The BIG strip the titles thread

[Insaintee]

14 minutes ago, The DA said:

Thanks, Blue.  I suspected that's what he meant but was hoping he'd try to explain himself. 

I've posted elsewhere that what I think shoots this argument down ('we were just testing tax laws') in Rangers'case is that they didn't take the earliest opportunity to establish the position with the taxman and, worse, that they didn't set aside the money to pay the tax in the event the taxman found against them. 

 

 

You forgot to mention side letters and the use of shredders.

[Blue92]

1 minute ago, Insaintee said:

What are you doing, it's The Kinks job to tell **** what to think

 

PS You're talking crap, so maybe the kink told you to write that.

One measure of the extent of tax evasion (the "tax gap") is the amount of unreported income, which is the difference between the amount of income that should be reported to the tax authorities and the actual amount reported. In contrast,tax avoidance is the legal use of tax laws to reduce one's tax burden.

[The DA]

Just now, Insaintee said:

You forgot to mention side letters and the use of shredders.

I didn't want to dilute the argument by introducing disputed issues.  

Basically, if Rangers want to use the 'just testing the tax waters' argument, they also need to accept that this gamble failed and,  just as if they had put the same money in small brown envelopes, they now need to take their point-stripping licks. The QC said he couldn't punish the old owners since they no longer existed - but the points are earned by the Club, the very club they say is still in existence.  They can't have it both ways.

[Insaintee]

9 minutes ago, Blue92 said:

One measure of the extent of tax evasion (the "tax gap") is the amount of unreported income, which is the difference between the amount of income that should be reported to the tax authorities and the actual amount reported. In contrast,tax avoidance is the legal use of tax laws to reduce one's tax burden.

Just how do you think this helps your argument? Tax evasion is illegal. In fact in some circumstances, you can go to jail for it. The Supreme court has established that Rangers (r.i.p.) were guilty of tax evasion. Please note "Guilty," and "Illegal," the next word that might be coming is of course "Criminal,"

[Ken Fitlike]

why do the Ibroxians continue to dance around the tiniest inconsequential detail as if it somehow makes things OK?

Rangers were fucking  'at it' from the time David Murray came through the door and have deserved every kick in the baws they have received in the last 5 years - and more to come as their ridiculous claims to retain their Cheating Titles crumble to dust. Despite the risible finagling of the utterly conflicted and corrupt SFA / SPFL jobsworths.

[Jacksgranda]

7 hours ago, nacho said:

yep that happened about 10 days ago when the issue was settled, the money became due at that point not in 2001 when ebts started, you are wanting to punish rangers for something that was only sorted last week

Why were HMRC looking for money in circa 2004 then?

[Blue92]

8 minutes ago, Insaintee said:

Just how do you think this helps your argument? Tax evasion is illegal. In fact in some circumstances, you can go to jail for it. The Supreme court has established that Rangers (r.i.p.) were guilty of tax evasion. Please not "Guilty," and "Illegal," the next word that might be coming is of course "Criminal,"

You Are wrong. 

"It should be emphasised that there have been no allegations made by HMRC or any of the courts that the club was involved in tax evasion, which is a criminal offence."

[Romeo]

9 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

 

Hyperbole is different to analogy.  Hyperbole is meant to be ridiculous.

Arguing from analogy is almost always flawed.  The estimable David Hume demonstrated this a quarter of a millennium ago when he said, "Wherever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty"

Hume's reasoning is why we both agree on the absurdity of the farcical "Lance Armstrong" approach of the moon-howlers.  They are convinced in their empty-headed way that there's an argument to be made there but any sane person simply laughs at them.  Certainly, Hume will be birling in his grave in Calton cemetery that so many idiots give credence to this argument.

The judicial review campaign isn't about 'the governance of our game' but about the SPFL's statement/position wrt further actions against us.  That you fail to grasp this is not at all surprising.  I hope you donated.

Parklife....

[Ken Fitlike]

9 minutes ago, Romeo said:

Parklife....

'KinkShite' more like....

[TheScarf]

Taking the phrase 'getting away with murder' literally ffs.

Sevco fans really are something.

[Monkey Tennis]

9 hours ago, nacho said:

it was dealt with properly, you bleating on otherwise doesnt change that

Why are processes requiring to be examined anew?

[Monkey Tennis]

9 hours ago, nacho said:

yep that happened about 10 days ago when the issue was settled, the money became due at that point not in 2001 when ebts started, you are wanting to punish rangers for something that was only sorted last week

The deceitful registration of players, did not take place last week.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Ken Fitlike said:

why do the Ibroxians continue to dance around the tiniest inconsequential detail as if it somehow makes things OK?

It's simple, unsubtle and unsuccessful deflection.  

They genuinely have no arguments about why Rangers deserve to keep these titles, so pounce on an 'illegal' here or a 'getting away with murder' there instead.

They will not take on the issue of cup ties having been overturned before for genuine, isolated, careless registration errors; set against the backdrop to the penalty Rangers have faced for the scale of their breach.

[SilverWolfe]

I really wish people would stop arguing about legal/ illegal, guilty/ not guilty etc

Tax avoidance is perfectly fine. People and Companies can take advantage of tax breaks to minimise their tax liability as long as they do so within the law/rules. That is they use the rules as they were intended for.

Rangers used EBTs outwith their intended purpose and as such did so unlawfully (unlawful meaning not conforming to the law/ rules).

The Supreme Court simply ruled in favour of HMRC. Rangers were not guilty of anything, Rangers also did nothing illegal. They owe HMRC a shit load of tax, that's it.

[Monkey Tennis]

11 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

 

Hyperbole is different to analogy.  Hyperbole is meant to be ridiculous.

Arguing from analogy is almost always flawed.  The estimable David Hume demonstrated this a quarter of a millennium ago when he said, "Wherever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty"

Hume's reasoning is why we both agree on the absurdity of the farcical "Lance Armstrong" approach of the moon-howlers.  They are convinced in their empty-headed way that there's an argument to be made there but any sane person simply laughs at them.  Certainly, Hume will be birling in his grave in Calton cemetery that so many idiots give credence to this argument.

No, hyperbole needn't be ridiculous; it just needs to be clear that it's not to be taken literally.  I don't actually need a lesson on this stuff, thanks.

Hume was indeed a smart lad, but I don't think his reflections on the limitations of the analogy have served to render the device redundant during the years since.

You seem to both misunderstand and overstate my reluctance to pedal down a 'Lance Armstrong' route with regard to Rangers.  That stems from my difficulty with the concept of 'financial doping'.  If Rangers are guilty of winning things by spending more than they could afford to, they're certainly not alone.  

Parallels do exist though.  I'm happy to call Rangers' deceit 'cheating', but in terms of title stripping, it shouldn't be necessary to establish that it took place, so 'cheating' is an emotive term I've steered clear of.  We certainly can learn from the Armstrong penalty though.  A voiding of titles in the relevant years is appropriate, both practically and symbolically.

 

[The DA]

5 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

No, hyperbole needn't be ridiculous; it just needs to be clear that it's not to be taken literally.  I don't actually need a lesson on this stuff, thanks.

Hume was indeed a smart lad, but I don't think his reflections on the limitations of the analogy have served to render the device redundant during the years since.

You seem to both misunderstand and overstate my reluctance to pedal down a 'Lance Armstrong' route with regard to Rangers.  That stems from my difficulty with the concept of 'financial doping'.  If Rangers are guilty of winning things by spending more than they could afford to, they're certainly not alone.  

Parallels do exist though.  I'm happy to call Rangers' deceit 'cheating', but in terms of title stripping, it shouldn't be necessary to establish that it took place, so 'cheating' is an emotive term I've steered clear of.  We certainly can learn from the Armstrong penalty too.  A voiding of titles in the relevant years is , appropriate, both practically and symbolically.

 

Well said, Monkey.

[Monkey Tennis]

7 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

I really wish people would stop arguing about legal/ illegal, guilty/ not guilty etc

Tax avoidance is perfectly fine. People and Companies can take advantage of tax breaks to minimise their tax liability as long as they do so within the law/rules. That is they use the rules as they were intended for.

Rangers used EBTs outwith their intended purpose and as such did so unlawfully (unlawful meaning not conforming to the law/ rules).

The Supreme Court simply ruled in favour of HMRC. Rangers were not guilty of anything, Rangers also did nothing illegal. They owe HMRC a shit load of tax, that's it.

That's all correct.

What impacts on football of course is the deceitful registering of players, that accompanied the use of the scheme.

What makes it thoroughly unjust and immoral of course, is that Rangers were never going to be able to pay the tax, if it was indeed adjudged to be due.

You're right though - calling what happened 'illegal' is not helping the discussion, as its technical inaccuracy can be exploited.

[Monkey Tennis]

9 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

Ladies & gehentlemen may I present to you the most thickest poster on the forum below.

Nobody is disputing that you thick c**t.

As within the rules they made before and during Rangers demise.

It's not about EBT's any more you thick b*****d.

Really? I do love to make you look like the most stupidest poster P&B has ever seen Tedi.

I wouldn't find myself violently opposed to your general sentiments regarding Nacho, but calling someone else "the most thickest" and "most stupidest poster" is not that successful.

[BobWilliamson]

14 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I've not received pocket money for well over thirty years and I'd never donate to anything so daft.

Have you a coherent argument as to why the titles should be retained yet?

Yes

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, BobWilliamson said:

Yes

Share it please, in a way that doesn't just involve saying "it's already been addressed and the outcome suits me".