Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[carpetmonster]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/351576661359?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1558.l2649&clk_rvr_id=928846647830&afsrc=1&rmvSB=true

Always someone making money off the ***s

Wouldn't be surprised if that eBay account was a subsidiary of MASH

[johnnyc13]

[Crossbill]

The_Kincardine, on 13 Nov 2015 - 00:05, said:

The SPL knew it was under appeal (to the UTT) and asked for a judgment irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.

Actually, they were very specific in asking for the exact opposite.

"The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful."

[TheLip69]

Just get new ones and pretend they're the old ones.

That wouldn't fool anyone, they'd see right through them.

[The_Kincardine]

Was quoted on here this afternoon......im guessing you were too busy in the sarcasm factory to see it but the poster did seem keen for you to notice it....still the fingers in ears la la la defence always works wonders eh

I posted a link to the full judgment. I'll do it again: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8213f5a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

I may have missed 'illegally' so you quoting it would be helpful.

The SPL knew it was under appeal (to the UTT) and asked for a judgment irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.

Actually, they were very specific in asking for the exact opposite.

"The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful."

So what part of "the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC" makes my point wrong?

Edited November 13, 2015 by The_Kincardine

[Crossbill]

Sorry, I've clearly misinterpreted what you meant. I thought you meant 'irrespective' as in it did not matter whether the appeal was accepted or rejected, rather than assuming it would be rejected (which is what the SPL instructed).

So you must agree then that the findings of the LNS commission are no longer valid, since the scope it considered turned out to be incorrect.

[10menwent2mow]

'Demoted from the premier league'

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[The_Kincardine]

Sorry, I've clearly misinterpreted what you meant. I thought you meant 'irrespective' as in it did not matter whether the appeal was accepted or rejected,

This was the basis that the LNS enquiry proceeded on. They asked for a judgment whatever the outcome of the UTT was.

So you must agree then that the findings of the LNS commission are no longer valid, since the scope it considered turned out to be incorrect.

The opposite. The validity of the LNS commission wasn't dependent on the FTT appeal. The SPL's brief was very clear on this.

[williemillersmoustache]

f**k me, just caught up after a thoroughly entertaining evening. Just imagine for a moment that statement from DK came from your chairman. I'd die of shame.

Cheats, sycophants and a brand spanking new club. Oooft bad day for bears. Good.

[aofjays]

This was the basis that the LNS enquiry proceeded on. They asked for a judgment whatever the outcome of the UTT was.

The opposite. The validity of the LNS commission wasn't dependent on the FTT appeal. The SPL's brief was very clear on this.

It's thoroughly amusing how desperate you are for oldco to keep their illegally gained trophies. Any technicality will do eh? Who cares if you supported cheats - it's the the sparkly baubles that matter most of all. You wouldn't know dignity if it bit you.

[Ken Fitlike]

It's thoroughly amusing how desperate you are for oldco to keep their illegally gained trophies. Any technicality will do eh? Who cares if you supported cheats - it's the the sparkly baubles that matter most of all. You wouldn't know dignity if it bit you.

there has to be a balance struck between keeping illegally gained baubles and potential widespread window panning.

[THE KING]

"In our opinion these issues raise clear questions of law. To the extent that legal principles have been misapplied, the court can and must interfere with the decision of the First-tier Tribunal"

....Illegal.

Edited November 13, 2015 by THE KING

[greyman]

Needless to say no-one in the media will point out glibs mistakes. "er, sorry dave, you weren't demoted. You had to re-apply, which by the way, didn't follow the standard process. Still, it's for the greater good".

What a fucking c**t of a human being!! Shove your threats up your arse you fucking shitweasel.

[Monkey Tennis]

Using a means to reduce our level of tax didn't breach footballing rules.....that it led to our admin has been dealt with.

Our implementation of said scheme has also been dealt with.

The only place the rhabid hordes have to go is in either making up rules to be applied retrospectively, reopening the LNS enquiry or shutting the f**k up.

The undisclosed use of side letters - an integral aspect of Rangers' operation of the scheme, absolutely broke football rules. You know this.

Please don't describe all those who favour title stripping as members of a "rhabid horde". It makes you appear irrational and incapable of mature discussion.

I would favour reopening the LNS enquiry, or convening a new enquiry which could override it. I think this is valid because the initial one was instructed to operate on the basis that Rangers' tax dodge had proved legitimate and successful in reducing the club's tax obligations.

That picture has now changed, perhaps not forever, but the assumptions on which LNS relied are no longer firm. It appears that his verdict might have been shaped by a state of play then current, which no longer holds, at least right now.

As you've said, Rangers' behaviour over this is, in any moral sense, indefensible. If the only defence is that a decision reached, based on a since changed reality, is binding and fixed, that can surely provide no satisfaction and pride, just a degree of embarrassment.

It's odd that you don't seem to get any Rangers fans who would rather give up winnings so tarnished, than cling to them anyway.

[BinoBalls]

If the authorities don't do anything, then it signals that underpaying tax to gain a sporting advantage is ok.

Imagine for arguments sake Rangers had won 20 in a row during the EBT years before they were rumbled. Their chairman then concedes it gave them a sporting advantage and they lose the Big Tax Case. Are we really saying they get to keep those 20 titles??

[The DA]

Using a means to reduce our level of tax didn't breach footballing rules.....that it led to our admin has been dealt with.

Our implementation of said scheme has also been dealt with.

The only place the rhabid hordes have to go is in either making up rules to be applied retrospectively, reopening the LNS enquiry or shutting the f**k up.

Go on, say it... 'led to our liquidation'.

[AlbionMan]

We didn't end up in Div 3 again.

True, I'll rephrase the question for you - remind us all again how you ended up in Div 3.

[Monkey Tennis]

The latest King statement, does of course provoke further astonishment.

This idea that clubs are trying to topple them now, because they couldn't on the pitch, is just amazingly crude, dishonest and disrespectful.

That he can make such noises in a statement that also calls for clubs to work together for advancement of the games is staggering.

Remember that this man has already said that contrition would be due if the big tax case went against Rangers.

Remember when reading of his aspirations towards a greater good, that this man said he wanted a world in which Rangers won 55% of titles, to Celtic's 45%.

An absolute b*****d of a man.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Monkey Tennis

[Benjamin_Nevis]

He isn't rational. He thinks that by focusing on the tiniest of detail in a statement or post he can deflect from the point at hand.

He genuinely seems to believe his posts counter arguments made.

He comes across as a dangerous obsessive with very little grasp of the real world.

I think you are wasting your time looking for honestly or rationality from someone like him.

I think Kinky's position of being virtually the only *** on here that can string a coherent sentence together gives him an aura of gravitas that he doesn't really deserve. A perhaps unsurprising state of affairs when one considers that the other ***s posting on here consist of simpering fools like Bennett, Tedi (and his many aliases) and AWRA's latest hopeless incarnation.

All that matters to Rangers fans are nice and shiny baubles, and having more of them than anyone else. It's what gives them their self-worth so they are understandably upset at the prospect of losing some of them. Kinky is no better than the rest of them.

[The DA]

He isn't rational. He thinks that by focusing on the tiniest of detail in a statement or post he can deflect from the point at hand.

He genuinely seems to believe his posts counter arguments made.

He comes across as a dangerous obsessive with very little grasp of the real world.

I think you are wasting your time looking for honestly or rationality from someone like him.

To be fair, he often posts valid discussion points but, as you say, his constant deflections detract from his credibility.