Jump to content

 

 

Big Jaws

Site Contributors
  • Posts

    1,344
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Big Jaws last won the day on December 23 2018

Big Jaws had the most liked content!

Reputation

570 Excellent

About Big Jaws

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I haven't read the majority of this thread, so I don't exactly know what is being said here, but in respect of your question the answer is a resounding No! What has happened is that Lord Clark has commissioned an 'arbitration tribunal' subjected to Scottish Arbitration Rules which all parties, Hearts, PT, SPFL and SFA have to agree upon. Excluded are DU, CR and Raith as their petition in that regard wasn't upheld. The SPFL argued a number of points one such point (SFA 99.15) which suggest SFA permission is needed to raise a court action else financial penalties of up to £1m and or expulsion, 'put oot the gemme' in Lord Clarks eyes needed to be fully tested and therefore he declined to comment on it at this time. They also argued that it was a purely a 'football matter' and that the SFA/SPFL should conduct this arbitration to which Lord Clark completely disagreed stating it was clearly a case of company law. So essentially SPFL/SFA pushed for the closed shop you site in your post however Lord Clark did not agree with this proposition at all.
  2. 1876 would be 144 years ago @26th of foot. We did play them in the FA cup in 1887 but I don't think even you're old enough to remember that one. ??
  3. I'm not disputing that is what they are saying Ian. Next year 2021 I'll have been following Rangers home and away for 50 years and I have never seen a referee show a yellow card twice to the same player for the same incident, in fact I don't recall ever seeing that in ANY televised game, so forgive me for being frank in saying that's the biggest load of shite I've ever read/heard.
  4. Yes it is in question. If he was Yellow carded as appears from the commentators response on the footage and the actual footage we can see with our own eyes then why is it merely a yellow card considering it is a punch in the face off the ball an incident which is normally associated with a red card for violent conduct? If Brown IS yellow carded here then the yellow he picks up a few minutes later is his second and he should be sent off. If Brown isn't yellow carded here he should be subject to retrospective action by the Compliance Officer as the referee hasn't seen a clear red card incident for violent conduct. It seems to me that your pragmatic explanation of 'he wasn't yellow carded' to explain the situation doesn't match either the footage or the events thereafter.
  5. Let me be as clear as I possibly can. I'm not an accountant, I don't have any of the exact figures in front of me nor the links to articles/details of those figures either, I am merely basing my assumptions on what I have memory of and my own knowledge of certain tax vehicles. We know that there were 72 EBT's that held a total estimated to be £48mil. We believe that HMRC levied a bill of £24mil that MIH/RFC disputed and as a result HMRC then imposed fines and penalties to the sum of £94mil. The reasons and legality of these penalties were and indeed still are under dispute. We've also been told that Rangers, by all and sundry, were a test case and were being used to set a precedent. First of all working backwards Rangers were NOT a test case as there had been a prior case also involving Arsenal, whom also crop up again after the fact, which would be considered THE precedent. MIH/RFC Murray were correct to dispute the £24mil bill as in situations where Trusts are established there are rules to govern this. Of course this has been updated since these events and also now include possible income tax rules. The rules at the time which haven't changed and from experience; Trust containing dividend < £1k are taxed at 7.5% on the first £1k and thereafter taxed at 28%. Trust containing dividend > £1k are taxed at 38.1% on the first £1k and thereafter taxed at 45%. At no point in any of the subsequent calculations does the tax due ever reach 50% or above. Therefore the 50% figure as you can see is incorrect in ALL cases of dividend in trust even after the change. If we can accept that these Employment Benefit Trust vehicles were, at the time of operation, not subject to income tax then it follows that up until April 2011 they could be recovered/transferred at their previous tax rates although there was a degree of uncertainty, with regards to that, at that time. This degree of uncertainty is what I believe Murray was partly disputing remember that what I am saying is valid with regards to the date where the HMRC claim is established circa 2009-11. The uncertainly aspect, as I remember, was whether or not these new rules would be retrospectively applied. Now Murray could never be accused of altruism but he is right to dispute the HMRC claim a) to allow trustees and employees to make arrangements for transfer, and b) at the time EBTs weren't subject to income tax, not until the SC ruling 2017, and even under these new rules income tax/company tax is only due when funds are 'earmarked' i.e set for withdrawal/transfer*. Now I stick to my previous assertion that Murray had some idea that income tax rules might be retrospectively applied and that he was attempting to clear the debit, at the lower rate, circumventing these probable new tax rules quickly before legislation had been put in place. He NEVER refused to pay HMRC, in fact he offered £9mil plus £10mil over a number of years which IMO is much closer to the correct liability than HMRC's £24mil claim, therefore their step of applying fines and penalties was NOT only inaccurate but was also UNPRECEDENTED! The argument, we [rangers supporters] have always maintained skulduggery, playing out before our very eyes is, not that the HMRC assertion that income tax was due re: the SC case, but that the outlandish figure of £94mil was a gross misrepresentation of the debit Oldco owed on the part of HMRC and that claim effectively hamstrung Oldco as toxic is not only correct but it is also an absolutely unprecedented tragedy of an overarching government body that requires nothing less than a full public enquiry. * I'm not sure if transferring 'earmarked' funds is subject to income tax/company tax as I haven't looked at them since the rules were amended.
  6. They say history is written by the victors. As far as I'm concerned there was a concerted effort to kill us off and it failed. This history isn't over yet!
  7. I don't disagree with your reading of it in the slightest Blue. The point I'm making is that regardless of Murrays dodgy ego problems the payment he offered was roughly correct based on the figures we know were paid into the EBT's over that period. I'm also using 'sexed up' deliberately as the cabinet minister whom held a position across the city was also embroiled in that affair.
  8. Forgive me if I'm wrong on this mate, from memory, didn't Murray contest a) that there was tax due on the EBT's and b) at the same time make an initial £9mil offer to HMRC with a further £10mil payable over a number of years? From my perspective it seems fairly obvious that he knew it would eventually be found to be taxable but that the HMRC figure was outlandish and when you look at the numbers involved £47 paid into EBT's the figure Murray had isnt a kick in the arse off what was actually owed before HMRC 'sexed it up'!
  9. I would have expected him to be played cutting in from the right but he hasnt really he's been much tighter to the centre effectively giving us an extra man in their 6 man defence to work off of. We've moved the ball well to either wing, we've played the ball through and past them to the point where their midfield are chasing shadows and the movement up front has been pretty decent.
  10. Some of our football today has been absolutely outstanding just a shame we're only two up because Aberdeen cant live with us. Alfie dropping deep with Stewart going ahead of him has given them no one to focus on or mark. With Ojo and Barisic interchanging against Logan on the left and Tav, Alfie and Arfied interchanging on the right their defence is all over the place. More of the same in the second half please.
  11. My nerves are shot tae bits but ohhh it feels good to beat that mob. They deserved absolutely nothing for their antics. WATP!
  12. Yes regardless of what you are saying! There is a concerted campaign to make competing in European tournaments difficult for Rangers dating back as far as 2011 when two supposed neutral observers reported to UEFA on behalf of FARE. Neither of those reporters were neutral and there is a contention that what they said happened actually happened at all. Rangers fans singing sectarian songs and FARE reporting Rangers fans is NOT mutually exclusive!
  13. That may well be true however the initial disciplinary procedure wasn't handed down until the Friday after the game in Warsaw. its not really in keeping with the spirit of fair play UEFA wish to instil if they do not allow Rangers to act/resolve that complaint, get our house in order, before charging us again as the complaints consequences were unknown at the time. Regardless of what you are saying, and we do need to clean up our act, its starting to seem like a bit of a stitch up.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.