RANGERRAB

You mean Zaluska the polish keeper who used to play for the yahoos ( not often enough unfortunately. He was hopeless). It was he who got in the fracas with Paul Paton the DUTD player & got a sore coupon in the process. Maybe ur mixing him up with Marius Zaliukas the Lithuanian who played for us last season.

GCC certainly helped Shellik did they not? Who paid for the work outside their ground?

I don't think restricting a club to 20 players over 30 years old would necessarily mean youngsters at a club would have a better chance of getting a game. Looks to me Brown spat out the dummy when it got KO'd.

Perhaps chickens are now coming home to roost for some clubs who are now realising the financial implications of not having Rangers in the top flight. Who knows maybe 'common sense' might prevail.

Did he say that? Last time he crawled out of hibernation he seemed to be calling Rangers a new club IIRC. At least if he says we should keep titles he seems to accept we're the same club now. Wonder if he still looks like a plump version of Harry Potter?

LOL you've got be having a laugh? Wee Roger the music man? The man who tried to take on SKY TV to get a better deal & We ended up with a BBC one about a quarter of the value of the SKY one? :laugh:

Going back to the original post am I missing something in all of this? As a tax avoidance scheme run between 2001-10 tax wasn't paid nor did HMRC ask for it until mid 2010. Since then it has been appealed via both the FTTT & UTTT and not paid because of this. And, of course, HMRC lost these appeals. Now three old duffers masquerading as judges with little or no knowledge of tax have found in favour of HMRC based on something called 'common sense' instead of deciding whether tax laws were broken or not. But if the tax bill is as low as Jackson suggests then BDO will pay that bill( providing they dont appeal).Especially if Whyte's convicted and D&P have to cough up like CB did and the creditors pot increases even more.

' BDO went into that hearing believing a defeat was likely to carry a liability of between £5m and £10m' if that is true then it is a game changer...........

He's not an out & out striker though. If we get a quality striker to play alongside Waghorn this team will improve considerably

I'd reserve judgement on this current team until we get a top drawer striker, hopefully in January.

Would like to see some sort of comment from the SPFL but that would be too much to ask wouldn't it?

I think it's bit too early to compare this team with previous ones because rebuilding is not yet complete. I've said before and I'll say again a top drawer striker is required in January especially if we're to have to win the SC to get into Europe next season. One or two other positions certainly could also be improved upon I suppose. I also think we have to remember that when we return to the top division the standard will certainly have dropped quite a bit since we left. The so-called best team in the country is now out its depth in the EL as could be seen by getting beaten home & away by a Norwegian team who were fourth in their league last time I looked. Other teams competing in Europe don't last beyond August normally.

The sporting sanctions we got were as a result of Whyte not the EBT's. If Whyte gets convicted of fraud one would have to wonder what might happen regards those who administered punishments which were effectively punishing the victim of a crime

There's a lot of truth in that.

How they became public knowledge is something we should be told. My faith in the plod in this country disappeared long ago & I frankly don't think they investigated this as they should have done or were told not to do so. I've maintained all along there was political involvement in this and still believe that to be the case.

And maybe the 5,000 other UK companies who had EBT's too? This judgement (if it is allowed to stand & isn't appealed to the Supreme Court) could have serious financial implications for some or all of them I'd have thought. I say again: this is the only EBT court case HMRC have won courtesy of three brain dead Scotish LawLords whose verdict was based on 'common sense' rather than whether tax laws had been broken or not

As well as the SD contracts I can't help thinking the Puma deal is bad too. How much are we getting upfront as a 'royalty payment' ? AFAIK the yahoos are getting something like £5m or £6m from NB. For a team out of their depth in the EL. what do we get from Puma?

To strip titles there would need to be a mechanism for doing so such as a specific rule in the SPFL rule book which would allow them to do so. Is there one? Or set up a commission & hope it finds in their favour. It didn't the last time when they tried to go down this route with LNS hoping the EBT's would be considered to have given Rangers an unfair advantage. That failed when LNS said there had been no sporting advantage although he did say the EBT's should have been declared. To go down the route of trying to remove titles may prove rather tricky if they decide to do that. For starters Rangers didn't deliberately withhold tax.They thought the EBT scheme was exempt from tax and that may still be the case if an appeal to the Supreme Court is successful. Also HMRC didn't advise Rangers of the tax liability until nine years after the EBT scheme had been in operation.

I think it was him & his chums whom the club statement on Wednesday night was aimed at.

Does the SPFL have the funds to fight a legal battle over this? They didn't the last time.

The LNS investigation commissioned by the SPL had nothing to do with whether EBT's were taxable or not. Its remit was to determine the EBT's were effectively side contracts which should have been declared to the football authorities & whether they gave Rangers an unfair advantage. The outcome was that they should have been declared & Rangers got a fine of £250k which was passed to newco. It's still being disputed according to the AGM prospectus. The outcome also stated their was 'no sporting advantage' from these EBT's.

And no one knows exactly how much HMRC would settle for in lieu of tax on the EBT scheme owed do they? If you read the likes of the Daily Rebel all sorts of eye-watering figures were quoted. But did anyone in an official capacity confirm them? I think not & remember too Arsenal settled for something like £11m for theirs It needs to be remembered too that BDO successfully got 20 odd million from CB and you'd assume they'd get something similar from D&P if Clark & Whitehouse get convicted. That would leave a fairly decent creditor's pot with HMRC getting by far the lion's share. If it meant HMRC reached a settlement with BDO for the oldco's tax liabilities(both EBT & Whyte's non payment of PAYE/NI) how then would the frothing-at-the mouth,Rangers-hating social underclass in this country go about title-stripping agenda then? Tax would have been paid but perhaps not the amounts they'd been led to believe. This assumes though yesterday's verdict isn't challenged. FWIW I think it will be as you suggest Craig. I believe it'll go to the Supreme Court and will be overturned.

Yesterday's daft ruling will get overturned at the Supreme Court and the three bewigged buffoons should never see the inside of a Scottish Courtroom ever again

Rather than settle I think they will want this to go to the Supreme Court to get this daft 'common sense' judgement over-turned

We will not be allowed to move on. Our enemies will see to that. That is why today's bizarre judgement must be appealed at the Supreme Court. FWIW I was watching television earlier & a tax lawyer said this was the only EBT case HMRC had won. Interesting.