Mod Post: A reminder to folks that trying to bait supporters by posting alternate names for a football club may lead to a yellow card. Folk are welcome to post in any superthread they wish to, but nobody is free to use superthreads or this forum in general as somewhere to try and bait/flame/troll other posters.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » I suggest you read the report, the verdict is what everyone was expecting. It was the punishment that was unexpected
It seems appropriate in the first place to consider whether such breach by non-disclosure conferred any competitive advantage on Rangers FC. Given that we have held that Rangers FC did not breach Rule D1.11 by playing ineligible players, it did not secure any direct competitive advantage in that respect. If the breach of the rules by non-disclosure of the side-letters conferred any competitive advantage, that could only have been an indirect one. Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. There was no evidence before us as to whether any other members of the SPL used similar EBT schemes, or the effect of their doing so. Moreover, we have received no evidence from which we could possibly say that Oldco could not or would not have entered into the EBT arrangements with players if it had been required to comply with the requirement to disclose the arrangements as part of the players’ full financial entitlement or as giving rise to payment to players. It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players. On that basis, the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed as contractual arrangements giving rise to a facility for the player to receive loans, and there would have been no breach of the disclosure rules. [106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.
Jelle1880 wrote: » Nonsense, the verdict that was expected by Celtic fans was that Rangers would be found guilty of cheating and of deliberately not declaring millions of pounds, culminating in the loss of titles and hopefully millions in damages. What happened was that Rangers were found guilty of an administrative error and fined £250.000. Don't pretend this is what you expected.
bobmalooka wrote: » Wut?? Rangers WERE found guilty of deliberately not declaring millions of pounds.
Jelle1880 wrote: » If it was deliberate then it would not have been called an administrative error.
ColeTrain wrote: » http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/fresh-woes-for-rangers-as-they-post-7m-loss-29106942.html 7million lost in 7months? That's a lot of money to be losing in division 3, the prize for winning the division is £47,000 :pac:
Lennonist wrote: » "That money was just resting in my account, we weren't trying to steal it, honest" to paraphrase Father Ted. The Rangers/oldco/deadco/newco/ saga is the gift that keeps on giving:). How many titles do they have now 54,49,0? This verdict has just left things muddy and unclean, Rangers made such an almighty mess of things that it appears there was no way of properly cleaning it up.
Peppa Pig wrote: » How many titles will it be in May. Is it 54 or 55?
Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: » It will be 54 top titles and 1 third division titles its pretty clear that the 54 won't rise until we win a top title again. I really can't believe people are still asking this
Peppa Pig wrote: » First time I've seen it asked and was just curious. No need to be so defensive.
Brewster wrote: » As the ruling states, Rangers did not hand over the side letters for fear it would have implications for how EBT scheme was viewed. They were 100% spot on to do this. Had they handed over the letters, I don't think they would have won first tier tribunal. As I've said along, Rangers cleverly used a tax avoidance scheme for many years and they got away with it. Had it not been for the negative media spin, that presumed them guilty with a large tax bill to follow, maybe other buyers would have come forward and Craig Whyte may never have been given the opportunity to reek the damage that he did. This is the travesty of the whole situation which should have avoided.
RoryMac wrote: » By get away with it I presume you mean sold off, old company liquidated, re-start in Division 3? Nobody won in this saga, the game has been severly damaged in Scotland, we are now left in a situation where Rangers feel they have been dealt with too harshly, other fans(Celtic in particular) feel Rangers have got off lightly, the divisions between the clubs is wider than anytime I can remember and it is at least 3 years from the top league in Scotland having any sort of competition. Yeah Rangers won alright! :rolleyes:
Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: » Got to say I and many others don't feel we have won we are naturally happy that O reached the decision that we would keep our titles but its been at a very high cost. Your right at the moment there is a massive gulf between the clubs but this has been building IMO for at least 10 years. As for being in div 3 well yes that's where we are I can only hope we use this period to change how we play the game
Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: » Sorry mate I know it is the first time you have asked. That is the only way to look at it though I don't think any club would count lower division titles in their main title haul
'we have 54 titles, how many clubs in the world can say that, and we'll have another one in a few weeks.
TheBuilder wrote: » We're in talks with Jon Daly, would be a great signing.
Jelle1880 wrote: » He's also 30 years old...
Lonesome Boatman wrote: » If John Daly signs for sevco i will resign from this board
blahfckingblah wrote: » i feel disappointed i missed the offending post
