WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 dunno, i'm not bearwithme. i'm captain hindsight you seem to get confused easily Aye, Mea Culpa. Nobody's perfect. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 was it not real before you posted that rubbish? incredible how you think that this country could afford to lose one of the two biggest and most successful clubs. the empty seats at celtic park are testament to what your own fans think of a premiership without rangers and without competition for the title without rangers celtic don't have a reason to exist. Of course could, on the grand scheme of things Rangers wasn't a massive company who employed thousands of staff that would do serious damage to the local economy, i'd argue Starbucks are more vital as a company than Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 (edited) an interesting choice of comparison since starbucks never paid taxes for 5 years and hid its profits away from the uk for 15 years and claimed loss making for 14 of these years. starbucks were made to pay 5m and then 10m in corporation tax in 2013 and another 10m this year but for a company that reportedly made over 400m in profits in 2012 this is small change so how much from starbucks went back into the scottish economy during the last 15 years before they were made to pay back some of the tax owed? and compare to rangers who have actually contributed through paying taxes (obviously not during craig whyte term) and contributed to scottish sport and charities and in many other ways. do starbucks contribute in anyway to communities like not just rangers but any football club in this country?. no they just sell coffee and cakes to make a massive profit for themselves? You obviously missed my point about a company like Starbucks who probably employ thousands across the country, and in turn the employees pay tax into the system through their wages. Hence why because of the sheer number of people starbucks employees compared to Rangers would make them a bigger miss to the economy na dif for some reason Starbuck went under, the amount of people made redundant would be a disaster Rangers as a business is a small fish, in the grand scheme of things they wouldn't be missed, and they most certainly don't deserve special treatment from HMRC Edited July 13, 2014 by Enrico Annoni 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raidernation Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Snafu, are you genuinely a moron/cretin, or do you have to work at it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Are you saying that HMRC deliberately leaked documents to bloggers Wow..... just wow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 To be fair, despite his rambling protests, it's clear he far more intelligent than Tedi or Bennett. More a WUM that knows his club died and is simply trolling. Actually the boy is quite good value. Between his colourful therapeutic scribblings and his mentalist fantasies, he brings a lot more (relatively ) to the forum than out and out simpletons such as Benny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Marvellous stuff boys. Bearwithme absolutely owned, rogered etc by the Rodent, while Snafu totally misses the point Enrico made in citing Starbucks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I miss the_crazy_frog He was fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Wow..... just wow. If HMRC (the organisation, rather than a random employee) were going to leak documents because of (whatever reasons), surely it would be better to release them to e.g. The Times, or the Daily Record, or The Sun, rather than some random with a blog. If you think HMRC deliberately released information illegally - and that Wow post suggests that you do - can you explain why the Revenue would choose to intentionally give docs to some unknown tit with a blog, who would have a tiny audience and no cred, rather than to an organisation that already has a huge circulation? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 This is before we note that whatever else happens, in the grand scheme of things, some leaked documents basically mean fvck all, and anyone boiling about it is probably insane. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Charlotte fakes seems to be from inside Ibrox, why not the tax stuff also? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Charlotte fakes seems to be from inside Ibrox, why not the tax stuff also? That's a very good point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Just to be clear, there were no "guilty" admissions or verdicts. Some tax liability was agreed. That obviously doesn't vindicate every decision the taxman took e.g. taking it to a second tribunal. This is part of the problem where the Gers fans cherry pick parts of the outcome to suit there own 'innocent' agenda. The whole thing was a tax tribunal not a criminal trial, therefor liable = guilty and not liable = not guilty. You guys are quick to claim Rangers have been cleared but by admitting liability they were in essence admitting their guilt of not paying due taxes. The absence of the word guilty does not in any way prove that Rangers were 100% innocent and have been unfairly treated by HMRC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 (edited) umbongo1874 - your guess could be close to the truth, but as you see dear chap the leak has been plugged either by removing the person or persons responsible or maybe they are keeping the head low. :lol: My point was why is everybody assuming that the tax leaks came from HMRC and not from inside Ibrox. Edited July 14, 2014 by Umbungo1874 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 As far as I am aware the completely legal tax avoidance scheme Rangers operated was completely legal The few cases where Rangers were actually liable is where they had failed to administer the scheme properly, in essence a paperwork error. The fact is that everyone on this thread has been banging on about EBT`s being tantamount to cheating in general, nobody has been differentiating between those that were administered incorrectly....the fact is that you were all wrong, EBT`s were legal, how many tax cases and appeals do you want HMRC to lose before you finally get this? Those pesky "administration errors", eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 As far as I am aware the completely legal tax avoidance scheme Rangers operated was completely legal The few cases where Rangers were actually liable is where they had failed to administer the scheme properly, in essence a paperwork error. The fact is that everyone on this thread has been banging on about EBT`s being tantamount to cheating in general, nobody has been differentiating between those that were administered incorrectly....the fact is that you were all wrong, EBT`s were legal, how many tax cases and appeals do you want HMRC to lose before you finally get this? Yes legal, but disgusting in any moral sense. The fact that the scheme therefore led indirectly to liquidation is just. And funny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Yes legal, but disgusting in any moral sense. The fact that the scheme therefore led indirectly to liquidation is just. And funny. Please give the faux outrage a rest, no one believes you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Please give the faux outrage a rest, no one believes you. Nothing faux about it. Rangers are far from the only body to attempt this kind of behaviour, but it is truly sickening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 My point was why is everybody assuming that the tax leaks came from HMRC and not from inside Ibrox. RTC and Scottish Phil were bragging that they had documuments from HMRC before Rangers recieved them. HMRC acted disgracefully throughout this and should be held to account. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Nothing faux about it. Rangers are far from the only body to attempt this kind of behaviour, but it is truly sickening. Never kid a kidder Monks... 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.