NewHope Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 11 minutes ago, Ken Fitlike said: Some shite on followfollow based on some shite on a 'Rangers facebook page'..... #ADDTHETITLES - Rangers 61 Scottish League Titles and 2 ... forum.followfollow.com/showthread.php?1114029-ADDTHETITLES-Rangers... First class summary by a Rangers Facebook page showing the absolute Timplosion that could erupt should the SFA actually add more league titles instead of taking them ... and anybody who disagrees with Ibroxian party line is a 'moonhowler'? Jeez-oh! Ah, so it's all about the superiority complex and the associated 'Timplosion.' More to do with Alfred Adler than Adolf Hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 1 hour ago, Insaintee said: This is wrong. The club did not declare that Junino had a trust during his playing time, but they did not put any money in to the trust during that time. No, it's true enough. Celtic completely hid their ebt scheme from the authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 1 hour ago, strichener said: The rules very clearly did allow for titles to be annulled. You of course know this as you have already been shown the wording of the rules that LNS quoted. It would appear that you are doing the very thing that you accuse others of. In the circumstances the rules didn't allow for title stripping but what does a senior law lord know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 9 minutes ago, bennett said: No, it's true enough. But lying is like breathing to you, so nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 1 hour ago, bennett said: In the circumstances the rules didn't allow for title stripping but what does a senior law lord know. The rules allowed for it. LNS decided it wasn't appropriate at no point was the ability to take this course seemed to not be allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 10 minutes ago, McQuade said: Jings!!! BBC The payments made to the trust were declared in Celtic's annual report for 2004/2005, but in 2008 the club became aware of an event giving rise to a potential tax liability which was subsequently paid after agreement with HMRC. Wasn't declared to the SFA or the SPL.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 even after it was arranged, I think Celtic checked with HMRC - then paid the appropriate tax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimboyjones1976 Posted July 29, 2017 Author Share Posted July 29, 2017 4 minutes ago, bennett said: Wasn't declared to the SFA or the SPL.. Celtic didn't win the league that year Bennett. So if you feel it's appropriate then void all our games affected by the EBT then feel free. You see, when you start shit stirring and trying to tar us with the same brush just so you can justify your stance, it falls down when fans of Celtic actually agree with voiding games etc...So, and I take it you're citing the Juninho case, if you want to go down that route then feel free. I know it'll make you cock-a-hoop to see another team dragged onto your mire, albeit on a far, far lesser degree. Clutching at straws or what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 28 minutes ago, strichener said: The rules allowed for it. LNS decided it wasn't appropriate at no point was the ability to take this course seemed to not be allowed. Not in the circumstances, Rangers acted within the rules and the players registrations were valid. If the registrations were invalid then titles would have been stripped. Legia playing an invalid player against them saw them lose the match 3-0 , same would have happened if Rangers had played improperly registered players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 18 minutes ago, Ken Fitlike said: even after it was arranged, I think Celtic checked with HMRC - then paid the appropriate tax Rangers were in dispute with HMRC, you know as well i do that if the sum owed is in dispute then you don't pay it until it's been finalised. Bdo will receive or have received a bill from HMRC and will settle up. Also the main issue here isn't about paying, it's about declaring it to the footballing authorities and Celtic never done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 Can Bennett and his fellow uranus howlers get any more straw-clutchingly, hair-splittingly (and metaphor-mixingly) desperate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 Not in the circumstances, Rangers acted within the rules and the players registrations were valid. If the registrations were invalid then titles would have been stripped. Legia playing an invalid player against them saw them lose the match 3-0 , same would have happened if Rangers had played improperly registered players. They were improperly registered; they just weren't deemed ineligible, as they apparently couldn't be, retrospectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 1 hour ago, bennett said: Not in the circumstances, Rangers acted within the rules and the players registrations were valid. If the registrations were invalid then titles would have been stripped. Legia playing an invalid player against them saw them lose the match 3-0 , same would have happened if Rangers had played improperly registered players. No they weren't. Side letters. 3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: They were improperly registered; they just weren't deemed ineligible, as they apparently couldn't be, retrospectively. MT is correct. Side letters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: They were improperly registered; they just weren't deemed ineligible, as they apparently couldn't be, retrospectively. which is, of course, fucking ridiculous. Corrupt, even..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 15 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: They were improperly registered; they just weren't deemed ineligible, as they apparently couldn't be, retrospectively. "We are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches." (p27) "This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player" Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, bennett said: "We are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches." (p27) "This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player" Lol. see above post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 3 minutes ago, bennett said: "We are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches." (p27) "This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player" Lol. I still can't get my head round that. And I suspect LNS would have problems with it too if he were to look at it again today. What he seems to be saying is that they were registered with the SFA/SPL initially and nothing that happened after that could possibly negate or nullify that registration. Not financial shenanigans, not dubious payment methods, not even finding that he was already registered elsewhere - once you're registered you're a made man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 1 hour ago, bennett said: "We are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches." (p27) "This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player" Lol. Improper (hence the big fine) but controversially deemed valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobles Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 Improper (hence the big fine) but controversially deemed valid. The big fine line is laughable when you factor in the money made from Champions League/Europa games.That they spunked it all and then some is hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 3 hours ago, bennett said: Rangers were in dispute with HMRC, you know as well i do that if the sum owed is in dispute then you don't pay it until it's been finalised. Bdo will receive or have received a bill from HMRC and will settle up. Also the main issue here isn't about paying, it's about declaring it to the footballing authorities and Celtic never done that. You would tend to put the money aside though, just in case you lose. You wouldn't stake your club's future on being right. Would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.