The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread
- Thread starter Ace Modder
- Start date
- Status
i don't understand what that means - could you rephrase it - is there a word missing?
As part of negotiations to parachute Sevco into division 1 there was a clause that they had to accept the loss of SPL and Scottish Cup titles during the EBT years.
Nothing, but you know what the Scottish sports press is like when it comes to these things.
Hardly, the SPL had already been told at that point that there was prima facie evidence that Rangers had been using dual contracts. They were trying to do Sevco a favour by giving them the option of accepting that those titles were to be removed as part of putting them direct into the SFL1 instead of the SF3.
As it is now, it'll go to an independent tribunal, who will likely find that they were using dual contracts and all the titles will be removed anyway.
Talk about having your cake and eating it.
Indeed, it always seemed like they were trying to do Rangers a favour I thought
It sounds to me like Rangers are just putting out PR to put pressure on the SPL and/or investigation team before the results of the big tax case are publicly known, whether they've been told in private or not remains to be seen (if admins are correct that result should be known by the end of this month). Sadly the usual tabloids are eating it up since they're desperate to keep the sales.
Even the latest about European league reconstruction is a joke that's never going to happen since the big clubs will lose too much money yet the radio commentators were all over it.
Fixed. They wanted Rangers stripped of titles without any proof now they have set up this kangaroo court David Murray even stated that they are using today's rules to decide on an issue from 2001. SFA have updated it's rules to ensure Gers guilt.
Last edited:
Would that be the same SFL whose Vice President Jim Ballantyne who was spotted in May this year in the directors box at the Linfield vs Rangers fundraising friendly, sporting a Rangers Fighting Fund badge
£94m Oldco owes the taxman according to Duff & Phelps 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19786824
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19786824
No, personally I just want the record books to show that all fixtures involving incorrectly registered players is shown as a 3-0 reversal as per the rule book
You guys make it sound so simple yet it's not.
EBT's are loans not contractual payments thus if and when they are paid back then no actual money has been paid is that not the case?
This is not simply a case of contractual payments on a 2nd contract it's a bit more involved than that. When does a loan legally become a contract? I have a loan for my house the bank fronted me the cash hmm does that mean I had a second salary?
A side letter stating that loan facility is available to a player is that a contract? I suppose this is why despite SFA knowing about EBTs every year in the annual accounts and knowing about the loan facility since 2010 it's still taking 3 of the countries top legal minds 4 months to come to a decision yet laymen on these forums know better
What I would like to know is why when reading the papers in August 2011 it was stated frequently that the big tax case would be known by mid October 2011 yet it's taken a further year. I'm quite confident that had the outcome been sooner something could have been put in place to protect Rangers it would also have created much more interest from potential buyers. So why is the case that should have been settled Oct 2011 still not known in Oct 2012?
EBT's are loans not contractual payments thus if and when they are paid back then no actual money has been paid is that not the case?
This is not simply a case of contractual payments on a 2nd contract it's a bit more involved than that. When does a loan legally become a contract? I have a loan for my house the bank fronted me the cash hmm does that mean I had a second salary?
A side letter stating that loan facility is available to a player is that a contract? I suppose this is why despite SFA knowing about EBTs every year in the annual accounts and knowing about the loan facility since 2010 it's still taking 3 of the countries top legal minds 4 months to come to a decision yet laymen on these forums know better
What I would like to know is why when reading the papers in August 2011 it was stated frequently that the big tax case would be known by mid October 2011 yet it's taken a further year. I'm quite confident that had the outcome been sooner something could have been put in place to protect Rangers it would also have created much more interest from potential buyers. So why is the case that should have been settled Oct 2011 still not known in Oct 2012?
Last edited:
You guys make it sound so simple yet it's not.
EBT's are loans not contractual payments thus if and when they are paid back then no actual money has been paid is that not the case?
This is not simply a case of contractual payments on a 2nd contract it's a bit more involved than that. When does a loan legally become a contract? I have a loan for my house the bank fronted me the cash hmm does that mean I had a second salary?
A side letter stating that loan facility is available to a player is that a contract? I suppose this is why despite SFA knowing about EBTs every year in the annual accounts and knowing about the loan facility since 2010 it's still taking 3 of the countries top legal minds 4 months to come to a decision yet laymen on these forums know better
What I would like to know is why when reading the papers in August 2011 it was stated frequently that the big tax case would be known by mid October 2011 yet it's taken a further year. I'm quite confident that had the outcome been sooner something could have been put in place to protect Rangers it would also have created much more interest from potential buyers. So why is the case that should have been settled Oct 2011 still not known in Oct 2012?
That haven't had the benefit of the masters of tax in this and many other forums & Mark Daly and his natural gift for solving tricky tax cases
No, personally I just want the record books to show that all fixtures involving incorrectly registered players is shown as a 3-0 reversal as per the rule book
Agree, I would rather see them listed in the history books as tainted than have them awarded to others
Agree, I would rather see them listed in the history books as tainted than have them awarded to others
If that's the case then there are a couple of titles won by others that should be listed as tainted too
- Status