Monkey Tennis Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Missing some names off that list. I wonder if this was also just an administrative error? You missed out Solitaire who introduced the whole topic of EBTs to the thread in post #567 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Come on. Do a bit better than that if you seriously wish to challenge the notion that Rangers might have 'cheated'. the lord nimmo report was an expert opinion and the final ruling on the extent of the so called cheating, i am happy to accept that we didnt gain any sporting advantage and none of the players were inelgible , full details should have been dsiclosed however so we did break a rule, as usual the evidence backs my position and you are talking pish with zero evidence backing you up, its up to you to prove we have cheated, you havent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?1681-Rangers-AGM-Minutes Rangers 2006 agm minutes. Count how many times they use the term Company. great now all you need to do is prove that this means the company is the club rather than a simplification of the company structure to save time and avoid pointless explanations, if you have any evidence to back your opinion feel free to present it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Well indeed. And that wasn't just a question of people being careless with terminology. Rather, it was a reflection of the terms 'club' and 'company' being seen as unequivocally synonymous at the time. I needn't say that Rangers completely died in 2012. Similarly though, the notion that liquidation was an irrelevance in terms of continuation is fanciful in the extreme. they were synonymous, the company was the legal persona of the club and closely associated with it, so is the current company, doesnt mean they were or are exactly the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 they were synonymous, the company was the legal persona of the club and closely associated with it, so is the current company, doesnt mean they were or are exactly the same thing ...none of this has anything to do with Mark Warburton, unless you think he has a magic EBT tucked away somewhere, kindly take it to the home of such discussion, your beloved BRALT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 great now all you need to do is prove that this means the company is the club rather than a simplification of the company structure to save time and avoid pointless explanations, if you have any evidence to back your opinion feel free to present it I don't need to prove anything. The answer is glaringly obvious. I've stated it many times. The fact that you keep coming out with this horse shit keeps me laughing at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 they were synonymous, the company was the legal persona of the club and closely associated with it, so is the current company, doesnt mean they were or are exactly the same thing Define 'club' again for me please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 the lord nimmo report was an expert opinion and the final ruling on the extent of the so called cheating, i am happy to accept that we didnt gain any sporting advantage and none of the players were inelgible , full details should have been dsiclosed however so we did break a rule, as usual the evidence backs my position and you are talking pish with zero evidence backing you up, its up to you to prove we have cheated, you havent I've established that rules were broken. Those reaching the latest ruling on the big tax case challenged the notion of 'no sporting advantage'. Even Kincardine and Bennett have acknowledged on here that the scheme was operated (and partially concealed) in order to achieve an advantage. If it wasn't, it raises the question of what it was all for at all. I'm perfectly content to allow my common sense and vocabulary to tell me that this amounted to a form of 'cheating'. However, proving such a thing isn't actually necessary in pressing for the removal of titles. As I've said, cup ties have been overturned before on the strength of genuine clerical errors. Intent needn't matter. It just happens that in the Rangers instance, it was unequivocally present. You're simply doing that thing of citing LNS, not because of your innate respect for the man's expertise and judgement. Rather, you're citing him because this particular judgement chimes with your preferred reading. Please don't insult either of us by suggesting otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I've established that rules were broken. Those reaching the latest ruling on the big tax case challenged the notion of 'no sporting advantage'. Even Kincardine and Bennett have acknowledged on here that the scheme was operated (and partially concealed) in order to achieve an advantage. If it wasn't, it raises the question of what it was all for at all. I'm perfectly content to allow my common sense and vocabulary to tell me that this amounted to a form of 'cheating'. However, proving such a thing isn't actually necessary in pressing for the removal of titles. As I've said, cup ties have been overturned before on the strength of genuine clerical errors. Intent needn't matter. It just happens that in the Rangers instance, it was unequivocally present. You're simply doing that thing of citing LNS, not because of your innate respect for the man's expertise and judgement. Rather, you're citing him because this particular judgement chimes with your preferred reading. Please don't insult either of us by suggesting otherwise. This is pretty much my thoughts. I think the debate is skewed when we start arguing over 'sporting advantage' as it is impossible to measure the tangible impact of the rule breaking, the reality could be that the impact was almost nil. I suspect the answer to that lies in why these weren't disclosed in the first place. If it was a simple administrative error then the advantage is probably negligible, if it was something else then who knows. However, as MT says the precedent has been set with regards to punishments for even the smallest of clerical errors, there is seemingly no margin for error. No ifs, no buts, you are disqualified. I think it is fair to say the punishment for Rangers was not true to historic form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRuffian Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I'm no fking expert There really was no need for that clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 they were synonymous, the company was the legal persona of the club and closely associated with it, so is the current company, doesnt mean they were or are exactly the same thing Can you explain the process of seperating the company from the club for me please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Of course Old Dead Rangers gained 'sporting advantage' - they employed a squad of players, the individual and collective quality of which was way in excess of what they would have been able to assemble without the tax dodging and 'imperfect registrations'. Seriously, why is there even a debate about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waggy's Grin Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Best manager in Scotland without question.... Great man-manager. Great Squad builder. Great-tactician. Great player-spotter. Great style of play. Great belief in youth. Great dealing with the press. He's had a fantastic season so far. I can see him at an English Premier League side in the future with his style of play and man management ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 the lord nimmo report was an expert opinion and the final ruling on the extent of the so called cheating, i am happy to accept that we didnt gain any sporting advantage and none of the players were inelgible , full details should have been dsiclosed however so we did break a rule, as usual the evidence backs my position and you are talking pish with zero evidence backing you up, its up to you to prove we have cheated, you havent Your old team broke a rule (which you admit) and gained financial advantage (which only a liar would deny) because of it - this is pretty much the definition of cheating. The more you deny this and cling to "no sporting advantage" shows exactly how much supporting cheating scum (even dead cheating scum) upsets you. It's delicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I can see The Warbler sacked before Christmas. He is a diddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Unless of course, he gets a budget the same size or more than what that other useless fanny Walter used to get to lord it over everybody. Meanwhile, Rancid Fucking Corpse 1873 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Of course Old Dead Rangers gained 'sporting advantage' - they employed a squad of players, the individual and collective quality of which was way in excess of what they would have been able to assemble without the tax dodging and 'imperfect registrations'. Seriously, why is there even a debate about this? Sevco fans don't want to accept they supported cheating scumbags in the past, damages their self image. Denial is much easier. Hilarious to watch though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waggy's Grin Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Sevco fans don't want to accept they supported cheating scumbags in the past, damages their self image. Denial is much easier. Hilarious to watch though. Are you more qualified than LNS on matters? What are your qualifications? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Are you more qualified than LNS on matters? What are your qualifications? He read a blog or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Are you more qualified than LNS on matters? What are your qualifications? Did Old Dead Rangers employ players on EBT side-payment deal? Yes. They cheated. All honours 'won' during those years should declared void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.