Rangers owner Craig Whyte gets lifetime ban from SFA

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • SIMPLY THE BEST
    DK Veteran
    • Sep 2008
    • 293

    #91
    Originally posted by lfc4life
    need too sort out that post

    There you go m8



    THERE?S an old saying, you should be careful who you trample on your way up, because you might need them on your way back down.

    Rarely has it applied more than in the meltdown of Rangers Football Club.

    There?s an element at Ibrox who, when they were flying, wouldn?t have peed on the rest of Scottish football had it been on fire.

    If you?re not with them, you?re against them. Do, say or write anything they don?t agree with and... well, they all know what you are.

    That element went all the way up to David Murray and all the way down to guys like Mark Dingwall, who?s gone from running an abusive website to casting himself as spokesman for a generation.

    Between them, they?ve left anyone and everyone in their sights without a name.

    So what makes them think that now it?s all gone pear-shaped, the world will drop everything and help them out of the s***?

    Which is not to say I believe the rank and file of Rangers supporters deserve what?s happening to their club. I?m not saying they had this day coming. Nor am I convinced the SFA?s ruling is the right one, because they shouldn?t be trusted to run a bath, never mind the national sport.

    The transfer embargo makes sense, as it?s the debt run up through vanity signings that has ? in part, at least ? taken them to the brink of oblivion. But demanding money from a business who has none? Anyone who?s ever been hit with a ?30 surcharge for going overdrawn knows how illogical that is.

    What is fair? I?m not sure. All I know is that to give in to rabble-rousing mouthpieces like Dingwall and let them reinvent themselves without punishment because it?s The Rangers, is a non-starter.

    Where were they when Clydebank and Airdrie and Gretna were dying, when Motherwell and Dundee and Livingston were in administration?

    Hitting the phone-ins to sneer that no one should weep, because there were too many clubs in Scotland anyway, that?s where.

    But I?ve long since warned the excrement would really hit the extractor when a big club went belly-up, churned endless columns about how Murray?s ego-driven, My Tenner To Your Fiver bravado would end in tears. So fans? groups can re-write history all they like and pretend everything was dandy until that nasty man Whyte got his hands on them. But they?re only kidding themselves.

    Yes, the SFA?s investigation centred on the chaotic reign of this chinless, gutless chancer.

    But where?s the probe into Murray?s role? When are the fans going to turn their anger on a man who saw HMRC coming over the hill like a million Apaches and palmed the whole shooting match off to that chancer for a quid?

    It might make the punters feel big to boycott William Hill and Vauxhall because they put cash into the SFA, but that?s going to solve nothing.

    Rangers are rooked because Murray ? aided, by the likes of his namesake Paul, who sat there as they unravelled, yet now claims he?s their saviour ? hurled money at foreigners with no sell-on value, who took the club no further up the European ladder than they?d been with a team farmed in Kinning Park and Bellshill.

    None of this is the fault of the SFA or their sponsors or journalists or anyone else on the most-wanted list of the No One Likes Us We Don?t Care brigade.

    It?s 100 per cent at the door of men they followed blindly because they promised the earth.

    Rangers, as a club, are the ones who did the crime. Now, they have to do the time.

    And the worst they get is not being able to sign players for 12 months. They?ve got off with probation.

    Comment

    • SIMPLY THE BEST
      DK Veteran
      • Sep 2008
      • 293

      #92
      Originally posted by colin mckenzie
      offcourse he should have been stripped of his knighthood, when he was running this huge bill though and paying 12m for the likes of flo Sir Minty was the hero
      Originally posted by Rodbouy
      Not only Murray tho, every board member who accepted the ebt were party to it.

      They were all on it and share the same guilt.

      Its good how its the SFA or the SPL that are killing rangers !!!! Dont see poor sally coming out and having a go at Minty or the old board ?

      Blame the governing body for sticking to the rules.

      As for Rangers Fans lusting over the 3rd Div, Just wait till you get there and the Mighty Albion Rovers pump the poor gers.

      Coatbridge will be bouncing that day

      Have all the E B T's been proven as illegal thus far ? until they have been proven as being used illegally then surely the old saying Innocent till proven guilty applies ?

      Comment

      • Rodbouy
        DK Veteran
        • Jul 2010
        • 1320

        #93
        Originally posted by 1plus2
        Have all the E B T's been proven as illegal thus far ? until they have been proven as being used illegally then surely the old saying Innocent till proven guilty applies ?
        Ok.... Sooooooo why did they stop using them ? Mmmmmm I wonder

        Scary thing is, it doesn't look like the big tax case with the ebts will kill use off, its the rest of the money they basically stole. Magic

        Like sally says, a wounded animal, I just waiting to be put down ahahahah
        Last edited by Rodbouy; 25 April, 2012, 21:15.

        Comment

        • SIMPLY THE BEST
          DK Veteran
          • Sep 2008
          • 293

          #94
          Originally posted by Rodbouy
          Ok.... Sooooooo why did they stop using them ? Mmmmmm I wonder

          Scary thing is, it doesn't look like the big tax case with the ebts will kill use off, its the rest of the money they basically stole. Magic

          Like sally says, a wounded animal, I just waiting to be put down ahahahah

          There is absolutely nothing illegal with the use of EBT's thousands of employers used them and Rangers stopped using them because the HMRC closed the loophole which allowed these EBTs' to take advantage of tax avoidance which is perfectly legal

          Comment

          • mattybhoy
            DK Veteran
            • Dec 2009
            • 1046

            #95
            It's denial time again..Why stop now, the story's broke about the financial mess over 2 years ago the poss' of administration. Denial followed.. and went on until the very day of administration.

            Comment

            • lac
              Top Poster +
              • Apr 2011
              • 213

              #96
              Originally posted by 1plus2
              There is absolutely nothing illegal with the use of EBT's thousands of employers used them and Rangers stopped using them because the HMRC closed the loophole which allowed these EBTs' to take advantage of tax avoidance which is perfectly legal
              Very true,the last statement from HMRC about the Rangers case was "if we lose this case we will appeal"

              Comment

              • Rodbouy
                DK Veteran
                • Jul 2010
                • 1320

                #97
                Originally posted by 1plus2
                There is absolutely nothing illegal with the use of EBT's thousands of employers used them and Rangers stopped using them because the HMRC closed the loophole which allowed these EBTs' to take advantage of tax avoidance which is perfectly legal
                No, you will find the manner in which rangers used then, in conjunction with contracts was illegal, and it why they stopped using them.

                Hence why the tax man pumped use with a big bill

                But then its the hmrcs fault ain't it.

                Comment

                • Rodbouy
                  DK Veteran
                  • Jul 2010
                  • 1320

                  #98
                  Originally posted by lac
                  Very true,the last statement from HMRC about the Rangers case was "if we lose this case we will appeal"

                  You are correct, you can appeal but and its big but.

                  If the tax man wins he can demand his money in full before an appeal is even heard. so by then The bigotdome will be. Tesco

                  Comment

                  • SIMPLY THE BEST
                    DK Veteran
                    • Sep 2008
                    • 293

                    #99
                    Originally posted by mattybhoy
                    It's denial time again..Why stop now, the story's broke about the financial mess over 2 years ago the poss' of administration. Denial followed.. and went on until the very day of administration.
                    Originally posted by Rodbouy
                    No, you will find the manner in which rangers used then, in conjunction with contracts was illegal, and it why they stopped using them.

                    Hence why the tax man pumped use with a big bill

                    But then its the hmrcs fault ain't it.

                    So have they been found guilty of using them then ? becuase i must have missed that

                    Comment

                    • lac
                      Top Poster +
                      • Apr 2011
                      • 213

                      #100
                      Originally posted by Rodbouy
                      You are correct, you can appeal but and its big but.

                      If the tax man wins he can demand his money in full before an appeal is even heard. so by then The bigotdome will be. Tesco
                      This is incorrect HMRC demanded cash (?50.00) from me account said pay it,defended myself,had to travel up to Scotland, HMRC backed down paid ?5,000.
                      Rangers will have some clever people in their case,certainly better than me.

                      Comment

                      • Rodbouy
                        DK Veteran
                        • Jul 2010
                        • 1320

                        #101
                        Originally posted by 1plus2
                        So have they been found guilty of using them then ? becuase i must have missed that
                        The taxman did yes, ie that's why he hit use with a massive bill. So in the eyes of those who govern our taxes, yes they are guilty.

                        Rangers chose to appeal that sum and workings, now its at a tribunal judges.

                        Comment

                        • Rodbouy
                          DK Veteran
                          • Jul 2010
                          • 1320

                          #102
                          Originally posted by lac
                          This is incorrect HMRC demanded cash (?50.00) from me account said pay it,defended myself,had to travel up to Scotland, HMRC backed down paid ?5,000.
                          Rangers will have some clever people in their case,certainly better than me.
                          Eh what's your winning a tax thing got to do with that case.

                          If the tax man is given the verdict from the tribunal they are entitled there and then to demand the full sum not the fines tho but the actual tax sum in full before an appeal is even heard. Thats is a fact.

                          Comment

                          • SIMPLY THE BEST
                            DK Veteran
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 293

                            #103
                            Originally posted by Rodbouy
                            The taxman did yes, ie that's why he hit use with a massive bill. So in the eyes of those who govern our taxes, yes they are guilty.

                            Rangers chose to appeal that sum and workings, now its at a tribunal judges.

                            So where does it say that Rangers have lost the big tax case regarding E B T 's.

                            I believe Hector is saying he believes there is a case for trying to claim tax through the EBT's which Rangers had in place up until Hector closed the loophole and there lies the issue and problems.

                            If Rangers are found guilty of tax evasion then they are indeed entitled to get some sharp treatment but if its proven to be tax avoidance and not evasion then that is a different kettle of fish

                            Comment

                            • lac
                              Top Poster +
                              • Apr 2011
                              • 213

                              #104
                              Originally posted by Rodbouy
                              Eh what's your winning a tax thing got to do with that case.

                              If the tax man is given the verdict from the tribunal they are entitled there and then to demand the full sum not the fines tho but the actual tax sum in full before an appeal is even heard. Thats is a fact.
                              Should have made it clearer,the tax man won the case I appeal and paid the lesser sum,at no time did I pay the full amount.
                              Don't be surprised if the amount Ranger owe is reduced eg interest and dare I say it penalties

                              Comment

                              • Rodbouy
                                DK Veteran
                                • Jul 2010
                                • 1320

                                #105
                                Originally posted by 1plus2
                                So where does it say that Rangers have lost the big tax case regarding E B T 's.

                                I believe Hector is saying he believes there is a case for trying to claim tax through the EBT's which Rangers had in place up until Hector closed the loophole and there lies the issue and problems.

                                If Rangers are found guilty of tax evasion then they are indeed entitled to get some sharp treatment but if its proven to be tax avoidance and not evasion then that is a different kettle of fish
                                No your missing the whole concept. Rangers were handed a actual bill, not a maybe one a actual bill.

                                Rangers disputed this hence where it is at now.

                                The whole tax avoidance and evasion is just surrounding ebts as a hole and a side issue.

                                The problem with the rangers setup, is that they paid staff this as part of contractual work, which is a breach of the tax rules.

                                You could use ebt but you couldn't use them to fund extra wages which is where the two contract situation has came up.

                                Either way, if you want to keep denying to your self that's great. Just makes it harder to take when it DOES happen.

                                Comment

                                Working...