Sting777 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 16 minutes ago, bennett said: Narrowly beating a team with a fair few youngsters in a meaningless bounce game is aberdeens greatest ever moment ... and Sevco's greatest moment is presumably winning the Petrofac Cup!.....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 9 minutes ago, Tynieness said: I reckon their two European trophies might be a bit higher to be fair... I'm fairly sure they managed to pick them up without their supporters rioting and making a rip roaring c**t of themselves. Compared to beating sevco youths at Ibrox, those trophies are mere trinkets tiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermik Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 C'mon the cabbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 48 minutes ago, strichener said: So when you stated "the real guilty party" you were just referring to perjury? Just Perjury ??? If he can lie in court is he a man you could trust to have done things by the book ? I think not. This could just be the can of worms finally being opened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 7 minutes ago, Tynieness said: Not in the same league as the reaction to a last minute winner at Thistle Yes it was ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 12 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said: Just Perjury ??? If he can lie in court is he a man you could trust to have done things by the book ? I think not. This could just be the can of worms finally being opened. No not "just perjury" as I didn't use this phrase. The previous posts were referring to fraud and perjury and my use of the word "just" was in the context of referencing one of these criminal acts rather than both. It was not used to somehow diminish the seriousness of perjury. I am interested on your opinion on which can of worms is going to be opened and where you see wrongdoing. The only can of worms that I could see would be in Murray and Whyte were acting together but I don't believe there was any indication of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 No not "just perjury" as I didn't use this phrase. The previous posts were referring to fraud and perjury and my use of the word "just" was in the context of referencing one of these criminal acts rather than both. It was not used to somehow diminish the seriousness of perjury. I am interested on your opinion on which can of worms is going to be opened and where you see wrongdoing. The only can of worms that I could see would be in Murray and Whyte were acting together but I don't believe there was any indication of this. Not a can of worms as such but would Murray not have had to carry out due diligence before approving the sale? Genuine question but is this a legal obligation? There might be a case to answer on that front if he simply wanted a quick sale. Not sure that its an actual offence or even a serious one though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 1 minute ago, dogmc said: Not a can of worms as such but would Murray not have had to carry out due diligence before approving the sale? Genuine question but is this a legal obligation? There might be a case to answer on that front if he simply wanted a quick sale. Not sure that its an actual offence or even a serious one though. No it really is a case of caveat emptor. Due diligence is usually performed by the purchasing party with the selling party only confirming proof of funds. In the case of Rangers this amounted to Which Craigy certainly had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 57 minutes ago, strichener said: No not "just perjury" as I didn't use this phrase. The previous posts were referring to fraud and perjury and my use of the word "just" was in the context of referencing one of these criminal acts rather than both. It was not used to somehow diminish the seriousness of perjury. I am interested on your opinion on which can of worms is going to be opened and where you see wrongdoing. The only can of worms that I could see would be in Murray and Whyte were acting together but I don't believe there was any indication of this. Non payment of taxes in relation to EBT's perhaps ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 No it really is a case of caveat emptor. Due diligence is usually performed by the purchasing party with the selling party only confirming proof of funds. In the case of Rangers this amounted to Which Craigy certainly had. Fair dos cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 2 hours ago, strichener said: So when you stated "the real guilty party" you were just referring to perjury? Apparently Rangers 'were murdered'. Surely that's got to be covered by the statute books? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 1 hour ago, theoriginalhedge said: Non payment of taxes in relation to EBT's perhaps ? This isn't even close to being a criminal offence, we don't even know if there are taxes to be paid on EBTs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 1 hour ago, The DA said: Apparently Rangers 'were murdered'. Surely that's got to be covered by the statute books? Says who? Apparently they have also been resuscitated, nothing to see here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 7 minutes ago, strichener said: Says who? Apparently they have also been resuscitated, nothing to see here. I'm only quoting Alastair Johnston, m'lud. I can't think who's better-placed to confirm Rangers were murdered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broony88 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 4 hours ago, Tynieness said: I reckon their two European trophies might be a bit higher to be fair... I'm fairly sure they managed to pick them up without their supporters rioting and making a rip roaring c**t of themselves. how the mighty have fallen. now their fans can't even come onto a football forum with making a rip roaring c**t of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 1 hour ago, strichener said: This isn't even close to being a criminal offence, we don't even know if there are taxes to be paid on EBTs. I was under the impression that tax evasion of any kind was a criminal offence , but maybe not when the establishment have your back . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 11 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said: I was under the impression that tax evasion of any kind was a criminal offence , but maybe not when the establishment have your back . EBTs were considered to be a tax avoidance scheme, similar to IceBreaker and Ingenious. It will be the individuals that ultimately have the responsibility for paying the tax. This is of course assuming that the Supreme Court rule in favour of HMRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paralytic Critic Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 45 minutes ago, strichener said: EBTs were considered to be a tax avoidance scheme, similar to IceBreaker and Ingenious. It will be the individuals that ultimately have the responsibility for paying the tax. This is of course assuming that the Supreme Court rule in favour of HMRC. Doubt it will make any difference which ever way this goes as we all know that Rangers "DO" not pay tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 9 hours ago, strichener said: EBTs were considered to be a tax avoidance scheme, similar to IceBreaker and Ingenious. It will be the individuals that ultimately have the responsibility for paying the tax. This is of course assuming that the Supreme Court rule in favour of HMRC. It will be the employees - SDM has said so explicitly in court. I wonder how he knows before the rest of us? However, the original intention was that Rangers would pay any taxes arising. Such a pity for so many fine, upstanding footballers that the club went bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.