The BIG strip the titles thread

[Jimboyjones1976]

2 hours ago, nacho said:

the exact amount of ebts were declared every year in the accounts and signed off by the sfa, " the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA rules" the only issue was not disclosing the side letters, a very minor issue which we have been punished for, im happy that the tax loophole has been closed and both rangers and celtics and the many other tax dodgers are being pursued to pay the proper amount of tax

I like how the strategy is now to include Celtic in any answer relating to the EBT's, almost as if to tar Celtic with the same brush as Rangers. This has been attempted, and failed, in other threads. 

Its almost as if Rangers fans are trying to deflect from the truth.

[Henrik's tongue]

Just now, Forever_blueco said:

So @hellbhoy is you actually understand my point it was bobby soprano who infact would insist you are a grass since all you done was the exact same as me . I patiently await your attempt to dig him up 

Like you did with bennett? 

[Forever_blueco]

5 minutes ago, Bobby Skidmarks said:

Jesus man, give up. You're looking like a right fud with all this deflection. 

Just go back to following Kincardine about the forum as you're clearly useless at arguing your point.

I hardly every follow Kincardine anywhere to be honest . Must be hard for you though traveling through the forum with the hibs Bois constantly tongue punching yer fart box right enough 

[Monkey Tennis]

49 minutes ago, bennett said:

Probably incompetence imo.

 

Not only do I not believe that to be the case; but I don't believe for a moment that you do either.  

[Bobby Skidmarks]

Just now, Forever_blueco said:

I hardly every follow Kincardine anywhere to be honest . Must be hard for you though traveling through the forum with the hibs Bois constantly tongue punching yer fart box . Would imagine it is a hell of a distraction 

Well done FG, you made me lolz with that one. 

[Forever_blueco]

Just now, Bobby Skidmarks said:

Well done FG, you made me lolz with that one. 

Well it must be a hell of a distraction in all honesty 

[Monkey Tennis]

51 minutes ago, nacho said:

yep i am happy justice was served, how do i square it with players being improperly registered for other teams, i look at the report and see our players were properly registered, hope that clears it up for you

In other cases, genuine, isolated mistakes in registration paperwork rendered players ineligible.

In this case, dozens of players were deliberately registered with false information over hundreds of matches.  This was done because Rangers knew that the system they operated ran a risk of resulting in a huge, unpayable tax bill. Apparently though, rules prevent them being found ineligible retrospectively.

I know that justice in that context has not been served at all.

 

All you know is that under LNS' ruling, Rangers have got away with it.  I still find it utterly baffling that any football fan would wish to retain things 'won' in such circumstances.  Honestly, I do.

[Monkey Tennis]

57 minutes ago, nacho said:

the ebts were only determined as payments last week after 7 years of court cases

Even as loans, their terms needed to be disclosed, so you are utterly wrong.

[The_Kincardine]

20 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

You are once more, 100% wrong in your assumptions.

There was an absolute, unequivocal, indeed explicit obligation for all payments to players to be disclosed at the point of registration.  This was to include loans or payments from a third party.  

This is why HMRC's recent win, actually makes little material difference.  

 

This is right and the side letter issue wouldn't have disappeared if we'd 'won' the BTC.  Thus the case outcome was immaterial to the conclusions reached by LNS.  Sensible of the SPL's lawyer to state the the enquiry should go ahead knowing that HMRC could have won the appeal.

So what's the justification for reopening an enquiry which found us guilty given that the new enquiry will have no new evidence?

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is right and the side letter issue wouldn't have disappeared if we'd 'won' the BTC.  Thus the case outcome was immaterial to the conclusions reached by LNS.  Sensible of the SPL's lawyer to state the the enquiry should go ahead knowing that HMRC could have won the appeal.

So what's the justification for reopening an enquiry which found us guilty given that the new enquiry will have no new evidence?

The justification existed long before the confirmed HMRC victory.  However, that has given the calls a raised profile and added impetus and I'm happy to exploit that in discussions on here.

As you know, LNS took account of where the judgement then stood, before dismissing its capacity to change for the future.

I know that that's thoroughly unjust.

[hellbhoy]

20 minutes ago, Forever_blueco said:

So @hellbhoy is you actually understand my point it was bobby soprano who infact would insist you are a grass since all you done was the exact same as me . I patiently await your attempt to dig him up 

Telling you where the report function is not the same as reporting someone. Just put the bottle doon and log off as you are having period or something similar.

[The_Kincardine]

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

The justification existed long before the confirmed HMRC victory.  However, that has given the calls a raised profile and added impetus and I'm happy to exploit that in discussions on here.

As you know, LNS took account of where the judgement then stood, before dismissing its capacity to change for the future.

I know that that's thoroughly unjust.

You've already stated that the BTC outcome is immaterial - so why ask for the enquiry to be reopened?

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

You've already stated that the BTC outcome is immaterial - so why ask for the enquiry to be reopened?

Because I think its findings were ludicrous and unjust.

I'd have liked it reopened on any day since it concluded.  I'm simply taking advantage of the fact that others are saying it now too.

[Forever_blueco]

9 minutes ago, hellbhoy said:

Telling you where the report function is not the same as reporting someone. Just put the bottle doon and log off as you are having period or something similar.

I never reported anyone either . I said more less the same as you but worded it differently . I never called you a grass 

 

now calm yourself down ya seething mess

[SilverWolfe]

Just catching up. Does Nacho ever get anything correct? [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]He doesn't seem to actually understand anything.

[The_Kincardine]

5 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Because I think its findings were ludicrous and unjust.

I'd have liked it reopened on any day since it concluded.  I'm simply taking advantage of the fact that others are saying it now too.

I hope you'll be logically consistent and object to the reopening of the enquiry based on the outcome of the BTC as you don't think it affects it.

 

I see Ralph Topping thinks the enquiry is unlikely to be reopened: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/spfl-s-ralph-topping-stands-firm-amid-title-stripping-calls-1-4504809

"Similar to the SFA, Topping has confirmed the SPFL is confident it can issue a robust defence to any potential legal challenges, with fans’ groups also mobilising.
 

[Monkey Tennis]

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

I hope you'll be logically consistent and object to the reopening of the enquiry based on the outcome of the BTC as you don't think it affects it.

 

I see Ralph Topping thinks the enquiry is unlikely to be reopened: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/spfl-s-ralph-topping-stands-firm-amid-title-stripping-calls-1-4504809

"Similar to the SFA, Topping has confirmed the SPFL is confident it can issue a robust defence to any potential legal challenges, with fans’ groups also mobilising.
 

No, I'd very happily welcome it being reopened on any premise at all.  As I said, I've wanted it reopened since it concluded.

The Ralph Topping article has been discussed on here already today.  I actually think he sounded less confident than you'd expect him to be.  It served to give me a little encouragement, although I still don't see anything changing.

[Monkey Tennis]

6 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

Just catching up. Does Nacho ever get anything correct? He doesn't seem to actually understand anything.

You're right.

His biggest difficulty is that he really doesn't have a grasp of the relevant issues at all.  He just knows that these titles are terribly important to him.

[The_Kincardine]

14 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

No, I'd very happily welcome it being reopened on any premise at all.  As I said, I've wanted it reopened since it concluded.

The Ralph Topping article has been discussed on here already today.  I actually think he sounded less confident than you'd expect him to be.  It served to give me a little encouragement, although I still don't see anything changing.

Sorry - I missed that.  I tried scrolling back but it was just the Moonhowlers posting about posters as is their wont.

Edit: So opportunism ahead of principle?  Where's the integrity in that?

[bennett]

1 hour ago, hellbhoy said:

Hey cunto, don't fucking implicate me grassing people up. You were whining like a wee bitch asking other people to grass someone up yourself and I merely pointed out if you had a grievance with a post then use the fucking report function to stop you spamming the thread with you tears and snotters.

Chill oot QC.