flyingrodent Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Once again, when presented with a choice between pursuing Sir Dave and the men who actually killed Rangers, or pursuing the BBC over some utterly trivial nonsense, the Bears are... pursuing the BBC. This attention-deficit disorder is precisely the reason why their club died. It's also why their new owners will have no difficulty at all shafting the supporters for cash, again and again, year after year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) And on the idea that HMRC shouldn't attempt to sue anyone unless they're 100% certain that they'll succeed, I just stumbled across some questions I was asking before the first verdict... - Why did David Murray offer to settle with HMRC for £10m, if he knew he was innocent of a majority of the charges?- Why did Rangers refuse to cooperate with the HMRC investigation by withholding as much documentation as they possibly could, over a period of many years, if they knew that the club was innocent of a majority of the charges?- Why wouldn't David Murray agree to accept liability for the tax case when selling the club, if he knew that he was innocent of a majority of the charges?- Why did David Murray sell the club he purportedly loved to a conman for a pound, if he knew he was innocent of a majority of the charges?- Why did Craig Whyte stampede the club into liquidation ASAP, if he knew that the club was innocent of a majority of the charges?- And why did everyone associated with Rangers over the last ten years deliberately stretch out this case as long as possible, even though doing so was massively harmful to the club's finances and to it's survival prospects, if they knew the club was innocent of a majority of the charges? Probably worth considering, before folk start claiming that HMRC were needlessly persecuting the OldCo. Edited July 12, 2014 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 It's very quiet on here today, are the orcs who claim to be good bears, nothing like your stereotypical bigot bear, away for a walk? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 And on the idea that HMRC shouldn't attempt to sue anyone unless they're 100% certain that they'll succeed, I just stumbled across some questions I was asking before the first verdict... - Why did David Murray offer to settle with HMRC for £10m, if he knew he was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why did Rangers refuse to cooperate with the HMRC investigation by withholding as much documentation as they possibly could, over a period of many years, if they knew that the club was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why wouldn't David Murray agree to accept liability for the tax case when selling the club, if he knew that he was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why did David Murray sell the club he purportedly loved to a conman for a pound, if he knew he was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why did Craig Whyte stampede the club into liquidation ASAP, if he knew that the club was innocent of a majority of the charges? - And why did everyone associated with Rangers over the last ten years deliberately stretch out this case as long as possible, even though doing so was massively harmful to the club's finances and to it's survival prospects, if they knew the club was innocent of a majority of the charges? Probably worth considering, before folk start claiming that HMRC were needlessly persecuting the OldCo. Spot on. The evidence that pursuing this matter made sense is overwhelming. The fact that Murray behaved as he did, proves conclusively that he thought it likely that the club would be found to have acted wrongly, as indeed it was in some instances. The response on here and from UoF types conveys such a self-serving, infantile outlook, that it's scarcely believable. Except of course, that it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Congratulations due for the last few pages input go to: Monkey Tennis and Fliedermaus for some measured questions and reaction to recent events. Various berrz for living up to expectations. Well done. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Spot on. The evidence that pursuing this matter made sense is overwhelming. The fact that Murray behaved as he did, proves conclusively that he thought it likely that the club would be found to have acted wrongly, as indeed it was in some instances. The response on here and from UoF types conveys such a self-serving, infantile outlook, that it's scarcely believable. Except of course, that it is. This is jogging my memory, now. Recall, from the original verdict - Even the judges that supported Dave's lawyers' argument acknowledged that there was a case to answer, and both of them praised HMRC for the rigour of their investigation. Additionally, all three judges noted that Rangers were deliberately obstructive and unhelpful; one actually concluded that their representatives intentionally attempted to mislead, delay and obstruct the inquiry. That, while also finding that of the cases in which HMRC were able to rescue the documentation from the shredder get their hands on the paperwork, most of them were non-compliant i.e. illegal. Just the kind of verdict you'd expect to be delivered upon spotlessly innocent businessmen, needlessly harrassed by the tax authorities, who emerge without a single stain upon their character, or a single Rangers supporter asking them to give any of the money back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Dodd Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Link to Scotland 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b049f20s/scotland-2014-10072014 Not much in it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 now, you don't seriously believe that? the fans were responsible for supposedly killing the club? how much influence did the fans have over a company ran by by david murray and then craig whyte, i say none? and had there been any focus from fans on saving the club when craig whyte was running the club would it made any difference, i don't think so? How come e.g. Celtic fans managed to oust their corrupt and thieving owners, but Rangers fans somehow couldn't? Do they have some kind of ninja, corruption-crushing superpowers that your fans don't? Fans of clubs all over the world have managed to get rid of unpopular or criminal chairmen. How come you couldn't? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 The more measured rodent = The more measured celtic fan. On yerself my backwoods friend, you are slowly coming round to our way of thinking lol. celtic fans are vermin © Monkey What? That doesn't even begin to work, as any sort of interpretation of what I was saying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 As someone else noted, a great deal of ra peepil seem awfully upset at how a company that ran their club was treated? Let's not forgot the wee tax case, the obstruction and the side letters,or the last 12 months of oldco's existence. Confirmed cheats and tax dodgers no matter how much it upsets them. Lolwut..... Someone just commented on this on my Facebook. Surely you ain't gonna go embarrass yourselves by protesting at the games???? ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1405162887.708703.jpg Wrong fight, dinna forget our main battle is getting rid of the current board/investors... I assume that is a spoof? As Scotzine pointed out, the level of security, they won't get anywhere near the games. Andy Muirhead that well known security expert, like a wee ugly chubby version of Andy McNab... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 What? That doesn't even begin to work, as any sort of interpretation of what I was saying. Too late to weasel out of it now. Vermin the lot of them lol -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Lolwut..... Wrong fight, dinna forget our main battle is getting rid of the current board/investors... I assume that is a spoof? Andy Muirhead that well known security expert, like a wee ugly chubby version of Andy McNab... ...Is with reality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Congratulations due for the last few pages input go to: Monkey Tennis and Fliedermaus for some measured questions and reaction to recent events. Various berrz for living up to expectations. Well done. ^^^^ -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 ...Is with reality. That never really worked out for you Norm.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Too late to weasel out of it now. Vermin the lot of them lol Finally lost it, Vicky? Where's all the tears and rage you forecast the other day? Your old club is still dead. They were proven to be cheats and thieves. Even old Minty agrees. You know, the Minty whose 6m+ "loan" is still being chased? And, apparently, according to you lot, it was all a conspiracy. 'tic wet dreams, they called it. Diddy fantasies, that was another one. Turns out they were a bit more substantial than casinos, hoverpitches and European domination. Died, the rangers did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I remember when no8 used to attempt vaguely sensible posts. Think bending over for the Easdale boaby has finished him off, the bitterness flows now. Yes, I remember that too. Now he's reduced to arguing that because a verdict has been reached, it cannot be considered at all contentious. The logical flaws in such a case are glaring. I'm not sure if his current carry on is a result of the self loathing you suggest. It could be, because he keeps backing down on any attempt he makes at a principled stance, be it regarding the Easdales or the purchase of a Season Ticket. That certainly can't feel very good. I tend to think though that it's just his triumphalism rising to the fore. He's adopting the moronic UoF outlook of claiming this latest verdict vindicates the club and points to injustice in their treatment. He therefore feels triumphant and responds as gracelessly in such circumstances as Rangers fans tend to. He actually handles adversity far better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Finally lost it, Vicky? Where's all the tears and rage you forecast the other day? Your old club is still dead. They were proven to be cheats and thieves. Even old Minty agrees. You know, the Minty whose 6m+ "loan" is still being chased? And, apparently, according to you lot, it was all a conspiracy. 'tic wet dreams, they called it. Diddy fantasies, that was another one. Turns out they were a bit more substantial than casinos, hoverpitches and European domination. Died, the rangers did. Has the QC got Normans log in details? Time to dig the enigma machine out again... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Too late to weasel out of it now. Vermin the lot of them lol In my experience, a great many Celtic fans are indeed as you describe, although very many obviously are not. I wasn't saying anything of the sort in the post you addressed though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Andy Muirhead that well known security expert, like a wee ugly chubby version of Andy McNab... Knowing the Union of Fannies, they'll probably organise the march for the day after the closing ceremony, when no one's there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 What? That doesn't even begin to work, as any sort of interpretation of what I was saying. He's lost it mate. I know at times you can get something approaching a sensible conversation out of him, this definitely isn't one of them unfortunately. 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.