The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
the_r_sole said:
and this is exactly why you shouldn't comment on things you clearly don't understand!
Click to expand...

A direct quote from the FTT:

"The majority view reflects the argument that the controversial monies received by the employees were not paid to them as their absolute entitlement.

"The legal effect of the trust/loan structure is sufficient to preclude this. Thus the payments are loans, not earnings, and so are recoverable from the employee or his estate."

Which is almost exactly what I said above, without my wonderful turn of phrase of course.
 
right, so you've quoted something that says the ebt payments were loans -which actually has nothing to do with the spl's investigation, what they were investigating was the players contracts
but you keep banging away on your keyboard, it's a shame they've put such incompetence into the courts and independent investigations when they could have used an internet bam to make stuff up to suit their arguments rather than looking at the facts
I don't really see any point on continuing this as it seems that you are unable or unwilling to understand what has happened here because the facts don't suit your opinions

maybe you should take some deep breaths and stay off the buckie for a while
 
Illgresi said:
That's the point, until the legality of the use of EBTs was decided, a panel should never have been called to investigate it. I'll say it until i'm somewhere between green and indigo in the face, whitewash!



I suggest you look up the word bigot. Then perhaps have a think about the history of your club.
Click to expand...

The legality of EBT's and Rangers use of them has been decided. The FTTT decision stands until it can be proven otherwise.

I know full well the meaning of the word bigot, and your contribution to this thread suggests you are indeed a bigot and are unable to view things from any perspective other than your own blinkered viewpoint. Which has been proven wrong by people with a tad more knowledge in both the rules of the SPL and tax case law!

History of my club? According to clowns like you, my club is only 7 months old.
 
Last edited:
I fail to understand the lack of correlation that you're 'banging' on about.

1. SPL investigation as to whether DeadCo issued 'side-letters' to players, giving them extra funds through EBTs concludes that they did.

2. Tax tribunal investigation into whether DeadCo's use of EBTs was legal and correct hasn't been decided yet.

3. SPL investigation thus concludes that no rules have been broken.
 
Illgresi said:
I fail to understand the lack of correlation that you're 'banging' on about.

1. SPL investigation as to whether DeadCo issued 'side-letters' to players, giving them extra funds through EBTs concludes that they did.

2. Tax tribunal investigation into whether DeadCo's use of EBTs was legal and correct hasn't been decided yet.

3. SPL investigation thus concludes that no rules have been broken.
Click to expand...

Point two has been decided it is under appeal. The appeal does not make the FTT result void though.
 
Five.Stars said:
The legality of EBT's and Rangers use of them has been decided. The FTTT decision stands until it can be proven otherwise.

I know full well the meaning of the word bigot, and your contribution to this thread suggests you are indeed a bigot and are unable to view things from any perspective other than your own blinkered viewpoint. Which has been proven wrong by people with a tad more knowledge in both the rules of the SPL and tax case law!
Click to expand...

bigot noun /ˈbɪg.ət/ [C] disapproving
Definition
A person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.

Strong: Yes. I'm desperate for DeadCo to receive the punishment they deserve.

Unreasonable: No. My points have been where possible backed by evidence.

Who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong: No. my points haven't been successfully refuted as yet.

Except by a crowd of belligerent, self-congratulatory Rangers fans who have shown no actual evidence that their viewpoint holds any water what-so-ever.

History of my club? According to clowns like gou, my club is only 7 months old.
Click to expand...

You decide. Do you want nearly 150 years of bigotry, 54 domestic trophies and the huge debts. Or a clean slate?

Or, as is quite obviously the case, do you want to be able to pick and choose which aspects of your history you keep?

i.e. Keep the trophies, ditch the debt, and keep the sectarianism on the sly.
 
If Admiral Huddy (whom I cannot PM) can PM the nature of the recent offensive comment that was removed, I would be happy to adjust my writing style in future. Unfortunately, I can't remember what I said.

As far as is practicable, I am trying to back up my points with quotes, paraphrasing and facts. I have no wish to cause offense, but neither do I wish to allow the Rangers fans on this board to have carte blanche in depicting this sorry tale.
 
Illgresi said:
bigot noun /ˈbɪg.ət/ [C] disapproving
Definition
A person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.

Strong: Yes. I'm desperate for DeadCo to receive the punishment they deserve.

Unreasonable: No. My points have been where possible backed by evidence.

Who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong: No. my points haven't been successfully refuted as yet.

Except by a crowd of belligerent, self-congratulatory Rangers fans who have shown no actual evidence that their viewpoint holds any water what-so-ever.



You decide. Do you want nearly 150 years of bigotry, 54 domestic trophies and the huge debts. Or a clean slate?

Or, as is quite obviously the case, do you want to be able to pick and choose which aspects of your history you keep?

i.e. Keep the trophies, ditch the debt, and keep the sectarianism on the sly.
Click to expand...

Your points have been refuted by 2 of the 3 person FTTT panel and by the 3 man independant panel working on behalf of the SPL.

As for the history of my club, that is not under question. It has been proven both in company law and by prominent legal minds that the club and the company operating it are seperate entities. The company wasn't formed until 1899. Does the clubs history prior to that also not exist?

And as far as clubs histories go, I suggest you don't start that debate because your club and persons employed within have hardly been squeeky clean!
 
Five.Stars said:
Your points have been refuted by 2 of the 3 person FTTT panel and by the 3 man independant panel working on behalf of the SPL.
Click to expand...

I've explained the causality of my argument, but you wont accept it. My argument isn't about what has or will happen, it's about what should happen in a just world.

As for the history of my club, that is not under question. It has been proven both in company law and by prominent legal minds that the club and the company operating it are seperate entities. The company wasn't formed until 1899. Does the clubs history prior to that also not exist?
Click to expand...

Let's not take these laws too far out of context shall we? Laws like these are in place to protect the common man should his employers go down the spout, or protect companies who have been genuinely endangered through no fault of their own.

Your club have wantonly squandered money they did not own; that of other businesses and individuals, in order to gain an advantage over their rivals, through years of mismanagement, bullying and systemic cheating. It is a fault in the law that this new entity being masqueraded as the old football club cannot be punished for crimes of the former.

And as far as clubs histories go, I suggest you don't start that debate because your club and persons employed within have hardly been squeeky clean!
Click to expand...

Aberdeen have a history of being welcomed in other countries. Nor can I think of who you are referring to when you say 'squeeky clean'. Unless you are referring to Steve Paterson, but alcoholism is hardly something to be despised, the man had a disease.
 
Illgresi said:
I've explained the causality of my argument, but you wont accept it. My argument isn't about what has or will happen, it's about what should happen in a just world.



Let's not take these laws too far out of context shall we? Laws like these are in place to protect the common man should his employers go down the spout, or protect companies who have been genuinely endangered through no fault of their own.

Your club have wantonly squandered money they did not own; that of other businesses and individuals, in order to gain an advantage over their rivals, through years of mismanagement, bullying and systemic cheating. It is a fault in the law that this new entity being masqueraded as the old football club cannot be punished for crimes of the former.



Aberdeen have a history of being welcomed in other countries. Nor can I think of who you are referring to when you say 'squeeky clean'. Unless you are referring to Steve Paterson, but alcoholism is hardly something to be despised, the man had a disease.
Click to expand...

Money it didn't have?

At the time of the sale between Murray and Whyte the club had a debt of £18 million. With a turnover of circa £40 million. And a liability for x £million that turns out was unfounded.

That Whyte instigated on 9 months of non payment was his choice and the reason for administration. The non payment during this time is inexcusable and the club had to be punished - however incidentally the actual takeover and events leading up to and subsequent events leading up to administration are currently part of an on going criminal investigation. So it may yet turn out the club was purchases fraudulently and thus a victim of a crime!

My apologies on assuming your club allegiance. I see you are another breed of Rangers hater altogether. Further to your point regarding money Rangers didn't have - what is Aberdeens current debt/ turnover?

Does that not give them an unfair advantage over their rivals in their annual relegation scrap?
 
Five.Stars said:
Money it didn't have?

At the time of the sale between Murray and Whyte the club had a debt of £18 million. With a turnover of circa £40 million. And a liability for x £million that turns out was unfounded.
Click to expand...

I cannot find financial figures for your club for the year 2012. I do however have figures for the years 2000-2010. Where Rangers average profit was c. -£11m p/a, despite a huge percentage of the funding coming from shareholders, external investors and bank loans (i.e unsustainable). Let's not forget, that this was supposedly a period of massive cost-cutting at Rangers. The previous decade must have been truly shocking.

That Whyte instigated on 9 months of non payment was his choice and the reason for administration. The non payment during this time is inexcusable and the club had to be punished - however incidentally the actual takeover and events leading up to and subsequent events leading up to administration are currently part of an on going criminal investigation. So it may yet turn out the club was purchases fraudulently and thus a victim of a crime!
Click to expand...

In the same vein as the 'club and company are not the same thing' argument, companies are liable for actions of their owners/shareholders.

My apologies on assuming your club allegiance. I see you are another breed of Rangers hater altogether. Further to your point regarding money Rangers didn't have - what is Aberdeens current debt/ turnover?

Does that not give them an unfair advantage over their rivals in their annual relegation scrap?
Click to expand...

An extremely large portion of Aberdeen's expenditure is interest payments on the existing debt. A debt by and large caused by the construction of the Richard Donald Stand. Aberdeen did however overspend in the 90s in a vain attempt to keep up with the Old Firm. However the extent of our financial mismanagement was infinitesimal in comparison to Rangers grand fraud.
 
Illgresi said:
I cannot find financial figures for your club for the year 2012. I do however have figures for the years 2000-2010. Where Rangers average profit was c. -£11m p/a, despite a huge percentage of the funding coming from shareholders, external investors and bank loans (i.e unsustainable). Let's not forget, that this was supposedly a period of massive cost-cutting at Rangers. The previous decade must have been truly shocking.



In the same vein as the 'club and company are not the same thing' argument, companies are liable for actions of their owners/shareholders.



An extremely large portion of Aberdeen's expenditure is interest payments on the existing debt. A debt by and large caused by the construction of the Richard Donald Stand. Aberdeen did however overspend in the 90s in a vain attempt to keep up with the Old Firm. However the extent of our financial mismanagement was infinitesimal in comparison to Rangers grand fraud.
Click to expand...

And if the director/ shareholder used fraud as a method to purchase said shares?

Regardless of any profit/ loss ofer that period, the debt was cut to a manageable level prior to the takeover - unless you believe £18million is not manageable for a company with a £40 million turnover? Because if so, I have news for you - Aberdeens current debt is 4 times moreso, relatively speaking.
 
Five.Stars said:
And if the director/ shareholder used fraud as a method to purchase said shares?

Regardless of any profit/ loss ofer that period, the debt was cut to a manageable level prior to the takeover - unless you believe £18million is not manageable for a company with a £40 million turnover? Because if so, I have news for you - Aberdeens current debt is 4 times moreso, relatively speaking.
Click to expand...

"Turnover is vanity and profit is sanity."
 
McMav, to claim that Celtic where behind the whole investigation into Oldco because they stood to gain the most from titles and trophies being transferred, where there was no indication of what would happen to said titles and trophies, is laughable.

The rest of Scotland (those who did not support Oldco) simply want to see fairness, a level playing field, and with the view that Rangers gained an advantage from employing players they would otherwise have been unable to afford, they have every right to feel aggrieved with todays ruling. Everyone other than an Oldco supporter is thinking the same thing, they bottled it.
 
eddiemcgarrigle said:
McMav, to claim that Celtic where behind the whole investigation into Oldco because they stood to gain the most from titles and trophies being transferred, where there was no indication of what would happen to said titles and trophies, is laughable.

The rest of Scotland (those who did not support Oldco) simply want to see fairness, a level playing field, and with the view that Rangers gained an advantage from employing players they would otherwise have been unable to afford, they have every right to feel aggrieved with todays ruling. Everyone other than an Oldco supporter is thinking the same thing, they bottled it.
Click to expand...

Proof that there was an unfair advantage? Show me the official documentation? So far ebt been found to be legal. SPL commission also reports no sporting gain made? You are just sounding more and more bitter as all that happened was a clerical error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom