Monkey Tennis Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: The FTT predated LNS but that's an irrelevance. That an appeal could be won by HMRC was factored in to the enquiry. More significantly, said enquiry found us guilty on a couple of points and levied an appropriate fine. However, the MHs still want it reopened? Why? So they can find us guiltier? I've asked this a few times and haven't had a satisfactory response. I've answered you. Yes, Rangers were found guilty, but the penalty was staggeringly inadequate in the face of the nature and scale of the offence. Unlike you, I've said all along that the big tax case ruling is actually fairly immaterial as regards the offence of lying when registering players. The final ruling has opened the door on the title stripping debate again though, and I'm happy to join in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: I'm very clear on what the grounds are. It's all about player registration. I agree that there's a lot of confusing nonsense surrounding this though. The lack of clarity is frustrating. There is no lack of clarity. The key phrase is, "nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC; (7) As noted in the Commission’s earlier decision made". There was nothing improper about our players' registration so I'm amazed you're making an issue where none exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, Forever_blueco said: So you want us punished for something we have already been punished for with all circumstances taken into account ? I want the punishment to reflect the offence. What do you mean by 'with all circumstances taken into account'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said: There was nothing improper about our players' registration so I'm amazed you're making an issue where none exists. What was the fine for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 10 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: I've answered you. Yes, Rangers were found guilty, but the penalty was staggeringly inadequate in the face of the nature and scale of the offence. Unlike you, I've said all along that the big tax case ruling is actually fairly immaterial as regards the offence of lying when registering players. The final ruling has opened the door on the title stripping debate again though, and I'm happy to join in. The final ruling changes nothing. All was factored in to LNS. All that 'the final ruling' confirms is that our properly-run remuneration scheme made an error in how PAYE and NIC was dealt with. That was a fine point that, after 7 years and two verdicts in our favour, was eventually clarified by The SC. There was no scandal in player registration and there was no scandal in how we dealt with tax. There were certainly errors but both LNS and The SC have clarified and dealt with this. Everything else is bluster from the empty-headed dross that you're being sucked in by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: What was the fine for? You well know the answer - and we both know it wasn;t about fielding improperly-registered players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 What was the fine for? And was it ever paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: You well know the answer - and we both know it wasn;t about fielding improperly-registered players. I'm genuinely baffled now. I thought it was for submitting false information when registering players. Am I wrong? Please don't be cryptic - just put me right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 7 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: The final ruling changes nothing. All was factored in to LNS. All that 'the final ruling' confirms is that our properly-run remuneration scheme made an error in how PAYE and NIC was dealt with. That was a fine point that, after 7 years and two verdicts in our favour, was eventually clarified by The SC. There was no scandal in player registration and there was no scandal in how we dealt with tax. There were certainly errors but both LNS and The SC have clarified and dealt with this. Everything else is bluster from the empty-headed dross that you're being sucked in by. I've not been sucked in by anything here. I've been utterly consistent throughout this, in contrast with how you've humiliatingly flopped around regarding the significance of the ruling, in accordance with how the verdict has shifted. It's not been adequately dealt with. You can't have a knowledge of how registration issues are traditionally handled, yet claim that the LNS finding is remotely in-keeping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: I'm genuinely baffled now. I thought it was for submitting false information when registering players. Am I wrong? Please don't be cryptic - just put me right. We didn;t field ineligible players ergo our players were all properly registered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 7 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: We didn;t field ineligible players ergo our players were all properly registered. No, that doesn't follow. The players can be registered improperly, but in a way that is deemed not to have rendered them ineligible, especially if such a finding cannot apparently be reached retrospectively. I said don't be cryptic. What was the fine for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 How desperate are the ****! Your titles are going. Get used to it. Ya cheating basturds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: No, that doesn't follow. The players can be registered improperly, but in a way that is deemed not to have rendered them ineligible, especially if such a finding cannot apparently be reached retrospectively. I said don't be cryptic. What was the fine for? OK now that makes not a jot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 1 hour ago, hellbhoy said: I think the SFA are going to maybe possibly have a second hearing with the very same outcome. 1, The EBT payments to the players will still be seen as legal loans to the players from the EBT scheme, this is the key point here. At no point in any judgement has the loans ever been declared as any other than a loan. Just to pick up on this one point - the loans were declared as earnings. So your statement that they have not been declared as anything other than a loan is incorrect. It is similar to a company provided car whereby no one would argue that it is not a car but at the same time it is also a taxable benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Just now, The_Kincardine said: OK now that makes not a jot of sense. It makes plenty. What was the fine for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever_blueco Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, Insaintee said: How desperate are the ****! Your titles are going. Get used to it. Ya cheating basturds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: It makes plenty. What was the fine for? "proven contraventions of the disclosure rules" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: It makes plenty. What was the fine for? It probably makes sense to the QC but no one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Tartantony said: 2. Rangers on good faith having been advised did not realise that EBTs should be registered with the SFA and their intention was not to mislead. This argument cannot be used as quite clearly in the LNS ruling it was stated: Quote Oldco through its senior management decided that such side - letter arrangements should not be disclosed to the football authorities, and the Board of Directors sanctioned the making of payments under the side letter arrangements without taking any legal or accountancy advice to justify the non-disclosure; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Full details of the players' remuneration were not properly lodged with the SFA. There was the official contract - and then there was the elaborate 'pseudo loan' scheme that topped up the earnings. Unlucky that the players all needed side letters to ensure they were not shafted in the shady subterfuge.Titles won by squads that Dead Rangers would never have managed to assemble otherwise. Cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.