Big Jaws

Yep thats the team Gio is putting out.

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.

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. ??

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.

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.

Ha ha ha Top trolling Stevie @Stevie - 4lads Blog. ?

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.

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!

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.

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'!

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.

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.

My nerves are shot tae bits but ohhh it feels good to beat that mob. They deserved absolutely nothing for their antics. WATP!

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!

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.

I get that @pete and I understand the frustration mate I really do. I was in exactly the same boat as you 20-25 mins before kick off. In this modern internet era of 24/7 customer service and immediacy the norm is to update service users via the twittersphere and thats pretty much what happened. I'm really just giving you a heads up on it as its the second time this campaign that I've had to use this method to get my paid up feed.

I didn't realise that since I'm already signed up but its a fair point.

The Rangers official twitter, because of problems with the server, put out a link half an hour prior to the match @pete.

WTF is that from the ET? Couldn't silence them? Of course we did! In fact we reduced their on the field chances to a couple of shots from out side the box and a couple of headers from set plays. The byline and body text of that article reveals the true nature of a) their headline narrative and b) the facts of the match. Rangers were excellent tonight, and save for some good goal keeping, should be at least 1-0 up on the tie. Ryan Jack was outstanding in his midfield role, Scott Arfield never stopped running into space and Ojo had them terrified any time he was on the ball. Legia came into it after the break no doubt with a rocket up their arse from their manager and still they weren't good enough to break down the Rangers defence. They went short Ryan Jack tidied up they went long Nikola Katic tidied up. It wasn't easy but our team put in a hell of a shift tonight in a hostile environment and could have easily come back from Poland a goal to the good. Don't forget to tune into Gersnet Pod this Sunday evening where you might hear a fair assessment of this game. Dead tree press are dead!

BUFF!!!!!!

I've just came doon aff the ceiling after that game. Make no mistake about it folks the Danes were a good strong technically gifted team who wanted to play the game on the front foot especially in the final third of the park. We paid a fairly heavy price switching off at 3-0 up to concede two avoidable goals. At both goals I was calling for Scotty Arfield to be hooked as he was running on a pensioners legs but in saying that if he had been hooked then he wouldn't have been there to slot a lovely pass, from Alfredo Morelos, into the back of the net beyond the Danes keeper to make it 2-4 on the night. Jordan Jones after somewhat of a nervy start, against a very tidy right back, showed us what he is capable of with some absolutely lovely exchanges of passing and moving inside with Joe Aribo. Alfies late yellow had me baffled but what a performance he put in absolutely outstanding from him with a goal and a number of assists especially when at a Rangers corner he controlled Glen Kamaras knock down from the edge of the box slipped it to Nikola Katic to slot home with the outside of the boot. We are the people!

That was tough to watch today but after 20 minutes I thought my pre-game prediction of being too good and strong for Kilmarnock was looking very likely with some good play and moving them around in defence. However something is definitely not right with this teams mentality. In that first 20 Kilmarnock couldn't get near us, we score a well worked goal from a set play, and then the complacency crept in starting from the back with Goldson, Tav and Barisic in particular slowing the game right down with square balls across the middle and the back line, the runners stop running and the game continues more or less at walking pace. It then spreads through the team and continued into the second half. Aribo is playing far too deep, Davis passing not particularly effective today and Arfield is a good week behind the team in terms of fitness, Movement and sharpness. Morelos scrapped and tried for anything that came near him but the service up to him was absolutely abysmal to be honest. Ojo has continued in the look good doing nothing category. There was a marked difference in urgency when Jones and Stewart came on for Arfield and Ojo late in the game. Ryan Jack was by far our best player on the park today and he had to be too and he put in an unbelievable amount of work particularly in the second half because Ojo doesn't offer Tav any protection not that Tav played particularly well today but without the cover of a hard working wide man Tav is really struggling. I don't know if this is a tactical move, bringing Jack back there to cover for Tav by the management team or not, but its certainly not working for me. it removes his industry in midfield going towards the opposition box and masks that we're having to carry a fairly lazy player in Ojo.

First of all and this is merely my unqualified reading of the situation. There hasn't really been any new developments as it is contained in the original judgement, this is a clarification of that by the Justice. On the face of it its not a particularly great result but at the same time its not the end of the world either. The media have concentrated on two paragraphs of the injunction in 6 and 7 yet have omitted findings in further paragraphs namely para 11 sections 1, 2 and 3. It does say that SDI are being given the right to match the offer on the 3rd year of the Elite/Hummel deal. It doesn't stop RIFC selling kit this year. This clarification more or less solidifies retail and manufacture into separate concerns/issues effectively splitting the existing deal in two which is important since SDI don't manufacture kit themselves. It also later states in para 11, and this is fairly crucial, given that SDI has previous for *fuckingabout* that, should they do that and hamper RIFC's necessity to register the official kit with SFA and UEFA by the deadline dates for 20/21 then RIFC would have liberty to challenge the order. So what does that really mean for Rangers? Well it boils down to RIFC and SDI will now have to come to terms with regards to the deal for 20/21 and here is the kicker that is being missed by the media. Its as much of a shot across SDI's bows as it is RIFC's because it includes the option for RIFC to return to court should SDI, as they have previous, drag their heels effectively blocking kit registration to the above organisations for that season.

Professional performance from us this evening bossed the game from start to finish. Last 15 we should have had a couple of goals save for some stout defending from Progress. We will have to deal with quite a bit of that in the League this year so we better get used to it. I just think we should stop tryng to score the perfect goal and have a boost any time we can. Personally I don't think Killie will be particularly difficult this season. New manager with a very different approach to the game than Clarke. I do think that the Hibs game at home Sunday after playing away in Denmark will be very tough. Heckingbottom has had a good 6 months with them since coming in Feb so they will be well versed in his style of play which if I'm honest was pretty decent both defensively and attacking towards the end of last season.