Rangers Banter Archive September 13 2012

 

Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.


13 Sep 2012 20:02:49
hope green,and or board, look to extend ibrox, by at least ten thousand. reduce the prices for kids,families etc , make the songs more friendly (the reason i didnt follow rangers or footbal first 13 years of my life was my mum discouraged me due to bigotry to go for either old firm team) we need to eradicate the nonsense around the club. we could easily fill ibrox with 60 or 70 thousand if the above was the case.valuable revenue. plus get rid of the bum numbing crap plastic
seats.
good post. its time to stamp this out. surely to goodness they can find catchy tunes, with passionate lyrics, without resorting to some of the crap that is sung. when i was in manchester and crammed into some of the bats near the ground. i was amazed even though the game had started that half the folk in the had there backs to the screen, took no interest in the match, and just sung songs about religion, and celtic, when there was no reason to. we need to get rid of these type of fans, that have long besmirched our name,bring in more families etc

Believable32 Unbelievable14

That's a great post for the songs must go and the attitude and thinking has no place in the world. You need yourself and fellow fans to point out the ppl so that they get what they deserve and kicked out.

Agree23 Disagree5

Oh bloody hell, we've went full circle, Ibrox expansion , floating pitches , super casionos , underground carparks , luxury hotels , bigger stadium than Celtic blah blah blah.
Sevco havent got the money for the maintainence of Ibrox never mind expanding it.
But do keep dreaming . . . I like it when you lot dream!

Agree23 Disagree18

Try filling the one youv got first ...

Agree20 Disagree11

Based on that you just womder how many other young supporters are lost due to this. i agree u will lose a certain amount of passion, fuelled by the nasty element. But in time these dinosaurs will be forgotten, as we increase our fanbase worldwide minus the nastiness,and rubbish that occasionally blights us. In 10 years when the gers make another euro final i dont want to be looking over my shoulder, wondering if a certain element are going to ruin it for the rest by rioting

Agree13 Disagree5

@2, I don't know who Sevco are but Rangers have no debt and money in the bank. Unlike Pacific Shelf 595

Agree14 Disagree18

Great post
@2 yes and Celtic should do the same stop blabbing about money, and make match day a day everyone can enjoy. I know both clubs have fans who love their clubs it can be done with good sporting rivalry. It's not only Rangers and Celtic but every other club in Scotland lets get rid of the bitterness for the sake of football.
Bobby

Agree13 Disagree5

@2 exactly the kind of supporter both clubs could do without. It never went full circle anything expansion would be a good thing for many reasons as for the other parts the Op never mentioned any of them. They belonged to a delusional man a decade ago. Honestly man stop the hate and stop living in the past. We have had to change our attitudes. I think it's time you changed yours or are you scared of change because hating rangers is all you've ever known. Like you state we are sevco which means you are one of the ones who believe we no longer exist therefore what interest do you have in us. Keep kidding yourself we ain't the same but unfortunately your post through it hatred would indicate otherwise

Agree2 Disagree4

@5: so no debt to the owner then? Hmmm.

Agree9 Disagree0

@7 Regarding @2 Where in the post doe's hatred come into it?.Think your paranoid old son.
Tam

Agree5 Disagree1

I think the Blue Order/ Union Bears and The Green Brigade have a BIG part to play in all this. They have megaphones and generally start most songs. If another part of the ground starts singing or using sectarian words they shoudl start booing or sit down. People would then take note. However, I fear that a lot of people in these groups like to old ways and bigoted songs. It's all a tit for tat. If you say to anyone in the Green Brigade I heard you singing this blah blah, they will justify this by saying well I heard the Blue Order singing blah blah and vice versa. Shouldn't be like that. All groups should make up a song list that is about football and football only and send out a message. What about even having a sing off on Soccer AM and then shaking hands afterwards. Pretty sure that would give out a good message that it is friendly rivalry and football banter.

Mr Sporting Integrity

Agree0 Disagree0

@ 3 This from a bhoy, I think they ARE filling it very well, or do you not read that part of the paper,don't be so childish mate, it just give's them more ammo.
Tam

Agree0 Disagree0

13 Sep 2012 19:43:04
It isn't up to Charles Green to contest the EBT enquiry currently being held. It's time for Murray to come out and defend his regime and put forward the case for the defence. Why is he not coming out and defending the club during his tenure. It's one thing coming on tv and denying any wrong doing but he should be using all media outlets available to come out and say he will defend the club and pick up any cost incurred. If he is so confident that no wrong doing was done then why isn't he shouting his from the rooftops. If Murray wants to salvage any credibility he has to come out and represent the club at the enquiry

Believable18 Unbelievable2

Wasn't it Murdays law team that were representing the club at the tax tribunal ?

Agree9 Disagree2

Now your starting to ask the right questions, finally! Dm is the guy with all the answers but I think the problem is that you fans don't want to hear the answers to those questions because it will hurt too much knowing what your legends did to your club. Maybe if you find out what dm has to say or defend (which I'm sure he will always say he is inocent because he might have to face the law) that you will see that it is not fans/Celtic/spl/sfa/society/hate having a go at yous, and that it was a badly runned business man who tried to get an advantage and got caught. It is a true shame that so called legends to you fans did not protect/have the best interest of your club because if it were the case your club would maybe still be around, if they truley cared for your club they would never put it in harms way.

Agree19 Disagree2

I can't believe you give dm some credit for it is him that did this to yous along with ws am and all on the board that delt with players and contracts and transfer money, and that's cause they all work together I order to get a player and contracts sorted so if your that close to those things you could put 2 and 2 together to know that something fishy is going on. And that's where the money comes in to keep ppl quite and hence you have a case to answer to in side deals.

Agree10 Disagree4

It was Murray's club that ran the side contracts from Murray HQ in Edinburgh.
Whyte only had the club for several months and inherited the EBT problem.
Green never owned that club, he tried to buy it with a CVA, but that failed. So he started a new club with purchased assets.

Agree16 Disagree1

Will that same team be representing Rangers at the SPL hearing?

Agree2 Disagree2

@2 of course we want to hear the answers to these questions we want to know exactly what went wrong. How a very successful business man was led if we are found guilty of believing that everything was legal EBTs/ dual contracts. We have already suffered the ultimate humiliation being liquidated and having to start afresh in the third division. If we are found guilty and titles are stripped so be it we still have our memories and they can't be wiped. I think it's more you lot who are worried what if we are found not guilty what then see that's the problem you lot are that blinded by hate I bet you have never stopped and asked yourself that one

Agree0 Disagree6

Murray to pick up any costs incurred?

If only, the guy was £800,000,000 in debt the last time I looked.

As for coming out and defending his regime, well it's a bit late for that. The BTC decision could actually be made in just over a week and then become public at the start of October.

Murray's tea is oot and he knows it.

BARNEY BEAR

Agree8 Disagree0

Increase the Stadium capacity by 10,000 ? how do you propose they do that then ? turn it in to a skyscraper perhaps ? there is no room to further increase it .

Agree6 Disagree3

Take away the two large screens, that would increase capacity to 55,000. Geo the Ger

Agree1 Disagree5

Nah keep the screens all big teams have em.fill in the corners and raise the roof on a couple of stands to the height of main stand. 10 k more easy. also hope scottish football brings in standing area to lower level of one stand. that increases it further. if we want to keep being a big boy.only way forward

Agree0 Disagree5

@10: do you really think that after what we learned this week there will be any consideration to bring back standing. I know they have 10% of the ground's capacity given over to standing in Germany but I can't see it coming back here as the memories of Hillsborough etc. are still too raw. There must be a reason that the standing areas in German stadia have to change to seating for European matches too - obviously UEFA aren't keen either.

1903

Agree1 Disagree0

13 Sep 2012 19:36:24
Sports Law Expert Tells RangersMedia SPL Titles Can't Be Removed

A top sports lawyer - who wishes to remain ANONYMOUS - has told RangersMedia that the SPL will not be able to strip titles, regardless of the findings of their 'independent' commission.

The first meeting of the 'independent' commission was held earlier this week and will continue until November at least.

Rangers were not represented at the first meeting and CEO Charles Green has stated that the SPL's investigation is a 'Mickey Mouse Event' and Rangers will not be represented at any meetings. Mr Green also stated that the SPL would be faced with legal action if they attempted to remove any of Rangers fairly won SPL titles.

RangersMedia's new England based top legal source had this to say:

"I don't think it is within the SPL's powers and I don't see a clear legal route for them to take. Mr Green is right, there is no jurisdiction over the current activities of his company as they are a member of the SFL and not the SPL.

It is true that, if you are not a member of a sporting organisation, you are not subject to its rules. Mr Green is correct that the SPL is not the current governing body of the club, the SFL and SFA are.

The SPL are barmy to even try and remove these fairly won titles."

So there you have it. A top sports lawyer based in England - who wishes to remain ANONYMOUS - has told RangersMedia that the SPL are barmy to try and remove titles from Rangers.

I guess that's the case settled then. Thankyou for your help Mr Anonymous Top-Sports-Lawyer.

Come on Timmys' you won't be able to help yourselves.

Carling1873

Believable7 Unbelievable23

How do we know he's a top lawyer if he's anonymous? He could just be a Rangers fan telling a Rangers site what most fans want to here. Or Green in disguise. You guys will buy anything.

Agree24 Disagree3

Several other sports lawyers apparently have said that titles can be stripped. The titles were awarded by the SPL so can be - it's simple. That's like saying the IOC had no right to strip Ben Johnson of his medal.

Agree19 Disagree4

The cg part of the statement reeks of Craig whyte....."the spl will face legal action if they attempt to remove any of rangers FAIRLY won titles" more play on words crap. Does that mean no legal action if they remove titles won using EBT's/ dual contracts? Like CW said "I can categorically tell you I don't owe hmrc £5.5m" yip you owed them £9m!

Jd

Agree19 Disagree0

Would this be the same expert ANONYMOUS
sports lawyer who provided the MSM with the entirely opposite view to the one you
have copied and pasted from that well known impartial rag RM.
It is obvious in your statement that SPL
cannot remove any trophies won fairly
but the trophies in question are ones that
ere won unfairly.Does that clarify things for you.Stay away from RM.They tell you
what people like you want to hear.FACT

Agree17 Disagree1

Depends which anonymous sports law expert you listen to noddy eh?....

A top sports law expert last night told Record Sport the Ibrox chief executive will struggle to mount a legal fightback if faced with being stripped of trophies.

The initial meeting of the commission set up to investigate the company that formerly ran Rangers began yesterday at Hampden and will continue today.

Representatives of the Ibrox club were not in attendance after newco chief executive Green argued the SPL has no jurisdiction, following Rangers' demotion to the Irn-Bru Third Division.

Green has threatened legal action if attempts are made to strip titles, but the English-based law expert, who wished to remain anonymous, said: I don't see on what basis he'd have to do that.

He would have a difficulty establishing that his new company has standing to do that, or that there was a legal interest it had that was being infringed.

I think it is within the SPL's powers and I don't see a clear legal route for him to take.

Mr Green is technically right that there is no jurisdiction over the current activities of his company as they are a member of the SFL and not the SPL.

But it's entirely within the SPLs rights of jurisdictions to decide who are or were their champions based on their rules.If its rules were broken, they can derecognise.

Even if it was oldco Rangers, there would be a difficulty in establishing some sort of legal right to be recognised as official champions, particularly where fundamental rules have been broken.

In general sport, if someone is found guilty of a doping offence retrospectively, they lose their titles. For example, Lance Armstrong in cycling, or Marion Jones in athletics.

Jones never failed a drugs test in her life, yet it was found seven years later she had been found guilty of taking drugs and she was stripped of her medals.

This is fair. In principle, why should a proven ˜cheat' retain medals or titles?

Sports governing bodies get their power because participants sign up. That is a contract between the SPL and the members, and between each of them with the other, to conduct the competition on a certain basis.

It is true that, if you are not a member of a sporting organisation, you are not subject to its rules.

To that extent, Mr Green is correct that the SPL is not the current governing body of the club, the SFL and SFA are.

That, however, might be a bit different if you have been a member at the time of rule breaches, which oldco Rangers was. If wrongdoing is proven, it could be seen to have breached its contract with the other clubs and with the SPL.

Where it gets more difficult for him is that, while he is not a member now, newco Rangers are likely to be one day again.

In a similar way to Rangers having to take on board certain conditions for SFA membership, it is not inconceivable that something similar could happen for an SPL share to again be transferred to the club if they become champions of the SFL.

Briggs

Agree17 Disagree0

Alright you want a response so if you believe that then you can sleep right tonight, for this made up thing from rangers media(wonder if they would ever say something that would be bad for the club whether it be true facts or not) is to get yous even further in the sand.
This random made up person is right because you are in sfl and this is the same reason you won't attend any hearings which is right. The thing is the former club is the spl in the process of being liq so tittles could be striped as well as financial penalties. It's pretty sad that this new club is lieing to its own fans about the truth just like the old club, after the result of what happened to your former club I would think you could see through the lies but it seems yous are just happy to go alone with it as they sell tickets to fill your place.

Agree15 Disagree0

"Frankly m'lud, surely it would be BARMY to even consider removing the aforementioned titles from The Rangers Football Club"
Top lawyer jargon m8. Not.

Agree10 Disagree0

Must be true eh, rangersmedia speak to some nut who tells them hes a top lawyer without a name, is it the same guy who advised them to take the spl to court?
The fact of the matter is new rangers cant be touched, but old rangers can be punished with titles removed, im a QC and not telling you my name. (DFind)

Agree13 Disagree0

Hi all thanks; as I said you could not help yourselves, remember this is only banter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Carling1873

Agree0 Disagree11

Yeah have to say that lawyer knows his salt, he just speaking common sense.If they try and illegally remove our titles. there will be a war that will rip scottish football apart,and send it even further into the pit of volcanic ash, to burn and slowly die. we will fite to the bitter end. they can kick us, but they WILL NEVER beat us

Agree1 Disagree15

Bear's the line that start's " I don't think " say's it all, ffs wake up and smell the coffee
Tam

Agree13 Disagree0

The fact he says "i dont think its within the SPL powers" says it all really.He does not know. This anonymous sports lawyer doesnt have a clue. As for green threating legal action, how many people has he threatened to sue and nothing has came off it when he realises he hasnt a leg to stand on

Agree14 Disagree1

Carling 1873.....You won't get away with
that one 'it's only banter ' This post was taken directly from rangers media.Is it only
banter on their site? Aye right.It's time this
filthy rag was deleted from all your eyes.
Nothing but lies each day to appease the
gullible like yourself.

Agree9 Disagree0

@13 The answer to your question is yes it was written as a sarcastic piece to show how pathetic the original article was and guess what all you daft dims fell for it-Well done Carling 1873 you proved your point lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agree0 Disagree10

@14: point out the sarcasm. So does Carling1873 truly believe that titles can be stripped then?

Agree11 Disagree0

What's brighter a Celtic fan or a a two watt lightbulb. I love how they shoot everything down if it does not fit in with there way of thinking

Agree2 Disagree11

Aye we're that daft we saved oor club.

Figaro

Agree10 Disagree0

You never saved your club fergus the bunnet McCann did or are we missing something here. No one could save the old company there were to many hurdles to over come and to much uncertainty about how things would go and how long this would take. At this rate it probably still won't be sorted out anytime soon. Therefore the best thing to do was force the issue that's why CW deliberately failed to pay tax so he could put the company into admin then liquidation. This gave the opportunity for the club to survive under a new company. If we had waited to the final outcome and were found guilty this would not have been achieve able anybody with a brain could understand and except these facts. Believe you me if we had done a buy out we would have ended up destroying our club forever. CW and d&p knew this that's why they were not interested in selling to anyone who might try and save the old company it would have ended in disaster. And secondly we were never given the chance to buy it

Agree0 Disagree2

@18 Think you are old son,did Celtic supporters not buy share's in their club ?.Correct me if i am wrong did Sir David not give you the chance to buy into the club. Also did you and other supporter's not have the chance to buy the club the way the blue knight's and Walter tried.
tam

Agree4 Disagree0

Tam welldone you bought shares that does not mean you saved your club honestly get over yourself. Nobody was going to buy shares when Murray tried it for two reasons. Firstly DM said he would cover it if nobody bought in. And secondly we ain't as stupid as we look lots of us rangers fans knew back then the club was being run by a dying regime we ain't going to be stupid enough to plough our money in to that. But know there is fresh hope a new beginning a chance to do things differently so let's wait and see how this one goes. PS get a grip on reality FERGUS saved your club not your supporters

Agree0 Disagree1

@10 What age are you ? WAR, it's a game of football ffs, your the type of supporter no one want's at their club. Notice you did not leave your name, you a ninja then heee heee heee, every body should be laughing at you but your talkin some serious $hit here.
Tam

Agree0 Disagree0

@ 20 Well if i did not buy into Celtic to help save the club, where did my money go ?.Maybe it was used to pay the tax's to HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE. Do you really believe
1 That Rangers supporters will buy into Charlie's agenda
2 If you knew it was a dying regime why did you not start a crusade to stop Rangers going into admin.
We Celtic supporter's put our money where our mouth is see if your people do the saqme.
Tam

Agree0 Disagree0

Tam whatever keep kidding yourself on mate the bottom line is you invested very little that's the bottom line if FERGUS hadn't came along Celtic would be dead simple as for buying into Charlie's idea we will wait and see unlike Celtic fans I ain't got the ability to predict the future

Agree0 Disagree0

13 Sep 2012 19:03:01
The sfa are the most corrupt organisation in scottish football history all they want to do is hammer the gers well wel still be there when doncaster reagan are long gone watp

Believable10 Unbelievable14

They are corrupt because they caught you cheating?? Does that make sense? The fact they let it happen and go on is why they are corrupt, not because they are giving you the consiquence of breaking the rules. Is hmrc corrupt because they are wanting tax that you avoided to pay through a sceem?

Agree16 Disagree4

Pot, kettle,black comes to mind.

Agree10 Disagree4

Oh give it a rest and just support your team, sfa are not corrupt, they are just useless

Agree9 Disagree1

@2 Explain please.
Tam

Agree0 Disagree2

@4 think the poster at 2 is saying its rich calling the sfa corrupt with the way rangers have behaved in recent years

Agree7 Disagree0

@5 Cheer's for that did not know who he was replying to, the op or @1
Tam

Agree1 Disagree0

13 Sep 2012 18:46:10
i went to last home game , BF1 were great , no sectarian songs in fact all old proper gers songs. Gives the stadium some life. each stand should have one

Believable8 Unbelievable14

Eh "Build my Gallows" was sung?
God, rousing song .. but f** all to do with the team I support!
And as for the witty "We'll Jump on the heads of Glasgow Celtic" ? Aye .. great ... makes me really proud to be a Bear when I hear them singing that!!

Agree9 Disagree1

@1 It's so good to hear a sensible post on here.
Tam

Agree2 Disagree1

@2 I see some moron pressed the disagree button,waken up the decent Rangers ( and Celtic ) supporters don't want your kind in our midst. Go and spread your bile somewhere, where your wanted. (And I for one hope to God that is nowhere).
Tam

Agree0 Disagree0

13 Sep 2012 17:18:16
I am Glasgow Rangers to the core and sick of all the talk of further punishments. Let the sfa/spl do what they must, because given their track record, they will make an ass of it. They think that their word is gospel but I have no doubt they will shoot themselves in the foot.
As far as clearing celtic is concerned they have just shown where their loyalties are. Same ''crime'' different reaction from them. If Rangers have committed a breach in taxation laws, then HMRC will deal with it.

Believable16 Unbelievable20

@OP: how was it the same crime?

Agree11 Disagree3

Dual contracts ? Did Robbie and Roy Keanes salary not get funded by a second party ?

Agree3 Disagree11

How many times has it to be stated on here
that the SPL are investigating Rangers for
double contract issues.Not the same thing
as you state.

Agree11 Disagree3

Funded by a second party? As in Robbie and Roy had one contract but DD put his own money into the club's account to offset their wages?
Clutching at straws me thinks.

Agree10 Disagree3

@2 Explain how that is a dual contract,I believe the person paying the salarie's was Mr Desmond and what position doe's he hold at Celtic.
Tam

Agree11 Disagree1

The only EBT used at Paradise was for Juninho.

In season 2004-05 former World Cup winner, Juninho, arrived at Celtic from Middlesbrough on a straightforward contract, his only contract with the club, which was correctly registered with the football authorities. He only lasted eight months before agreeing to terminate his deal. Celtic made a payment of around £750k into an EBT the player had from before his time at the club.

Celtic informed HMRC of the details of their EBT transaction with Juninho and were told this was regarded as income, not a loan, and that they would need to pay tax. Celtic then paid tax due on top of the £750k which went to Juninho. It was a pointless and expensive exercise for Celtic, but they dealt with it honestly and openly.

DazzaBhoy

Agree7 Disagree2

Dazza can only be classed as income tax if still under contract so how can celtic,and the spl claim he was only paid after his contract was ripped up??...mark.

Agree0 Disagree7

13 Sep 2012 16:02:16
Is it just me or is this whole dual contracts thing just a farse.
It is like being brought up before your local golf club because you did not pay for car parking.
We seem to be getting further away from football.

On the one hand people are annoyed by the oldco for not paying their taxes (as yet not proven).
In the meantime there are no rules against you not paying your taxes in regards to the SL. So they have tried to find something closely related to this within the rules and found potential dual contracts.
So the reason the golf club are pulling you up on a misdemeanour is because you annoyed the club captain!

Ofcourse there would be no evidence Celtic had dual contracts unless they willingly admitted it.
So while the Rangers oldco administrators might be willing to pass across all relevant documentation, and ex-directors scourned by the past regimes ready to give evidence against the oldco; why would a club incriminate themselves willingly.

Believable9 Unbelievable14

For fans who say their not bothered about it every post on this site is about duel contracts ... yous must be flappin

Agree13 Disagree3

OP, there is so much ignorance of the facts in your post that it is not even worth trying to put you right.
Al

Agree10 Disagree3

OP Correct me if i am wrong but did Rangers not go into administration because Craig Whyte did not pay tax along with other debt's.
Tam

Agree10 Disagree1

OP think it is just you ! Don't think you realise the consequences, if you are found guilty.
Tam

Agree1 Disagree0

13 Sep 2012 14:18:21
Correct me if im wrong but this lynch mob is set up to decide if rangers operated dual contracts with some playing staff by paying them partially by normal means and partially through an ebt.
it is of no consequence if they dodged paying tax or not thats a matter for HMRC to decide.

if they did then they are guilty of not notifying the SPL of this arrangement and need to be punished.

on the other hand if Celtic paid any players a salary and then topped it up with money via an ebt and failed to notify the Spl of this then regardless if they paid all tax due as thats a completely dif issue. they broke the rules and need to be punished also

but as celtic have been cleared of any wrong doing as has been publicised then one must assume that having admitted to paying player/players via an ebt they must have declared to the spl that they where paying player/players in this manner and the spl must have found this manner of payment acceptable.

so once again i say for Celtic not to be in breach of Rules they must have informed spl of dual payment method therfore how can they punish Rangers for using the same method of dual payments, what Rangers could be found guilty of is not notifying them they were using this payment method but certainly no punishment should be dished out for actually using a system that was openly being used by other Member clubs/Club

Lochaber Bear

Believable13 Unbelievable23

Celtic didn't have dual contract so there was nothing to declare. Rangers on other hand had dual contract which they didn't notify SPL about in case HMRC found it and did them for abuse of the EBIT scheme. ig difference in comparison between the two. Rangers are being investigated by SPL for not lodging the dual contract. Meanwhile the Big tax case is about having dual contracts proving an abuse of the EBT scheme leading to tax evasion.

Agree13 Disagree3

I think you'll find celtic had declared all of juhninhos payments in his contract. When the ebt part was examined by the club it was found to b unworkable within the rules and was stopped. Rangers would have had the same opportunity to examine the first ebt they used and put a stop to it ,but they obviously decided to carry on regardless. Bringing up celtic and juninho merely magnifies the culpability of rangers in this matter. There is a clear difference in the business morality of the managements of the clubs at that point. With hindsight it can now be seen by all that one club was being well run and the other run into the ground. There were many who could see it at the time just as there are many who can see right through Charlie Green.

Agree11 Disagree3

Lochaber. I do see where you are coming from as it does smell a bit iffy that one (and probably more) club/s can get away with using EBT's and Rangers apparently can't but the issue is not the use of EBT's themselves per se, it is about dual contracts. Juninho only had one contract within which the EBT was declared, which meant no rules were breached. The issue we have is the possibility that dual contracts were used to pay our players: one paid part of their salary in the normal fashion and was declared annually individually as per standard practice; the other was the EBT which was allegedly not declared individually but rather collectively (inc management and non-playing staff) and was (and this is the crux of the argument) a direct and CONTRACTUAL (alleged side letters) tax free payment made separately to players as PART of their wage agreement which is outside the rules of the game.

We have to remember that we had a 'porn star' giving financial and administrative guidance to David Murray whilst Celtic had Brian Quinn offering his opinions on the matter. That is the sad truth of it to me, Murray is accountable for this if it does go against us, no-one else. All Celtic have done here is prove that EBT's can be used if procedures are followed correctly.

I am a Rangers man just as you are but on this occasion, much as I wish it wasn't, Celtic have no case to answer and we do. It is not about the EBT's themselves it is about the players contracts and how the payments were declared.

Similar to a previous poster I run a boy's football team and even when dealing with the SYFA instead of the SFA directly you are hammered for the slightest indiscretion when it relates to paperwork, registrations, etc, deliberate or not. I don't think we have a leg to stand on if the rumours of side letters etc are true.

Brian

Agree11 Disagree2

Brian: at last, a voice of reason among fans on here. Good post.

Agree10 Disagree1

Lochaber bear ONCE AGAIN it's not the EBT it's the DUAL CONTRACT ffs waken up.
Tam

Agree12 Disagree1

#5 - the point is that if Juninho was paid via an EBT, which Celtic have confirmed, then it cannot be shown in his contract as it would then be liable for full tax. It would have to be a side/dual contract. The SPL are saying this okay, presumably because Celtic declared it to the SPL. This means that the SPL don't appear to have any issue with the dual contract, more the lack of disclosure by Rangers. This would mean that if guilty, there is no question of sporting integrity being breached as they have already cleared the use of dual contracts with Celtic. This has given the SPL the wriggle room they require - by that I mean they will find Rangers guilty, and punish them with one of the minor punishments available (suspended ban etc) as the only crime is lack of disclosure (they can now point to the Celtic case to justify this) - you heard it here first

Agree0 Disagree6

@6 Naw the point is Celtic paid the tax's to HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE your club didny.FFS face reality instead of talkin $hte
Tam

Agree3 Disagree0

13 Sep 2012 11:38:45
What a cop out by the sphell panel at the enquiry. Earlier we were told investigations were complete and a just face it case to answer.
What do the panel do eh we will have the case heard in ....NOvember!
The FTTT result is due in October. Have the SPhell bottled it?
Anyway why should Lord Smith be allowed to sit in this panel having already heard a lot of the evidence earlier in May, suppose Harper McCleod wanted him in there, so it happened.

Believable16 Unbelievable17

If HMRC were to lose the case against Rangers and the SPL had already made (i believe they have already predetermined their outcome - guilty) their decision, then their 'integrity', remember that word, would be brought into question and certain persons would find their position unattenable. This way they cover their ars*s whatever the outcome.

Agree8 Disagree8

@1: EBTs are not dual contracts and vice versa. Ergo, they're different matters.

Agree8 Disagree1

Yesterday was always a procedural meeting, so keep you hair on. Good things come to those who wait......

Agree3 Disagree1

It was well publicised that this was a preliminary meeting. The spl has collected the evidence and this panel will examine it and make the decisions in due course. So stop talking out yer ar5e.

Agree6 Disagree2

What the spl are looking into and what HMRC are looking into are totally different, cant you grasp this?
we'd already lost our fight with HMRC , this is an appeal that some wise crack decided to pursue.

Agree8 Disagree1

It is highly confusing tho. i like to think of myself as fairly intelligent. but all the flack, an jargan, we have had to endure the past couple of years. it is confusing. Does not help that we have a combination of people within the scottish game, who want to destroy us,coupled with the fact we were previously mis managed, by some. all the various contradicting quotes, makes your head spin. Lets just hope it all gets resolved by. year end, and we can all move on. I believe we have been more than enough punished, unless there is something else we dont know about. though i would not be adverse to the powers that be going after murray and whyte.but time to leave the club alone, to rise from the ashes, like a blue phoenix

Agree1 Disagree5

13 Sep 2012 10:32:17
Ed can you enlighten me on this matter

im led to believe that Celtic used Ebts with two players they soon realised that this was not wise and paid all tax liabilities. therefore clearing themselves of any wrong doing as far as HMRC are concerned. putting that aside

this Tribunal is set up Not to decide if Rangers used ebts illegally (as thats a matter for HMRC to decide) its to establish whether Rangers used dual contracts?

so what i take from this statement is Celtic must have notified the SPL/SFA that they were operating this scheme and paying some of their players wages via an ebt (dual contract ) which the SFA/SPL seem to think that was ok if so then so be it they have done nothing wrong.

so if Rangers are found guilty of paying some of their players via a EBT all we must be guilty of is not notifying the SPL/SFA of this as it seems to be an acceptable method of payment as long as they are made aware of it.

so all this talk of title striping is a rather severe punishment for not notifying the SPL/SFA that they were operating a scheme that was openly being used by other SPL teams which SPL/SFA found acceptable .

i think the SPL/SFA new nothing about Celtic players dual contracts untill after they decided not to use them but have chosen to ignore that fact.

Lochaber Bear {Ed001's Note - that is a very possible situation, unfortunately no one actually knows what the club is actually being accused of yet. It is all conjecture right now, I prefer not to get involved in conjecture, there are so many variables.}

Believable11 Unbelievable25

The fact that Boumsong has confessed to having sleepless nights, the Greek goalkeepers agent saying it wasnt right and McCann, Dodds and Hately tying themselves up in the issue on an almost weekly basis says it all.

Agree22 Disagree7

Wondering when hearts and Hibs will be looked at for having a player each on EBT's

Agree5 Disagree11

A dual contract in itself is not an EBT.

What seems to have happened is that on agreeing to sign with and play for Rangers1872 a players was promised £x yet only £y was declared in the players official contract. £z, forming part of the agreement to sign the player in the first instance was then paid into an EBT.

You've then got a series of highly suspicisous payments made to people who had no immediate contact with Rangers, Souness for example.

Agree20 Disagree3

You and the previous poster want to leave it alonev Celtic have been Cleared by the SFA and SPL of wrongdoing. Hopefully our club will be to, but if they are guilty and they did cheat then we ( the old Club ) will be punished someway. It won't Affect The Rangersas it is a new club and cannot be accused of wrong doing. This attitude of trying to get other clubs to take blame for our our wrong doing must stop. Let's get back to supporting the greatest team which has a clean slate stop blaming others and hopefully we can earn respect again throughout the football world.
Bobby

Agree20 Disagree10

@ 4 this is not about pulling celtic into this is about everyone being judged by the same rules it appears that a tribunal has been set up to investigate Rangers use of ebts and possible dual contracts but they have themselves found it appropriate to sit and make judgement on Celtics use of Ebts and payments made to their players/player via ebts

Lochaber Bear

Agree5 Disagree15

I am a Lochaber man myself but must have gone to a different school the facts are obvious they are not being judged differently, have been cleared because they broke no rules, which we may have done on numerous occasions, hopefully not lets wait and see. Don't keep harping on about it till the facts are proven were not guilty till then, if indeed we are guilty.
Bobby

Agree13 Disagree3

Is this really hard to understand? Everybody knows EBTs are not illegal if operated correctly.
It would appear Celtic have included the EBT payments in the players contracts presented to the sfa/ spl thus staying within the registration rules, it would then seem that Brian Quinn has realised (given his previous employment) that paying the EBT on a contractual basis would be regarded as tax avoidance and Celtic would be subsequently liable for this tax further down the line. As such the EBT was cancelled- back tax paid and the player quickly shown he door to avoid paying wages they could not afford.
The problem with rangers (covering really old ground) is they haven't declared the EBT's on players contracts- thus breaking the registration rules. The problem being if the EBT payment is within the players contract it then becomes a tax avoidance scheme. EBT's as we all know by now were supposed to be for emergency interest free loans for employees who were in need of assistance- not for paying weekly salaries.

Jd

Agree7 Disagree1

@6. Well said. In any case the outcome from using an improperly registered player is to have all matches ruled as a 3-0 defeat. So where did lochaber bear think his logic would lead ? The fact is that celtic ran a mile from this but rangers were on it like a tramp on a kipper. The difference is stark. From the day celtic opened their 60,000 seat stadium rangers could not compete financially. It looks as though Murray used this system to make up the shortfall in income. Many people were asking how rangers could afford the players they had.

Agree9 Disagree3

No 7 you may well be right but my take on it was that as EBTs are loans and as such cannot be included in a contract as this would rule them useless as a tax avoidance scheme, the sooner that the decision to punish Rangers is made the better, so then the club can appeal and defend itself in a court of law, this is not a slight on the 3 people that are due to judge it, they will base the decision on the evidence that has been prepared for them, one must ask why not one of the power people at Ibrox at the time has been asked for a imput into the tribunal or whatever you want to call it, baffaling comes to mind

Agree1 Disagree2

@4&6, you are the fans that will bring back respect to your club because you have a mind of your own that is not filled with bitterness. The problem for you is that most of your fans believe the lies that are coming out of ppl running your club.

@op, you seem to have no problem saying that Celtic had 2 players on it but all we know of is one, where did the other one come from. And you don't mention the number of ppl your club had in it, is that because you can't count that high? You say some but some means 2-3, yet 50+ players and managers we're on them. It seems you like most are trying to cover up just how big of a deal it is by saying everybody did it bla bla bla. You are running away from the facts and listening to the lies of your leaders(even though it's a new club) is what is saying all the confusion, but hmrc and all the results will help you out with that, then again you may say that it was made up cause Celtic run everything.

Agree6 Disagree1

@4 Sort of contadiction there Bobby, On the one hand you say old club will be punished, the other hand you say " lets get back to supporting the greatest team.How do you come up with that, by your thinking, you are a club only month's old.
Tam

Agree5 Disagree1

@9 Did you not learn anything about going to court regarding the transfer embargo ?. If you go to court this time do not be surprised if u.e.f.a or f.i.f.a. step in, then watch the proverbial hit the fan.
Tam

Agree8 Disagree1

@9 if the EBT payments were loans, how many players have payed the loans back. They were used to top up salaries thus avoiding tax

Agree6 Disagree0

To all celtic fans answer this? if celtic declared juninho's ebt to the spl in his contract then they would have been paying the correct level of tax on him? so why after juninho left the club did celtic contact hmrc asking for clarity on the matter of tax? and dont forget hmrc decided that celtic had to pay income tax for him so means he was still under contract when receiving payments from his ebt...mark.

Agree0 Disagree3

13 Sep 2012 10:15:25
How can the SPL board rule that Celtic are not in breach of EBTs yet pass Rangers to an indepenandt committee?
Surley everyone should be treated in the same way in the interests of "sporting integrity"...
This proves that SPL and Doncaster are not fit for purpose. The SFA should step in and sort this lot out

Believable14 Unbelievable29

For the last time ,brian quinn ex bank of england. saw this ebt scheme and said DONT DO IT ,,IT IS ILLEGAL. celtic then payed all taxes due for the wee hopeless brazillian. so we are not guilty. shamrock

Agree25 Disagree14

Celtic did run an EBT scheme for Juninho, but Brian Quinn warned the club of the risks involved in such a scheme. Celtic then ended the EBT scheme and paid HMRC the amount of tax in full that would have been paid if Joninho's EBT payment were paid through PAYE. From that point onwards all of Juninho's payments were paid through PAYE.

In addition to this, Celtic provided the SFA with a copy of Juninho's contract, which included payments to him through the EBT. Juninho only had one contract in which the EBT was detailed, there was no dual contract.

As such, there is no issue between Celtic and HMRC relating to unpaid taxes as all taxes have been paid in full and there is no issue between Celtic and the SPL / SFA as Celtic provided details of Juninho's contract which included EBT payments.

Juninho was the only Celtic player ever to have an EBT.

This is a completely different situation to what Rangers have done.

So please tell us what Celtic are in breach of.

Agree20 Disagree6

If celtic declare we have 1 player on EBT to SPL then SPL *know* who paid what?

Rangers delcared in accounts
EBT £5million

This is the issue, no details on which players involved, SPL though this was for directors, rangers as a company did not report any different.

Now we know this £5million included directors, ex-managers and players.

IF only GERS had said this was players, they would be of the hook.

Agree10 Disagree0

@1 yeah the tax was paid a few years after the EBT was used, the issue being questioned by the SPL is dual contracts not EBT's was it not the fact that juninho was also on a dual contract if he was using an ebt?

JG

Agree4 Disagree10

@2 so its ok to pay players via an ebt just as long as you notify the spl that you are doing it is this what you are saying so all these people that want titles stripped want it because rangers never told the spl they were doing what celtic where doing? a bit severe is it not

Lochaber Bear

Agree5 Disagree10

..@2..you dont make payments to a player through ebt..the payments are made to an offshore trust and the money loaned to the player without interest and by the way the bbc reported a while back that celtic had NOT informed the spl of the juniniho ebt so in essence celtic are guilty of breaking the rules in exactly the same manner as rangers....except the spl have decided to let them away with it..that stinks to high heaven imo....time uefa got involved in this sorry mess.

Agree4 Disagree4

Guilty of using an ebt scheme,how long did they wait before coming clean,typical moaners,always whinging about rangers,do you lot ever go to kip.....trueblue.....

Agree4 Disagree10

@2 You did not repay the HMRC until 2008, some 4 yrs after the player was paid. You did not pay all the taxes due at that time, only when you struck a deal with the HMRC in 2008.
You may have paid the HMRC but failed to notify the SFA/SPHell of the payment of £756,000. This info is courtesy of your pal Alex Thomson.

Agree2 Disagree8

Sdm was advised by hmrc to stop using ebt's, what did he do he ignored them and carried on using ebt's as he thought he knew best,what a massive mistake he made and now we are all suffering as a result of his arrogance. jaz.rtid

Agree10 Disagree0

Lochaber Bear - it goes deeper than that, far, far deeper.

The secondary contract held by Rangers players related to the payments they received through their EBTs.

These EBT payments were for football playing activities.

As such they should have been made through payroll and should have been taxable.

Rangers were effectively making illegal payments to players, avoiding tax through the EBT schemes, and which were detailed in the second contracts.

This is of course what the Big Tax Case is all about.

Rangers wanted to avoid the SFA / SPL seeing these second contracts as they did not want to take the risk that they may be reported to HMRC by the SFA / SPL for tax avoidance.

I know you will say that this has not been proven yet, and you would be correct in saying that, but never the less, this is the reason.

Rangers and their Directors knew from the outset that they were using an illegal tax avoidance scheme.

Ask yourself the question, why would Rangers have secondary contracts if they were doing nothing illegal. Why would everything not be declared in the one contract.

There is only one reason for having a systematic practice of having secondary contracts for all players with EBTs and it is so that you can hide the details of what they contain.

In this case, so they could be hidden from the SFA / SPL.

You will no doubt dispute this, or say innocent until proven guilty. However, there is enough evidence in the public domain that is held by credible parties that prove the illegal use of EBTs.

For example, you will find that on helicopter Sunday, all starting 11 players, and 7 subs and the manager of the team had EBTs. All 19 were paid illegally and 18 of them (th players) had dual contracts that should have been registered with the SFA / SPL.

So Lochaber Bear, it is not simply some procedural error that Rangers have been guilty of and if they had provided the contracts, it would have made no difference. Such a defence is naive and simply not credible.

They have deliberately set out to hide the payment of players through EBTs from the SFA / SPL as they knew the scheme was an illegal tax avoidance scheme and that if they had revealled the second contracts then they could have been found out by HMRC.

Furthermore, HMRC suspected for years that Rangers were running an illegal tax avoidance scheme and Rangers hindered every attempted investigation by HMRC.

During an investigation by the City of London Police into the transfers of Boumsong and two other players, Ibrox, St James Park and Fratton Park were searched under warrant. During the search of Ibrox Police seized evidence that was passed to HMRC and this is what started the EBT investigation by HMRC.

Quite clearly Rangers were trying to hide evidence throughout.

You'll no doubt not believe this, or be unable to accept it, so you'll just have to wait until this all pans out.

Agree5 Disagree2

@7: bit ironic saying that on a thread that, among others, is whinging about Celtic.

Agree3 Disagree0

@8: I read on here that Thomson is a journalist who talks nonsense. Should I believe him now he's writing about Celtic?

Agree8 Disagree2

@6 So you believe in the BBC now.
Well that makes a change.No need for a boycott

Agree7 Disagree1

@12. you've believed everything else he wrote about rangers did you not?...mark.

Agree1 Disagree2

13 Sep 2012 10:03:31
Ed,

What are the other sanctions available if Rangers are found guilty of dual contracts? Because of a certain other club's fans we know of only one, the stripping of titles. As is this is the punishment they are desperately praying for, it's the only one that's ever mentioned.

Do you think this punishment fits the crime? I can't help but think certain influences won't rest until this punishment is handed down. Can you imagine the mass hysteria if these fans don't get their wish?

TTG {Ed001's Note - I really can't be sure what punishments are available, nor can anyone else, until they decide (if found guilty) what the actual crime is! That, in the case of a guilty verdict, will decide the punishment. It is like looking at a court case where someone is being accused of murder but could end up being guilty of manslaughter or a number of things inbetween, until you know which crime has been committed, you can't have any real idea of the likely punishment. The stripping of titles is the most extreme punishment, so would only be issued in the most extreme cases.}

Believable5 Unbelievable9

Actually I would imagine that if the SPL do conclude that this was DELIBERATE rule breaking (as opposed to accidental ) then changing past records (which has really minimal impact to the future of the club) will be quitely viewed as a good result by the new Rangers owners as it gives them clean hands, doesnt affect the value of their investment and deflects attention from them to the SPL/SFA.

Green etc are getting as much distance as possible here while making all the noise the support expect.

Is this because they realise Rangers have no real defence?

Agree16 Disagree6

There are 19 penalties Rangers could face if found guilty:

1 warning as to future conduct;

2 reprimand;

3 a fine;

4 annul the result of an Official Match;

5 order that an Official Match be replayed;

6 impose a deduction of points;

7 award an Official Match (with such deemed score as it thinks appropriate) to a Club;

8 order the playing of an Official Match or Matches behind closed doors;

9 order the closure of all or part of a Stadium for such period and for such purposes as it thinks appropriate;

10 order the playing of an Official Match or Matches at such Stadium as it thinks appropriate;

11 subject to Rule G6.3, order that a Club be expelled from the League;

12 withdraw or withhold the award of a title or award;

13 order any Club, Club Official or Player to pay compensation to any Club, Player, person or party;

14 order any Club, Club Official or Player to comply with any obligation or direction;

15 cancel or refuse the Registration of any Player Registered or attempted to be Registered;

16 order that a Club concerned be debarred from Registering Players for such period as it thinks appropriate;

17 order that any person, persons or group of persons be prohibited from attending at such Official Match or Matches and for such period as it thinks appropriate;

18 make such other direction, sanction or disposal, not expressly provided for in these Rules, as it shall think appropriate; and/or

19 make such order as to expenses, including the expenses of the Board and/or, as the case may be, Commission and/or other party, as it thinks appropriate.

Agree6 Disagree1

Walter and ally wont be making any rants regarding dual contracts,as they will be named& shamed like many other supposed heros........nothing being unveiled thru the spl,sfa or any independant channels, but the 3 most important letters in all of this that will expose every truth are BDO..stevo

Agree7 Disagree5

@2. Or maybe they suspect Rangers have done nothing wrong. What will happen then if Rangers are found not to have broken any rules in relation to EBTs? I believe the silence will be deafening on these pages from certain internet lawyers that have been on here since February.

Agree5 Disagree7

The penalty for playing an improperly registered player is for that match to be recorded as a 3-0 defeat to the offending club.

Agree5 Disagree2

Stevo. Walter and Ally weren't PLAYING during the period in question. The panel are only concerned with dual contracts in relation to PLAYING staff. Yet more drivel from yourself as per usual on here.

@5 The players were registered properly. The issue is whether or not they were PAID outwith the rules as stated in the statutes of the governing body.

Brian

Agree4 Disagree5

@6 WRONG,WRONG the investigation is into
all members of staff

Agree6 Disagree0

@7 If the investigation is about dual contracts (not EBT's which the big tax case is about - you may be confusing the two) and the fact that because PLAYERS were allegedly on them, contravening the leagues guidelines, titles may be stripped, what point or benefit is there in the investigation examining evidence that the management team had similar duplicity in their contracts? HMRC will be doing that themselves I would imagine, or they should be doing so if the hope is to claim some of the money back from the individuals involved.

The entire backroom staff including the cleaners and the tea lady could have been on EBT's and have two employment contracts, it would make no difference in this instance as they were not the allegedly ineligible players (as a consequence of breaching the rules) out on the field winning the trophies. That would be like banning a clean athlete for using a coach who was using performance enhancing drugs. Alex Ferguson (not saying he is on drugs, lol, just that he is exceptional at his job as a comparison) could be coaching me, I still wouldn't turn into Messi. It's stupidity in that sense to consider the backroom staff in the investigation. The SPL investigation IS about the players (or more accurately how they were paid and what was disclosed) - were the management teams at Celtic (or all the other SPL clubs) questioned about whether they used EBT's at any point (irrelevant of tax paid on them) or not, or was the focus solely on the playing staff, i.e. Juninho? I would imagine the latter as even if the management/owners of the clubs were using them it would be irrelevant as they
did not take to the field and play for their team.

The only argument you and the poster I was originally replying to may have is on the moral aspect of the use of EBT's full stop. Their use by the rich to save tax payments is a topic which I am sure the majority of hard working people on here who do not already earn massive amounts of money (including myself) would question, just look at the public reaction to the Jimmy Carr scenario (slightly different but similar principle - screw the taxpayer and keep the profit).

However, if you travel down that route you have to concede that, until they decided against CONTINUING EBT's following Brian Quinn's advice, the club (and other SPL clubs allegedly now too) had considered and used them for Juninho with the express desire to avoid paying too much tax. No club which has been involved in the use of EBT's (tax backdated after receiving prudent advice or not) comes out of this with their morals intact if the argument is that EBT's are immorally wrong. Even Neil Lennon (say what you like because I have dared to mention his name but I am categorically not a 'hater' of the man) used a similar scheme which none of the morally righteous Celtic fans have questioned on here.

If you read a few threads above this one you will see that I think we have no leg to stand on if dual contracts are proven so this reply is certainly not a defence of my clubs actions, but at the same time I cannot agree that we were the only club with questionable morals (if that is the argument you are making) when it came to using them (I am not just talking about Celtic). The only difference is how they were applied with regards to PLAYERS contracts and how that equated to Rangers standing accused of cheating through the use of dual contracts and Celtic being cleared of any wrongdoing for disclosing the EBT payments on a singular contract. It is as simple as that. Bring morals into it and everyone loses.

Brian

Agree2 Disagree1

13 Sep 2012 09:15:36
Did the SPL just confirm we are the same club? Quote here from a statement on SSN on the EBT hearing.

"Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules, will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the commission and to make such submissions as they think fit.

"Newco, as the current owner and operator of Rangers FC, although not alleged by the SPL to have committed any breach of SPL Rules, will also have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the commission and to make such submissions as it thinks fit."

At the second paragraph, where its states newco as current owner and operator seems to indicate that the SPL view us as the same club, only owned by another company.

Believable7 Unbelievable13

I would look a bit closer to home and see what your very own CEO said before the CVA was rejected!

Agree12 Disagree0

What exactly do you constitute as a club going bust?
Company and Club are indivisable and looked upon by Uefa as one entity.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good spin.

Agree14 Disagree0

Rangers fc are not liquidated yet.

Agree12 Disagree0

That's because we are the same club but with a new company as owner and proprietor! Don't believe everything that the media and certain biased supporters tell you! Follow your heart and know that we are still the Rangers!

Agree5 Disagree15

If you were the same club you would have had 10 points deducted for still being in administration.
If you were the same club your star players wouldn't have walked for free.
If you were the same club then why are you not able to play in Europe for 3 years?
In your heart you are the same club, that's fair enough but legally speaking you are a new club registered with companies house with a new companies house number and a new VAT number.

Agree17 Disagree5

@5

The new COMPANY is not in administration so no points deductions are applicable.

The players walked for free following poor management (or was it a deliberate oversight by Green to get the wage bill down) of the TUPE process whereby players transfer between COMPANIES following a takeover. This failure to properly follow the correct procedure is the only reason they walked for free.

The new COMPANY does not have the required three years of audited accounts in order to compete in Europe as it is a virgin company.

Yes, legally speaking we are a new COMPANY registered with companies house with a new companies (clue is in the title) house number and a new VAT number.

However, we are also the same football CLUB with the SAME SFA membership/registration number. If we are not Rangers then why did the SFL clubs vote yes (critical first vote at meeting taken before vote on which league to place us in - not an option available to clubs applying to join the leagues for the first time i.e. Sevco type club we are suggested to be) to confirm that we met the criteria to join their leagues (I didn't hear anyone question their integrity after the votes were cast)? If not then why was the option of remaining in the SPL (actively promoted by the SPL and SFA boards who represent the clubs and their chairmen in the top tier - Rangers simply could not have pushed that agenda on their own) afforded/offered at all? If not then why is there talk of radical league reconstruction (by the same two boards mentioned above) in order to progress us up the leagues in a shorter time-frame? If not then why are we playing in the same strips, with the same fanbase, at the same stadium, selling the same merchandise? If not why was the current SKY deal solely dependent upon the showing of RANGERS Division 3 games or a significantly smaller offer would have been made to the SPL?

The point is there are just as many (if not more) if not's as there are if's in relation to whether we are the same club or not. Otherwise we would not be having these debates on here (sometimes tedious, sometimes enjoyable).

Non Rangers supporters are entitled to their views and beliefs just as we are entitled to ours and it allows for good banter (mostly) on here. Time will tell which side is right as no impartial authority figure has openly confirmed it one way or another yet. My preference would be for BDO confirming either Rangers FOOTBALL CLUB is completely no more or it is continuing under new ownership once the liquidation process of the previous company has been completed. They are impartial and a statement from them would have some gravitas in my opinion.

Brian

Agree3 Disagree3

@Brian

It WASN'T a takeover, it was a liquidation sale of assets.

I have to laugh at your dellusional view of your club's demise.

Rangers are deid.

Agree2 Disagree1

@7 Deid? Whit's thit?

I am aware the former COMPANY was/is in the process of liquidation. The 'takeover' part, when taken within the context of the sentence, clearly referred to the new company transferring (i.e. taking over - compound derivative being takeover) over the contracts of the old company within TUPE guidelines, which we did not.

I do see that you didn't answer a single question I posed or managed to conjure up a name to attach to your post but then that is to be expected I suppose. I don't have much time for Stevo's comments personally but he gets my respect for at least sticking his name to his posts and for taking as much as he gives with good grace.

Brian

Agree1 Disagree2

13 Sep 2012 08:16:29
According to the Scottish Football Association's registration rules, payments received by a player solely relating to his playing activities must be fully recorded and declared, otherwise the player has been improperly registered.

So if Rangers recorded these payments and declared them in their end of year accounts "like they say the did" what is the problem?

Believable9 Unbelievable16

They were NOT disclosed to the SFA/SPL.

Agree16 Disagree4

It's all about dual contracts which may not
have been declared.Keep up

Agree13 Disagree3

They showed total payments to all employees only in annual accounts.

They are required to break them down by player for SFA and also provide the contracts. The charge seems to be there were 2 contracts

If (as it seems) some are exit type payments to buy out contracts, that might actually be ok as it couldbe argued this doesnt relate to playing activities (as the player is leaving)

Payments to directors etc arent relevant (unless of course they indicate/imply other offences)

Agree9 Disagree1

13 Sep 2012 06:56:18
it is clear to most normal, right thinking people but the media have painted a confused picture and have played into the hands of those who claim "the titles were bought". Charles Green is prooving to be the boris johnson of scottish football with a seemly endless number of intellectual gaffs which we all see but his supporters all seem to think are deliberate and in the interests of their club.

Believable19 Unbelievable9

12 Sep 2012 22:36:42
can gers fans in theknow or ed answer this.i tried to post this 5 times and it hasnt come up yet,so please post as i rekon a lot of gers fans are wondering same thing. that is the big tax case now to be heard in o tober. worse case scenario and hmrc win. what happens? is the new club liable fir any of those millions. who pays hmrc. please explain.if we win, do we get damages,being as its s rewed our club {Ed001's Note - I have posted a reply to this a few times, the answer is no one knows. People can only give their best guess, or an opinion. HMRC do not operate under normal rules, it is impossible to know what will happen with them.}

Believable2 Unbelievable7

HMRC stated that newco Rangers would not be liable for the big tax case and they would be chasing the individuals through the courts for any money owed.
But it would be interesting what would happen if the tax case went oldco Rangers way.

Agree4 Disagree4

The big tax isn't being heard in October but its verdict is being delivered as Murray's lawyers can''t delay the case any longer. It's going to find against the way Murray used EBTs, that's for sure, so I wouldn't get too excited about any possible damages.

Hopefully once the result is known Rangers fans are at the forefront of the campaign to strip Murray of his knighthood and show that on this one instance somebody was actually duped - the supporters.

BARNEY BEAR

Agree15 Disagree2

Oh for gods sake . nothing can happen to you. you have done nothng wrong . the only outcome is , if found guilty of operating with duel contracts . old rangers 1872 will lose every game 3-0. and therefore lose the titles they won in those years. as for the money side of this mess , dont worry you are still debt free. the debt dies when 1872 are liquidated. green said he bought ibrox, murray park, and the car park, all titles, players contracts for 5 and a half million. aye right believe you wll get away with that if you are stupid enough. if he bought all he said he did , why were all your top players allowed to leave for nothing. so worst case scenario for you is , as you were,, worst case scenario for oldco about 10 trophies wiped from the record books and no further additions. congratulations on winning your first trophys the ramsden cup and the 3rd division.. shamrock

Agree8 Disagree2

13 Sep 2012 00:27:04
How many surnames are there in the uk ? At a very wild and probably way too low guess I say 50,000. And the 2 guys who parcelled up rangers are called green and whyte. Woooowww.

Believable15 Unbelievable10

It took you how long? to come up with that!
clear the cobwebs off it first , at least

bil72

Agree6 Disagree7

50000 is a terrible guess

Agree1 Disagree0

What would've made it funnier was if Lex Gold had got involved. ha.

Agree8 Disagree1

{3 jason orange would have been better, green white orange . shamrock

Agree7 Disagree0

@1. What are the odds ? In USA the conspiracy theorists would be running amok. The main point of op was, can this be a coincidence ?
In the words of harry bosch, that great fictional detective, there are no coincidences.

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Sep 2012 21:58:43
Aright Percy's,

This Green character talks absolute bolshevicks!

Should the "independent" commission find that the club were remunerating with the use of dual contracts, titles will be lost - this is what we've known all along.

Mr Green adopts this "us against the world" approach to dupe you into buying season tickets and gaining your trust as a consequence.

Anyways, this sports law expert in the paper today makes the situation perfectly clear, in contradiction to Mr Green. Here are 2 excerpts from this story:

"In general sport, if someone is found guilty of a doping offence retrospectively, they lose their titles"

"why should a proven'cheat' retain medals or titles?"

This, my friends, is known as sporting integrity! Once found guilty, the club will lose titles whether you consider yourselves oldco or newco. These are SPL titles won unfairly, so the SPL can revoke them.....it's their league!

Celtic have been cleared of "misuse of EBT's", seems to me that other clubs have been using them - not misusing them!

The loss of titles is imminent, the old disgraced club will have the indignant revoking of titles......the new club has a chance to restore the pride of "the people", by starting from scratch and building a club of moral repute!

Miko x

Believable25 Unbelievable19

Mike - loss of titles is not imminent as it's only one of 12 punishments if proven guilty - also for every sports expert lawyer that says the SPL can invoke the stripping of titles, there is one that says you can't - the SPL verdict on Juninho is the most interesting yet as what they are saying is dual contracts are now okay (an ebt can't be in the contract as tax would need to be paid, so it has to be a side contract), as long as you told them - this appears to be a new rule or certainly one they have never disclosed before (ironic since the case is all about disclosure)

Agree9 Disagree10

(If) Rangers (RIP) are found guilty of not disclosing second contracts I believe the sanction passed will be a 1 year suspension of their SFA membership which will in turn be forced upon Sevco.
I truly believe it will be a year out of football next season.

Agree8 Disagree9

Miko for once I agree with you I take my hat off to you that post is spot on.

Doesn't stop the fact your teams arse collapsed on the last day of the season twice it collapsed in most finals on most European qualification nights we may have done wrong to win a few titles time will tell but it doesn't stop the fact your team couldn't beat anyone else.

Htwssks

Agree5 Disagree10

Htwssks Tell us how your club have done in cup games? That's right in your very first EVER cup game you needed Extra Time to beat Brechin!

And your NewCo club has NEVER been in europe!

DazzaBhoy

Agree6 Disagree2

Post 2) SPL investigation, I'll repeat that agin for you SPL investigation - not the SFA.
SPL cannot revoke or suspend SFA membership - they are two different bodies.
Get a grip and READ the information which is easily available before you post absolute b****cks

Agree2 Disagree3

Dazza you of all ppl should know it's not how you win whether it's first minute last minute extra time penalties so long as the result is a victory. However to name a few ict

Agree3 Disagree2

12 Sep 2012 20:50:29
Glasgow Celtic have been cleared by football authorities of breaching rules through using an offshore tax avoidance scheme to pay a player.....GIRFUY Charles Green!

Briggs

Believable29 Unbelievable13

Cleared by the SPL?

Doncaster get out of Liewells pocket to investigate?

Aye, right!

Agree9 Disagree12

Of course! It was Liewell that was investigating :)

Agree8 Disagree11

Yea it should have read

Glasgow Celtic cleared by Peter Lawwell and his B****es within the SPL and SFA of breaching rules through using EBT

Lochaber Bear

Agree9 Disagree11

What a miscarriage of justice, this is the panel looking after their own kind. Even Alex Thomson, one of your heroes cant understand how smeltic got away with it.
That says it all. Anyway it's a spHell matter so the private members club is looking after one of it's own.

Agree6 Disagree11

Ah, more bitterness and delusion. Write to UEFA to complain if you think there's some sort of conflict of interest. Let us know how you get on though.

Agree4 Disagree1

Celtic athletic and football coy not Glasgow celtic

Agree3 Disagree0

Poster 6 yes their coy alright ,the way they go about things ,london rd squeeky clean brigade doug t.s.o

Agree2 Disagree1

 
Change Consent