Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rangers FC On Field Gossip & Rumour Thread 2017 Mod Note in OP(Updated 14/08)

1…235236238240241…307

Comments

  • #7112
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »
    Football governance worldwide is in sh#t state.

    Its rotten to the core but I have read many posts in this thread defending decisions on many occassions by governing bodies and businesses that could only be class as ethically bankrupt in the best possible light but largely venture into the bracket of corrupt and criminal without proper consequences.


  • #7113
    bobbysands81
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭bobbysands81


    Statement time.

    Rangers admit sins of old club won't affect new club.

    http://rangers.co.uk/news/club/club-statement-55/

    "For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers have not lost the case. There is no question of any liability impacting on our Club, its history or any member of the Rangers International Football Club plc Group."


  • #7114
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Ah the were are the same club when it comes to intellectual property but not when it comes to liabilities of how that intellectual property was achieved speech. Its a fine line they constantly find themselves on because it would cost them money to move away from it.


  • #7115
    Savage Tyrant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,165 ✭✭✭Savage Tyrant


    bobbysands81 wrote: »
    Statement time.

    Rangers admit sins of old club won't affect new club.

    http://rangers.co.uk/news/club/club-statement-55/

    "For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers have not lost the case. There is no question of any liability impacting on our Club, its history or any member of the Rangers International Football Club plc Group."

    Yep... Because they're completely different... Except when they won stuff, then they were exactly the same.
    Or something like that.


  • #7116
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,119 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    We are the same club.... oh hang on, we are a different club

    No difference to what they were saying for a long time

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80703339&postcount=282


  • Advertisement
  • #7117
    bobbysands81
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭bobbysands81


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    We are the same club.... oh hang on, we are a different club

    No difference to what they were saying for a long time

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80703339&postcount=282

    Even the three man panel of Judges reference them being a new club.

    http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-winning-titles-cheating-taxman/10032

    The judgement delivered by Lord Drummond Young reads:

    “A scheme involving payments to various trusts set up in respect of executives and footballers employed by the former Rangers Football Club amounted to “a mere redirection of emoluments or earnings” and was accordingly “subject to income tax”.


  • #7118
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    You shouldnt be quoting a journalist on this thread because they have all made the nixon list!


  • #7119
    Broxi_Bear_Eire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭Broxi_Bear_Eire


    Unbelievable. It makes it clear that the present owners of the club have no liabity in "The Big Tax case" and the judgment was against the parties named ie The Murray Group etc


  • #7120
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »
    Unbelievable. It makes it clear that the present owners of the club have no liabity in "The Big Tax case" and the judgment was against the parties named ie The Murray Group etc

    Dont forget RFC 2012 PLC, the business formally known as The Rangers Football Club Plc, the club that won all the titles & developed the IP that Sevco bought.

    Who said the owners of RIFC plc had any liability? Surely King wont buy RFC 2012 PLC now...


  • #7121
    bobbysands81
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭bobbysands81


    Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »
    Unbelievable. It makes it clear that the present owners of the club have no liabity in "The Big Tax case" and the judgment was against the parties named ie The Murray Group etc

    It's all coming crashing down.

    What do you think of your financial announcements today? I'll refrain from saying 'I told you so.'

    You're losing money at an alarming rate yet STILL trading as if nothing is wrong.

    Your operating loss increased to £9.9m from £9.8m.

    Your net loss for the year stands at £7.5m.

    Your turnover has reduced £1.1m to £16.5m.

    Your annual report states that you run out of money and need a fresh cash injection at the start of December... at least one more cash injection by the end of the season and another one the following season whether you get promoted or not.

    Yet astonishingly your website states that one of the key advancements since March 6th is that "the club was returned to operational and financial stability"

    http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/rangers-international-football-club-annual-results/

    Is the penny dropping yet???

    None of the above is my opinion, all that info is taken from the link to your financial statement.

    What do you think of all the above Jelle considering your comments less than a week ago?


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Still going I see :D

    I really would love a new timeline by when we can expect an insolvency event or bankruptcy. It seems you know more than we do, so that should be easy information to find, right ? I'm sure we'd all appreciate it tremendously.

    I mean, obviously (that is, if we would believe the load of nonsense spouted here by the usual suspects) we are in deep, deep trouble.

    I also see a lot of posts constantly asking about financial information. Is this a one way street kinda thing then ? Because if you're claiming all this crap then surely you can back it up ?

    Unless you're just regurgitating stuff from twitter ;) Which would of course be preposterous. Right ?

    You're never stuck for words Jelle so I'm sure you'll be along soon.


  • Advertisement
  • #7122
    Dozen Wicked Words
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,325 ✭✭✭✭Dozen Wicked Words


    Few interesting posts over the last couple of pages, don't want to see ANY MORE gloating creeping in. Posters can answer if they wish, and they don't have to reply if they don't wish, just a reminder should people continue, repeatedly asking a poster for response if they choose not to, is baiting.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjJ1bsnxxhs


  • #7123
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    bobbysands81 wrote: »

    You're never stuck for words Jelle so I'm sure you'll be along soon.

    Did you think we were expecting a massive turnover profit ?

    This is not news to any Rangers fan, nor is it immediate cause for alarm. It's to be expected after years of deliberate mismanagement and people bleeding the club dry.

    But your claims of looming administration are unfounded (not that that ever stopped you in the past, mind).

    A hint in basic economics: A loss-making business does not administration make.

    No doubt (especially after tonight) you'll be back on soon to tell me how wrong I am, with once again nothing new to bring.


  • #7124
    bobmalooka
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭bobmalooka


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Did you think we were expecting a massive turnover profit ?

    This is not news to any Rangers fan, nor is it immediate cause for alarm. It's to be expected after years of deliberate mismanagement and people bleeding the club dry.

    But your claims of looming administration are unfounded (not that that ever stopped you in the past, mind).

    A hint in basic economics: A loss-making business does not administration make.

    No doubt (especially after tonight) you'll be back on soon to tell me how wrong I am, with once again nothing new to bring.

    I was going to say I can't believe what I'm reading but I shouldn't be surprised.

    Now seeing as you're lecturing in economics would you mind telling us where the reserves are to cover these losses?

    I'll give you a clue, you've seen it not so long ago.


  • #7125
    bobbysands81
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭bobbysands81


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Did you think we were expecting a massive turnover profit ?

    This is not news to any Rangers fan, nor is it immediate cause for alarm. It's to be expected after years of deliberate mismanagement and people bleeding the club dry.

    But your claims of looming administration are unfounded (not that that ever stopped you in the past, mind).

    A hint in basic economics: A loss-making business does not administration make.

    No doubt (especially after tonight) you'll be back on soon to tell me how wrong I am, with once again nothing new to bring.

    I don't think I've said that you're going to be entering administration.

    What I have said is that you're trading whilst insolvent which seems the case considering your Board has stated that you need at least two cash injections before the end of the season and (best case scenario) at least one more next season.

    You don't have cash to see you through the next month, you've no assets to offset a loan against, no banking facility, not able to raise capital through the Stock Exchange, criminal investigations all around, you don't have the money to pay next months wages yet you feel there's no immediate cause for alarm???!!!


  • #7126
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    They twist in the wind now that the facts and figures leave them nowhere to hide, why is anyone surprised??


  • #7127
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    http://waitingfortax.com/2015/11/06/on-ebts-and-rangers-fc-part-1/

    A QC writes down his thoughts about the verdict, in pretty simple to understand terms.


  • #7128
    bobbysands81
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭bobbysands81


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    http://waitingfortax.com/2015/11/06/on-ebts-and-rangers-fc-part-1/

    A QC writes down his thoughts about the verdict, in pretty simple to understand terms.

    Interesting but utterly irrelevant piece.

    It's not going to overturn the judges' decision nor pay your wage bill next month.

    No cause for alarm, there's nothing wrong at The Rangers.


  • #7129
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,119 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    'You will have to wait until tomorrow for the punch line'


  • #7130
    Dozen Wicked Words
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,325 ✭✭✭✭Dozen Wicked Words


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    http://waitingfortax.com/2015/11/06/on-ebts-and-rangers-fc-part-1/

    A QC writes down his thoughts about the verdict, in pretty simple to understand terms.


    He's clearly a very clever man, but it is still a grind reading that, and there's 2 more parts!

    Nice to read an impartial take on the whole thing, hope the next 2 parts are accessible for the ill-informed/lazy reader like myself.


  • #7131
    bobmalooka
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭bobmalooka


    Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »
    He's clearly a very clever man, but it is still a grind reading that, and there's 2 more parts!

    Nice to read an impartial take on the whole thing, hope the next 2 parts are accessible for the ill-informed/lazy reader like myself.

    It is an interesting opinion,that's the joy/misery of these things.

    His "fact" about the accountants view is simply not true, in the context of how he phrased it anyway. We look at who has effective control of the asset not legal ownership, the opposite of what he claims.

    Is it any wonder there is so much confusion on these matters.


  • Advertisement
  • #7132
    bobbysands81
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭bobbysands81


    Dempsey wrote: »
    Its no surprise that the ostrich club would insulate them from the idea that no competitive advantage could be gotten from gotten from breaking tax rules.

    Lord Nimmo did rule that Rangers did not disclose payment to the SFA/SPFL but decided that a £250k fine was a suitable punishment. It was as much of a farce as the amount that Green bought Rangers Assets from Duff & Phelps, all who are in the process of criminal prosecution.

    The SFA & SPL will not allow themselves to be put into a position where their role in this whole debacle can be investigated properly and placed on the record. They are teflon, much like alot of their type in FIFA & UEFA. They twisted & revised so many rules to get a newco into into Division 3 at the expense of existing clubs because of money. You are all deluded if you think the sporting integrity of Scottish Football will be the highest priority in all this.

    What a mess Scottish Football finds itself in because of greed and corruption in almost every shape and form.


    The Nimmo Smith judgement does not say what Rangers fans think it said.

    Nimmo Smith said what he said believing EBTs were legal and not contravening laws.

    Now that we know what happened was illegal it completely alters what he said and in fact makes it redundant.

    Have a read yourselves...



    "Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law
    – so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco
    was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no
    argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated
    expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted
    that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we
    proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the
    fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT
    scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules."

    and


    "Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, 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."

    "The breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect."


  • #7133
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,119 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    That last bit is key

    Nimmo determined that the non-disclosure of the side letters in association to a legal EBT meant no sporting advantage. However, now that the Rangers EBT is illegal, well logic and common sense will tell you that there was a sporting advantage also known as cheating


  • #7134
    Savage Tyrant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,165 ✭✭✭Savage Tyrant


    I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there should have been sporting sanctions then and that is more than confirmed in my mind now.
    That being said, I don't believe there is even the smallest of chances of it happening.
    Do any of you actually believe they will go back now and punish the old club?


  • #7135
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Seemingly one of the ex-Celtic players has come out with this gem:
    Chris Sutton insists Rangers can keep their titles – because they were won fair and square on the pitch.

    The former Celtic star doesn’t want to be awarded the two SPL championships the Light Blues won against his Hoops during the EBT tax-dodging days at Ibrox.

    HMRC’s court win this week has busted open the debate to strip Rangers of their wins from when the scheme was used between 2001 and 2010.

    Sutton suffered final day heartache to Alex McLeish’s Rangers in 2003 and in 2005.

    But the Record Sport columnist couldn’t care less what his Gers rivals picked up in their pay packets – as he insisted the Hoops had only themselves to blame.

    Sutton said: “I am not interested in getting handed titles.

    “I would be surprised if any of the players I played alongside felt that way. Rangers beat us fair and square.

    “I really couldn’t give a s*** how they were getting paid.

    “Those titles were won on the day and the fact was we blew it. It was
    our fault.

    “Medals are won on the park – not in the courtroom.”

    The SPFL board have been given a “factual update” following the decision.

    League chiefs were not due to meet until later this month but yesterday held an
    emergency conference call to discuss the fall-out from the latest twist in the Ibrox saga.

    A spokesman said: “The SPFL can confirm that its board held a short conference call this afternoon to allow for a factual update on the recent decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session.”

    Always rated Sutton ;)


  • #7136
    Dozen Wicked Words
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,325 ✭✭✭✭Dozen Wicked Words


    Abuse isn't tolerated, if anyone has a grievance about the thread report it.

    No further back seat moderation or accusations of back seat moderation will be tolerated. If you think there is a chance your post may be construed as such, don't risk an infraction or ban.

    From this warning anything that even vaguley resembles cross thread baiting will be deleted and poster warned/infracted/banned as appropriate. It will get to the point where posters are told not to post in this thread again and I personally do not wish it to come to that, but it is becoming more and more obvious posts are left on the thread to score points, not discuss issues. Do not reply to this warning in thread.


  • #7137
    bobmalooka
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭bobmalooka


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Seemingly one of the ex-Celtic players has come out with this gem:



    Always rated Sutton ;)

    I wouldn't expect a top level sportsman to say anything else, people with a winning mentality look at their own contribution first,

    Any update on that basic economics for us?


  • #7138
    Savage Tyrant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,165 ✭✭✭Savage Tyrant


    I agree with Sutton in as such the titles shouldn't be awarded to Celtic... But they most certainly should be stripped from the record and declared void.

    In any case, neither will happen.


  • #7139
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Seems like the promised response is on the way.

    2-0 after 15 mins, Waghorn and Tavernier.


  • #7140
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    And Waghorn makes it 3-0 right before HT.


  • Advertisement
  • #7141
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    And Waghorn makes it 3-0 right before HT.

    We'll need to hold back in the 2nd half, or we'll never be able to pay the goal bonuses.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement