The BIG strip the titles thread

[Dons_1988]

2 hours ago, Tartantony said:

 

It's not our fault that there is no challenge, that's down to the other clubs not have sustainable financial models. It's now up to Rangers, Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and any other club to do what we did and start building towards the future. Something I believe they are now trying to do (outwith Rangers).

 

 

 

I think it's down to the fact (in our own case anyway) that we DO have sustainable financial models.  We'd have to go unsustainable to present a realistic challenge to Celtic.

I am still totally baffled by the conclusion Rangers gained no advantage through the use of EBT's.  I'm not hellbent on title stripping yet but I would like this explained to me coherently.  

[thepundit]

11 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

 

I am still totally baffled by the conclusion Rangers gained no advantage through the use of EBT's.  I'm not hellbent on title stripping yet but I would like this explained to me coherently.  

Rangers aren't the first and certainly wont be the last to get into bother with the HMRC. Yet they're the only club I can think of where opposition fans are demanding games be declared null and void. Which is all the more strange given those same fans think Rangers lost all their trophies in 2012 anyway. Why is it worth the effort even arguing about?.....

There's clubs in the Premiership down south who won trophies and had massive tax bills. No one cares.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, thepundit said:

Rangers aren't the first and certainly wont be the last to get into bother with the HMRC. Yet they're the only club I can think of where opposition fans are demanding games be declared null and void. Which is all the more strange given those same fans think Rangers lost all their trophies in 2012 anyway. Why is it worth the effort even arguing about?.....

There's clubs in the Premiership down south who won trophies and had massive tax bills. No one cares.

Er, no.  Whilst some claim Rangers died in 2012 it can't change the fact those titles were won.

Whether you believe Rangers are currently 'going for 55' or you believe the old Rangers stopped at 54, it happened and it is in the history books.  It is that which people want to be looked at.

It's not just a case of having a big tax bill though, is it?  It's the illegal use of a tax scheme to sign better quality players.  It is illegal means of improving your team.

 

[Ken Fitlike]

Rangers aren't the first and certainly wont be the last to get into bother with the HMRC. Yet they're the only club I can think of where opposition fans are demanding games be declared null and void. Which is all the more strange given those same fans think Rangers lost all their trophies in 2012 anyway. Why is it worth the effort even arguing about?.....
There's clubs in the Premiership down south who won trophies and had massive tax bills. No one cares.

The 'bother with HMRC' is not the reason for all the Rangers In Liquidation FC's EBT era titles to be voided.

Dozens of players had their contracts registered with the SFA as normal.... and then had FURTHER LARGE PAYMENTS funnelled their way by the dodgy scheme. The sophisticated equivalent of cash stuffed into brown envelopes.

Cynical and corrupt cheating. Different from mere 'financial difficulties'

[SilverWolfe]

 
I think it's down to the fact (in our own case anyway) that we DO have sustainable financial models.  We'd have to go unsustainable to present a realistic challenge to Celtic.
I am still totally baffled by the conclusion Rangers gained no advantage through the use of EBT's.  I'm not hellbent on title stripping yet but I would like this explained to me coherently.  

Aberdeen were paying a lot of money to service debts built through years of mis-management i.e signing players like Bernard and Hignett and others on unsustainable fees and wages. That's why you were hovering around the bottom 6 and didn't win a trophy for 20 years. Only over the past couple of years have you become debt free and able to actually have a sustainable financial model.

In the short term, Aberdeen would need to be unsustainable to challenge us as you say but with the new stadium and additional income streams as well as a good team on the park you will be able to close the gap and provide a better challenge. My point was that if this was all done 20 years ago, instead of spending crazy money, we wouldn't be so far ahead now. We put the foundations in place 20 years ago and are now reaping the rewards.

On the EBT issue, I get that they wouldn't have been able to attract the players they did. However, that in no way proves that they wouldn't have won those titles. They could have lived within their means and still won those titles. Just let them have them and be done with it and let's get back to laughing at them for their shite football team for the next few years.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Tartantony said:

 

Aberdeen were paying a lot of money to service debts built through years of mis-management i.e signing players like Bernard and Hignett and others on unsustainable fees and wages. That's why you were hovering around the bottom 6 and didn't win a trophy for 20 years. Only over the past couple of years have you become debt free and able to actually have a sustainable financial model.

In the short term, Aberdeen would need to be unsustainable to challenge us as you say but with the new stadium and additional income streams as well as a good team on the park you will be able to close the gap and provide a better challenge. My point was that if this was all done 20 years ago, instead of spending crazy money, we wouldn't be so far ahead now. We put the foundations in place 20 years ago and are now reaping the rewards.

On the EBT issue, I get that they wouldn't have been able to attract the players they did. However, that in no way proves that they wouldn't have won those titles. They could have lived within their means and still won those titles. Just let them have them and be done with it and let's get back to laughing at them for their shite football team for the next few years.

 

Fair enough, we did spend beyond our means and suffered for years because of it.  That was partly driven by a certain team spending money they couldn't afford though....

We will never have a sustainable financial model that is comparable to Celtic's.  Of course there are things we could do to improve our income etc but realistically it will never be on any sort of comparable budgets.

Also disagree on your final point.  It is completely irrelevant to say 'they may or may not have won without EBT's'.  The issue has to be, did they cheat, did they earn themselves an advantage through illegal means.  If the answer is yes then their participation in that competition should be void.  Simple as that.

[Ken Fitlike]

On the EBT issue, I get that they wouldn't have been able to attract the players they did. However, that in no way proves that they wouldn't have won those titles. They could have lived within their means and still won those titles. Just let them have them and be done with it and let's get back to laughing at them for their shite football team for the next few years.

No, No,No!

I have even seen this argument used years ago on BRALT....

'Lance Armstrong should retain all his Tour de France titles as he may have won them anyway without doping.'

Preposterous.

Broke the rules = Lose the titles.

Who said we would be as well watching wrestling....?

[SilverWolfe]

Fair enough, we did spend beyond our means and suffered for years because of it.  That was partly driven by a certain team spending money they couldn't afford though....
We will never have a sustainable financial model that is comparable to Celtic's.  Of course there are things we could do to improve our income etc but realistically it will never be on any sort of comparable budgets.
Also disagree on your final point.  It is completely irrelevant to say 'they may or may not have won without EBT's'.  The issue has to be, did they cheat, did they earn themselves an advantage through illegal means.  If the answer is yes then their participation in that competition should be void.  Simple as that.

I completely accept that Aberdeen will never have a model that is comparable to Celtic but that does not mean you can't challenge us to win the league in the long term. You only need to better than the rest to realistically challenge us.

During the 14/15 season and the first 7 or 8 games of the 15/16 season, Aberdeen matched Celtic point for point against the other teams in the league, the only difference between the teams was the games we played each other. Imagine that situation after 20 years of building the club under a sustainable model. It is entirely realistic that a non OF club could win the league but they need to actually make plans and build their clubs so that when opportunities arise they can capatilise on them.

EBT: At the time, Rangers claim to believe that these payments were not salaries. A court has obviously now found that to be wrong. So for me, the SFA would need to prove that Rangers knew that they were salary contributions and purposely hidden from the SFA. If Rangers truly believed that they were not salary contributions then I don't see how it can be proven they purposely cheated.

[bennett]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

Er, no.  Whilst some claim Rangers died in 2012 it can't change the fact those titles were won.

Whether you believe Rangers are currently 'going for 55' or you believe the old Rangers stopped at 54, it happened and it is in the history books.  It is that which people want to be looked at.

It's not just a case of having a big tax bill though, is it?  It's the illegal use of a tax scheme to sign better quality players.  It is illegal means of improving your team.

 

At no time has HMRC ever said that Rangers ebt's were illegal, their argument was that tax should have been paid on the loans and that is what the supreme court agreed with. A dispute over 'amount due' which has now been settled and will see HMRC send a bill to BDO.

The earlier points made by the FTT/UTT about the loans are still valid, as is the LNS verdict.

 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

For people pro title stripping.

Should Hearts have their 2006 and 2012 Scottish Cups stripped?

They won those trophies on the back of unsustainable debts of over £25m that the club was unable to pay back. Does that level of debt not amount to the same financial doping that happened with Rangers?

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

For people pro title stripping.

Should Hearts have their 2006 and 2012 Scottish Cups stripped?

They won those trophies on the back of unsustainable debts of over £25m that the club was unable to pay back. Does that level of debt not amount to the same financial doping that happened with Rangers?

Nope

[williemillersmoustache]

Just now, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

For people pro title stripping.

Should Hearts have their 2006 and 2012 Scottish Cups stripped?

They won those trophies on the back of unsustainable debts of over £25m that the club was unable to pay back. Does that level of debt not amount to the same financial doping that happened with Rangers?

No, because they didn't deliberately mislead the SFA nor did they get caught giving false information to HMRC, and they exited administration.

I agree, there's a bad taste in the mouth, same with Gretna, same with Dundee but there is zero comparison to be made here. 

 

[Dons_1988]

4 minutes ago, bennett said:

At no time has HMRC ever said that Rangers ebt's were illegal, their argument was that tax should have been paid on the loans and that is what the supreme court agreed with. A dispute over 'amount due' which has now been settled and will see HMRC send a bill to BDO.

The earlier points made by the FTT/UTT about the loans are still valid, as is the LNS verdict.

 

So the court have said that their application of EBT's was illegal.  I am not trying to imply that EBT's in themselves are illegal.

A supreme court has stated that the application of EBT's contradicted tax legislation, thus is it is illegal.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

2 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

No, because they didn't deliberately mislead the SFA nor did they get caught giving false information to HMRC, and they exited administration.

I agree, there's a bad taste in the mouth, same with Gretna, same with Dundee but there is zero comparison to be made here. 

 

So the problem with Rangers titles isn't financial doping. So you reject Celtic's primary argument that Rangers gained a competitive advantage by fielding players they could not afford.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

So the court have said that their application of EBT's was illegal.  I am not trying to imply that EBT's in themselves are illegal.

A supreme court has stated that the application of EBT's contradicted tax legislation, thus is it is illegal.

Someone hasn't read the Supreme Court ruling.

[bennett]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

So the court have said that their application of EBT's was illegal.  I am not trying to imply that EBT's in themselves are illegal.

A supreme court has stated that the application of EBT's contradicted tax legislation, thus is it is illegal.

There's no legal or illegal involved, merely how much was owed (in dispute).

 

HMRC changed tact after the FTT/UTT and accepted that they were loans but that tax should have been paid on them. (If I'm understanding it correctly)

Bdo will receive a bill and HMRC will be recompensed to a % in the £.

 

[williemillersmoustache]

So the problem with Rangers titles isn't financial doping. So you reject Celtic's primary argument that Rangers gained a competitive advantage by fielding players they could not afford.

No, that they broke the rules has been established.

What is at contention is that the breaking of the rules led to no sporting advantage. It's the critical piece you, one assumes deliberately, miss out here. The 'doping' was achieved by breaking the rules, unlike hearts.

So there.

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

 

No, that they broke the rules has been established.

What is at contention is that the breaking of the rules led to no sporting advantage. It's the critical piece you, one assumes deliberately, miss out here. The 'doping' was achieved by breaking the rules, unlike hearts.

So there.

 

Indeed.

A bad business model is not illegal or in breach of any rules (well prior to FFP rules).  I don't know why these circumstances are still used as evidence.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Just now, williemillersmoustache said:

 

No, that they broke the rules has been established.

What is at contention is that the breaking of the rules led to no sporting advantage. It's the critical piece you, one assumes deliberately, miss out here. The 'doping' was achieved by breaking the rules, unlike hearts.

So there.

Ok which specific rule was broken that helped achieve the financial doping?

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, bennett said:

There's no legal or illegal involved, merely how much was owed (in dispute).

 

HMRC changed tact after the FTT/UTT and accepted that they were loans but that tax should have been paid on them. (If I'm understanding it correctly)

Bdo will receive a bill and HMRC will be recompensed to a % in the £.

 

No legal or illegal involved?

Taxable income is a matter of legislation so there is no way that can be true.