The BIG strip the titles thread

[hellbhoy]

1 hour ago, Insaintee said:

You're missing the point, the Final verdict means that Rangers are guilty of a completely different offence to the one that LNS ruled on. So it's not really reopening. 

There are plenty of rulings that have been challenged and there fore there are plenty of precedents for re opening the case. 

The SPL commission was held on the premise Rangers FC had improperly registered players, no? ie dual contracts? EBT loans were really players earnings?

This is the bit you need to put first imo. It's all about the association rulebooks and their administration of their rules to the letter. They can't hold a separate commission into the same commission they already held because of the latest Supreme Court ruling because it would be the same hearing but with different evidence. And if you read the associations rulebook you will see that they totally stiffed us and fucked us over by writing into their rulebooks that all panel and commission rulings were final & binding, end off.

But if you read the same set of rules you will see that there is a clause were the SPL commission can be re-examined only if the club in question appeals the ruling. There wasn't a set time for the club to appeal the commission so theoretically The Rangers if they want to do the right thing, as King once babbled out years ago if the end product of any hearing into Rangers financial dodgy mechanisms was they were guilty, then justice should prevail, but then again we are talking about a proven convicted pathological liar.

[hellbhoy]

59 minutes ago, bennett said:

Has it got big Mohsni taking on the Motherwell team and staff?

 

Red Bennett.

[Jimboyjones1976]

3 hours ago, nacho said:

The crux of the "Strip the Titles" argument is that without EBT, we would not have been able to afford certain players and therefore we gained a sporting advantage by having these players sign for us using EBTs. There has been various quotes from Board members who said that we used the scheme as it allowed us to buy players we “MAY” have not otherwise been able to sign. "MAY" being the most important word of course.

So lets look at that player list in greater detail.

In total 53 Rangers PLAYERS were paid a sum from an EBT trust. The total paid to those players was £33,322,308. I believe these 53 players can be split into 2 Groups.

Group 1 are players who I believe would have signed regardless. Either the EBT they received was of very low value or they were signing for their boyhood heroes or in some cases earning 5/6/7 times more than ever before. These players are:

Alan Hutton, Steven Smith, Federico Nieto, Jerome Bonnissel, Chris Burke, Dan Eggen, Ian Murray, Maurice Ross, Bob Malcolm, Tero Penttila, Billy Dodds, Kris Boyd, Marvin Andrews, Gavin Rae, Zurab Khizanishvili, Steven Thompson, Neil McCann, Alex Rae, Steven Davis, Andrei Kanchelskis, Gregory Vignal, Libor Sionko, Olivier Bernard, Michael Mols.

Group 2 are players who are either foreigners who received anything above £300k or home grown players who got more than £1m. These are:

Arthur Numan, Bert Konterman, Carlos Cuellar, Ronald Waterreus, Sotirios Kyrgiakos, Paolo Vanoli, Jean-Alain Boumsong, Julien Rodriguez, Lorenzo Amoruso, Mikel Arteta, Fernando Ricksen, Peter Lovenkrands, Nuno Capucho, Claudio Caniggia, Kevin Muscat, Pedro Mendes, Ronald De Boer, Thomas Buffel, Tore Andre Flo, Michael Ball, Christian Nerlinger, Dado Prso, Stefan Klos, Sasa Papac, Jesper Christiansen, Egil Ostenstad, Craig Moore, Nacho Novo, Barry Ferguson.

For Group 2, the total amount paid into the Sub Trust for EBT was £27,639,283.

The ruling today means that for those 29 players, Rangers would have had to pay circa £11,055,713 of tax over the period of 10 years if they wanted to pay the players the same amount net of tax.

That is £1,105,571 per year.

In order for anyone to prove Rangers got a sporting advantage, they need to prove that without EBTS, the above players would not have signed. To do this, they would need to pass 3 tests.

Test 1 – If each of the above players were purely offered the salary that was agreed with them and NO EBT, would they still have signed?

Test 2 – If any of the above players did not pass Test 1 and stated they wouldn’t have signed on the base salary, would they have agreed a salary in between what they got paid as remuneration and with the additional EBT? This would reduce the £11m liability mentioned above.

Test 3 – If any of the players failed Test 1 and then failed Test 2 and would only sign for the exact net amount they got during their time with Rangers, would Murray simply have bitten the bullet and paid it.

Given the debt he constantly put us in and given all of the signings were made prior to the Lloyds freeze, there is no doubt that the small amount of players, if any at all, that failed all 3 test would have got the money they wanted.

No senior counsel would be able to prove the above 3 tests which is why the advice given to the SFA over the last few months in advance of the decision is that there is simply no point. You will be lucky to get 1 or 2 players saying they wouldn’t have signed for anything less and even if they did say that, Murray would simply say he would have used our facility.

............and then there was the quote from your ex manager McLeish, amongst many others, not just the board members.

“If we didn’t pay the same kind of money Celtic were paying their players we would have been behind them.”

"There was a goal in it".

And they did, using EBT's.

And he took £1.7 million from one.

 

I'll just let that sit there for a bit so that it sinks in.

 

I'll

 

 

[Forever_blueco]

2 hours ago, TheCelt67 said:

Things that rile up the Berzz.  TV's breaking down, goading and Monkey Tennis.

Things that rile the Celtic faithful . Masonic refs , Neil McCanns windows and soap 

[TheCelt67]

19 minutes ago, Forever_blueco said:

Things that rile the Celtic faithful . Masonic refs , Neil McCanns windows and soap 

[xNicola_Ghirl1888x]

Totally different club so there are nae titles to strip. Unless you mean the lower division ones in which case I think they should be allowed to keep them.

[Monkey Tennis]

6 hours ago, xNicola_Ghirl1888x said:

Totally different club so there are nae titles to strip. Unless you mean the lower division ones in which case I think they should be allowed to keep them.

If this is your view, the titles need removed from the old club as leaving them in place stains our game.

[Forever_blueco]

19 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

If this is your view, the titles need removed from the old club as leaving them in place stains our game.

Is this how all your chat up lines start ?

[Insaintee]

8 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

The SPL commission was held on the premise Rangers FC had improperly registered players, no? ie dual contracts? EBT loans were really players earnings?

This is the bit you need to put first imo. It's all about the association rulebooks and their administration of their rules to the letter. They can't hold a separate commission into the same commission they already held because of the latest Supreme Court ruling because it would be the same hearing but with different evidence. And if you read the associations rulebook you will see that they totally stiffed us and fucked us over by writing into their rulebooks that all panel and commission rulings were final & binding, end off.

But if you read the same set of rules you will see that there is a clause were the SPL commission can be re-examined only if the club in question appeals the ruling. There wasn't a set time for the club to appeal the commission so theoretically The Rangers if they want to do the right thing, as King once babbled out years ago if the end product of any hearing into Rangers financial dodgy mechanisms was they were guilty, then justice should prevail, but then again we are talking about a proven convicted pathological liar.

The club not only questioned the ruling but did not pay. There are plenty of precedents. And in terms of civil action LNS/the SFA stating no going back on the is irrelevant. 

And as stated LNS took the loans to be loans and there for a benefit in kind that should have been declared. The ruling declares them to be payments (or the moneys going into the trusts as payments) and there for Rangers are now guilty of the more serious issue of making undeclared cash payments to their players. Completely different and more serious. 

Also none of the other clubs were able to make any representation so again grounds for other clubs to appeal.

Finally the LNS inquiry was NOT a SFA tribunal but some sort of semi-detached invention that has never happened before or since. The whole thing may well be deemed contrary to SFA rulings in challenged. 

My point is that both clubs and fan groups can now challenge this ruling. And the SFA does have the potential if not the appetite to re-investigate the case. One way to do this is to hold an inquiry into the role of Ogalvie in this fiasco and get that whole can of worms opened. 

 

[Insaintee]

9 minutes ago, Forever_blueco said:

Is this how all your chat up lines start ?

Worked with you

[Insaintee]

10 hours ago, bennett said:

Has it got big Mohsni taking on the Motherwell team and staff?

 

it's got 6-1,  and moshni going into melt down and disgracing your new team's name. 

[Monkey Tennis]

13 minutes ago, Forever_blueco said:

Is this how all your chat up lines start ?

Yes.

Yes it is.

[nacho]

13 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

While you are busy running around to look for any piece of smelly shite to back up your warped view, "whit aboot thame?"

See if you want an end to this period!, why don't you rally as many The Rangers supporters and ask Dave KIng to have the SPL commission to go on appeal by virtue of The Rangers being the victim of this so called witch-hunt. Your club is the only entity that can legally reopen the SPL commission appealing it's outcome and have this matter resolved factoring in the Supreme Courts ruling. Are you confident Rangers will win if the Supreme Courts ruling branding the money going into the EBT trust was legally declared in a court of law as taxable earnings?

This then means that the side letters mean f**k all even if they are loans because the reopened SPL commission will have to include why the HMRC won that argument.

Go on Nacho, get onto The Rangers and get Dave KIng to reopen the SPL commission and have this done and dusted for all time.

it has ended, you and a few other morons bleating on the internet isnt going to change anything, its already done and dusted

[nacho]

13 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

A club runs up tens of millions of pounds of debt buying & paying players out-with their budget and dies but won trophies only because they ran up the debt. Creditors get shafted over because the club lived way out-with it's means but no sporting advantage was gained? How does that work?

Surely there should be some association rule that if a club goes into liquidation because they ran up huge debts winning stuff should have them voided or removed if they were found to be funding the player pool by debt. If a club can service it's debt whilst winning trophies I don't see a problem but there must be some sort of fail-safe to stop clubs like The Rangers at the moment racking up tens of millions of pounds of debt reliant upon stopping ten in a row or titles number 55 if that fails.

Why aren't the associations worried that The Rangers might go tits up like the last Rangers? I think it is a safe bet that the club is being improperly managed and is appearing to live well beyond it's means this season with the egotistical megalomaniac King spending big chasing the dream. Might or might not end badly for The Rangers but things are on a knife edge financially, no success or Progres, then they are truly fucked.

they werent outwith our budget, as for the rest wishful thinking both about a rule regarding admin/ liquidatdation which is fairly commonplace in football and about us supposedly living beyond our means

[nacho]

13 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

Copy and paste job he didn't read first.

yawn, its an answer to your question which explains why there will be no stripping of titles

[nacho]

13 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Gosh, I feel almost bad about you having wasted such time on the above.  

The crux of title stripping doesn't require any proof that Rangers wouldn't otherwise have signed certain players at all.  It requires proof that Rangers registered players in deceitful terms and that this rendered them ineligible.  LNS decided the second part wasn't in place.

Did Celtic need to prove that they'd have scored a swift half dozen goals, had Legia Warsaw not brought on that sub for the last four minutes?  

All your stuff about particular players, specific sums of money and little tests, is tragically, almost touchingly redundant.

Rangers operated the system as both Murray and King have said, in pursuit of an advantage.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have done it.  

They either achieved that advantage, or somehow failed to in a spectacular and puzzling display of sustained ineptitude.

Either way, it doesn't matter.  That's because false information was deliberately provided when players were registered.

there is already proof that they werent inellgible - lord nimmo - case closed, my post was redundant, for the obvious reason that there is no case to answer

[nacho]

13 hours ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

Let's not forget they managed to go bust without the EBT debt ever crystallising. Yet according to this fruitloop Murray could have just paid the EBT savings out of Rangers' 'facility' anyway. Christ almighty.

you do realise that we still had large amounts of money available to us until after we were using ebts, you are talking nonsense

[nacho]

12 hours ago, Insaintee said:

You're missing the point, the Final verdict means that Rangers are guilty of a completely different offence to the one that LNS ruled on. So it's not really reopening. 

There are plenty of rulings that have been challenged and there fore there are plenty of precedents for re opening the case. 

the final verdict means nothing of the sort, the sc was clear that we used a legal tax scheme like many other clubs, it was a civil case which has no guilty/ not guilty verdict and it was only finally established last week that the money was actually owed, there is nothing in sfa/spfl rules that give them the power to deal with legal tax avoidance, so all that is left is the side letters that have already been dealt with

[nacho]

11 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

The SPL commission was held on the premise Rangers FC had improperly registered players, no? ie dual contracts? EBT loans were really players earnings?

This is the bit you need to put first imo. It's all about the association rulebooks and their administration of their rules to the letter. They can't hold a separate commission into the same commission they already held because of the latest Supreme Court ruling because it would be the same hearing but with different evidence. And if you read the associations rulebook you will see that they totally stiffed us and fucked us over by writing into their rulebooks that all panel and commission rulings were final & binding, end off.

But if you read the same set of rules you will see that there is a clause were the SPL commission can be re-examined only if the club in question appeals the ruling. There wasn't a set time for the club to appeal the commission so theoretically The Rangers if they want to do the right thing, as King once babbled out years ago if the end product of any hearing into Rangers financial dodgy mechanisms was they were guilty, then justice should prevail, but then again we are talking about a proven convicted pathological liar.

we werent guilty of anything as i have already pointed out, there isnt a guilty/not guilty verdict in civil cases a point you claimed was irrelevant earlier on so its done, it was resolved 4 years ago

[nacho]

9 hours ago, xNicola_Ghirl1888x said:

Totally different club so there are nae titles to strip. Unless you mean the lower division ones in which case I think they should be allowed to keep them.

nope