The BIG strip the titles thread

[Insaintee]

3 hours ago, nacho said:

the exact amount the players were gven in ebts was stated in the accounts every year, the loan portion wasnt disclosed as it wasnt considered a payment rather a loan

Nope that exact amount going into EBTs is in the accounts but not broken down by who it goes to. A large chunk went to Murray and others like Souness and Ogalvie  so the amount to players is not declared. 

Not that its relevant anyway

[Monkey Tennis]

16 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Don't be silly.  That HMRC may win the appeal was taken in to account.

You've said this a few times now and not yet responded to my answer.  Perhaps this time will be different.

It was only taken into account in that it was said not to matter.  That would make a degree of sense if LNS was disregarding the entire ruling from his deliberations.  That's not what he did though.  Instead, he ruled on the basis of how it then stood, which was in Rangers' favour.  He added however that the fact it might change (and indeed has) could have no impact.

I'll ask again:  How can that possibly be just?

 

[Insaintee]

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

You aren't answering the question.  You seriously want a commission which found us guilty to be reopened? Yes. Why?  Was it the wrong kind of guilt? Yes.

What's wrong with football's governance? Ogalvie.  It works. No, it does not. We were investigated, found wanting and punished? Why a question mark? Is it because you got off on a technicality invented by LNS and the SFA? Wjy a Where's the problem with that? What?

 

[Jimboyjones1976]

1 hour ago, bennett said:

Where is the integrity in Scottish fitba fans trying to bully the authorities into giving them the verdict they want?

 

 

I know. It's terrible isn't it Bennett. Who would imagine fans would try to bully the authorities into something. However you lose any creedence posting that kind of shite when your own club let Fat Sally and the hoards of Ibrox loose on the SFA's independent commission demanding to know who they were and intimidating them, not to mention the ridiculous march through the South Side of Glasgow and the final rallying speech from Sandy Sardine on the steps of Hampden.

Youre absolutely right, where's the integrity?

[Monkey Tennis]

7 minutes ago, Insaintee said:

Finally something right! So Rangers are now guilty of making illegal payments to players and the SFA must act. Hope that clears things up for you

The payments weren't illegal - they were simply taxable.  I'll save them the bother.  

Lies were told when the players were registered though.

[wastecoatwilly]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

You aren't answering the question.  You seriously want a commission which found us guilty to be reopened?  Why?  Was it the wrong kind of guilt?

What's wrong with football's governance?  It works.  We were investigated, found wanting and punished?  Where's the problem with that?

If it went on of maybe one or two years i could except that but it went on for over 10 years which is absolute incompetence

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

You've said this a few times now and not yet responded to my answer.  Perhaps this time will be different.

It was only taken into account in that it was said not to matter.  That would make a degree of sense if LNS was disregarding the entire ruling from his deliberations.  That's not what he did though.  Instead, he ruled on the basis of how it then stood, which was in Rangers' favour.  He added however that the fact it might change (and indeed has) could have no impact.

I'll ask again:  How can that possibly be just?

 

I can only speculate and I'm reluctant to do so.  My quick guess would be that the only impact of an HMRC 'win' would be a tax bill so the outcome had no effect on how we carried out our administration regarding players.  I suspect this is why the SPL said any appeal win by HMRC should be discounted.

[Insaintee]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

You've said this a few times now and not yet responded to my answer.  Perhaps this time will be different.

It was only taken into account in that it was said not to matter.  That would make a degree of sense if LNS was disregarding the entire ruling from his deliberations.  That's not what he did though.  Instead, he ruled on the basis of how it then stood, which was in Rangers' favour.  He added however that the fact it might change (and indeed has) could have no impact.

I'll ask again:  How can that possibly be just?

 

He ruled on the basis that loans were given and players improperly registered and that regardless of the outcome of the appeals that would not change. However, it has now been ruled that the players recieved payment not loans and that is not factored into the LNS inquiry. Equally, he did not factor in the that the ruling changes the assertion that no sporting advantage was accrued as other teams could use the same schemes as incorrect as the schemes are illegal. 

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, Insaintee said:

He ruled on the basis that loans were given and players improperly registered and that regardless of the outcome of the appeals that would not change. However, it has now been ruled that the players recieved payment not loans and that is not factored into the LNS inquiry. Equally, he did not factor in the that the ruling changes the assertion that no sporting advantage was accrued as other teams could use the same schemes as incorrect as the schemes are illegal. 

This was never asserted.

[Insaintee]

5 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The payments weren't illegal - they were simply taxable.  I'll save them the bother.  

Lies were told when the players were registered though.

No but they were undeclared and that is a clear contravention of the SFA rules deemed next to match fixing. 

[Insaintee]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

This was never asserted.

It was asserted by LNS. Are you now accepting that Sporting Advantage was gained. There's progress. 

[hellbhoy]

15 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Don't be silly.  That HMRC may win the appeal was taken in to account.

Is it a synonym for 'moonhowling'?

Once then twice you circumvented giving me an answer to the question I asked you, it was a fairly simple question that only needed a simple reply. This is the part where you claim you gave an answer and where I point out you went all rhetorical by posting a fucking question back to me which is not an answer. You think you are smart and a cut above us Plastics & Diddies don't you?

Whilst posting your crumb of comfort that at as things stand at the moment it's all been all too easy for you to hide behind a decision that went in your favour, you can't even give me an answer to a hypothetical question because you would have to post guiltier than first thought because new evidence would make the club guiltier by proving they deliberately and wilfully withheld a second contract not permissible by association rules & regulations and a title stripping party would be on every Plastic & Diddies tongues.

"waits for obligatory moon-howling quote"

[The_Kincardine]

Just now, Insaintee said:

It was asserted by LNS 

If you are right I'll leave the thread.  If you're wrong then please leave the Sevco threads as you contribute nothing.

The argument is that, " the assertion that no sporting advantage was accrued " was made by LNS.  Accept my offer and prove it?

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I can only speculate and I'm reluctant to do so.  My quick guess would be that the only impact of an HMRC 'win' would be a tax bill so the outcome had no effect on how we carried out our administration regarding players.  I suspect this is why the SPL said any appeal win by HMRC should be discounted.

Again, that would be grounds for disregarding altogether whether or not the ruling favoured Rangers.

Instead, the fact that it then did favour them was explicitly woven into his decision.

There's a massive contradiction in there.  In legal terms it can perhaps be justified, but as I said, in terms of fairness, I've no idea how it can be.

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Again, that would be grounds for disregarding altogether whether or not the ruling favoured Rangers.

That was the practical outcome.  The SPL's issue seems to have been dual contracts and they were right there - we were found guilty.  The tax issue was a problem that lay elsewhere.

[Jimboyjones1976]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

If you are right I'll leave the thread.  If you're wrong then please leave the Sevco threads as you contribute nothing.

The argument is that, " the assertion that no sporting advantage was accrued " was made by LNS.  Accept my offer and prove it?

Are you counting this as a Sevco thread Kinc?

[hellbhoy]

9 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

You aren't answering the question.  You seriously want a commission which found us guilty to be reopened?  Why?  Was it the wrong kind of guilt?

What's wrong with football's governance?  It works.  We were investigated, found wanting and punished?  Where's the problem with that?

Fucking cheek eh? not answering your question. Not like you don't answer questions put to you hypothetically eh?

May I add you blethering old buffoon that if a new investigation was invoked it wouldn't be just an administrative error Rangers will be facing, they be up on much more serious charges of match fixing and corruption.

[The_Kincardine]

Just now, Jimboyjones1976 said:

Are you counting this as a Sevco thread Kinc?

I think it's fair to do so.  Don't you?  We are the subject of the thread, no?

[Monkey Tennis]

5 minutes ago, Insaintee said:

No but they were undeclared and that is a clear contravention of the SFA rules deemed next to match fixing. 

Mate, I totally agree with you here.

I was just anticipating what Kincardine would pounce upon.  He loves it when people say this was 'illegal', because technically it wasn't.  You know how these guys love a technicality.

 As a breach of football registration rules, it was clearly massive though and that's why titles should be removed.

[Monkey Tennis]

7 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

If you are right I'll leave the thread.  If you're wrong then please leave the Sevco threads as you contribute nothing.

The argument is that, " the assertion that no sporting advantage was accrued " was made by LNS.  Accept my offer and prove it?

I take it you're getting hung up on the exact wording being closer to "no unfair competitive advantage"?

What was I saying about your fondness for a technicality?  Why are you suggesting people leave the thread?  I thought you enjoyed the discussion.