps the SPL should grow a pair and pay out the prize money your weren't suggesting ? And I can't multi quote on my phone to show u haha.

Pedant= Tedi. Look it up if u don't know the meaning

[Devlin]

Work to do at 25 to 11.

Sitting posting about Rangers at 20 past 1.

AUFC90 - Dole muncher.

[AUFC90]

This might come as a shock to you - every club seeks to gain an advantage as best they can.

Do you think Hearts, Abhergreen, Killie (and more) are up to their arse on debt by accident?

Whatever bud, there's no sense debating it.I think its funnier you guys defending the very scheme that killed your club

[youngsy]

Youngsy, as one of the few "The Rangers" supporters here with a brain (one that works) I would like your opinion on the EBTs.

If we agree that the old Rangers gained no advantage in attracting better players than they could have done otherwise, why did Murray bother with EBTs?

They obviously came with an overhead in setting up, administering and reporting etc. There was also the risk of them being found unacceptable by the SFA, SPL or HMRC. This concern is shown in their non disclosure at the time.

Why then go to all that bother if no advantage was to be gained?

I could ask Tedi or No 8 but I know would only get a same old, same old garbled Rab C Nesbitt style answer.

As far as the EBTs are concerned they have been deemed legal at the time of using them so in that respect Murray was using them to sign better quaility players,no argument on that. At the time when they were set up i can accept that the club was verging on a gamble as to the full legality of them but Murray, having taken legal counsel, was always convinced that the system was legal and that the club would win the FTT, subsequents results have proven him right on that. However with the non-disclosure of payments i can accept that there was a certain amount of doubt within the club over them with certain individuals, Bain for one.

As to why did they bother if no sporting advantage was gained i take that to mean that the fact that not one player that benefitted from an EBT was not illegally registered through the use of EBTs therefore no sporting advantage was gained by illegal means. That,to me anyway,is the whole crux of the matter,whether players played while illegally registered through the use of side letters,side contracts,hidden contracts call them what you may. What many are overlooking here is that the use of EBTs was open to every club at anytime to use them to enhance their playing staff, the fact that no other club used the system is hardly the fault of Rangers,they were looking after their own interests to enhance their squad.

Clubs have the right to bring in top quality players on whatever money they see fit to pay the players and as long as the payment method is legal then there is no argument there. That is what Rangers did, they put forward the best package they could to get top players just as every other club does, the method of payment may have been controversial but not illegal. And can i also say that if they were cheating on the field of play (which they weren't) then they couldn't have been very good at it as over the period in question Celtic won six of the titles competed for to Rangers four and don't forget,Celtic threw away two of those titles..

[AUFC90]

Work to do at 25 to 11.

Sitting posting about Rangers at 20 past 1.

AUFC90 - Dole muncher.

It's called a smartphone bud. The further away from Ibrokes u go the more 21st century it feels. U should try it

[AUFC90]

I know fine what pedant means you, obviously don't

Again I will ask you where did I suggest they pay anything to the newco? you struggle quite a bit with comprehension it seems.

You obviously don't know. You, hod it and dod it are the biggest hairsplitters on PandB FFS

[Devlin]

It's called a smartphone bud. The further away from Ibrokes u go the more 21st century it feels. U should try it

Ayr has better technology than Glasgow? Not that i live either of the places but feel free to ramble on, it's not like you have work to do.

How do you get any work done staring at your smartphone all day? What's your job?

Oh yeah and why don't you take an interest in Ayr, or are you really a beadrattler?

Edited March 6, 2013 by Devlin

[youngsy]

Having a quick look through this thread from last night, a few things jump out pretty starkly.

First, you can't credibly accuse me of "ignoring" the Commission's finding that Rangers players were legally registered, when I repeatedly acknowledge that and then recite the Commission's reasoning in reaching that decision.

The Commission itself stated that players were legally registered because under the then-existing rules, a player is regarded as properly registered unless he was found to be improperly registered *at the time*. That's a giant, glaring loophole and it's the reason why your titles weren't stripped. It's not in doubt that you were deliberately breaking the rules on player registration, because you were found guilty of serious and intentional rule breaking.

This isn't up for debate, by the way. It's an accurate summary of the Commission's findings.

Secondly, isn't it interesting that a bunch of guys who have no trouble wrapping their heads around Italian business law and so on when it suits them, are suddenly overcome with confusion when it comes to such a comparatively simple issue?

I mean, you seem to be fine with people noting the Commission's conclusions, but outraged when anyone explains the reasons why they say they came to those conclusions.

You can say "no sporting advantage", but the second you look at *why* they said that, it's all calls to close the thread, and pretending not to understand and accusations of obsession and so on and on and on.

Isn't that odd? It looks a bit like it's me who understands this report, and you lot who are desperately trying to avoid its conclusions. But I thought this report was correct in all ways, unimpeachable and unquestionable?

Now, that is strange.

Oh i understand and accept every aspect of the report, unlike yourself. The conclusion to this report is that the cluib was handed a £250,000 for non-disclosure,no case to answer on fielding illegally registered players to seek sporting advantage,therefore no removal of any honours won during the period in question. If there was the playing of ineligible players then there would have been the removal of honours,there wasn't though,that's the summary of Nimmo-Smiths report.