Uilleam

They will never let up. If you want a vision of the future, imagine a dog returning to its own vomit, on Groundhog Day.

Will the enraged, aggrieved supporters' groups, all over Scotland, crowd fund the prosecution of Rangers?

Here is the somewhat confused opinion of everybody's favourite creepy masturbator. I want to see SFA reopen the case on what took place at Rangers Graham Spiers July 8 2017, 12:01am, The Times What are the Scottish Football Association to do about Rangers? Where can the leading governing body of Scottish football now hide when there is such a widespread public outcry to right a wrong? The past week has not just been shameful for Rangers FC, it is now sorely testing the mettle of those who are trusted with ensuring fairness, truth and integrity prevail in our game. Last Wednesday morning Rangers finally lost their long-running dispute with HMRC over their years of tax avoidance. The legal dispute was complex but, in a nutshell, the claim of HMRC remained quite simple: it believed that in the years between 2001 and 2010 Rangers owed it tens of millions in unpaid taxes. With five Supreme Court judges unanimously backing the previous judgment of three law lords in the Court of Session, we now appear to have an emphatic view that the pre-2012 Rangers FC’s use of employee benefit trusts (EBTs) was quite the tax dodge. Some call it “aggressive tax avoidance”. Others call it “a tax wheeze”. Others have called it “blatant evasion”. HMRC, who have made a point from the start of not asserting any of these pursuits as criminal cases, have nonetheless proved that millions of pounds should have been paid by Rangers, but were not. We do have tax laws in this country, and they are there to be enforced, which is HMRC’s primary aim. It won’t do here to rake back over all the trophies — 14 in total — that Rangers won during the EBT years. But it must have given the Ibrox club a considerable advantage to have all this extra money to spend, and invest in playing assets, when in fact the cash should have been the keep of Her Majesty’s collectors. With the Rangers versus HMRC now concluded, it all looks grossly unfair on every other club that Rangers faced during those years. Add to this the guilty verdict handed down to Ibrox by the Lord Nimmo Smith inquiry in 2012 into undeclared side-letters involving Rangers and the SFA, and it is little wonder that the emotive word “cheating” is being used of Rangers during this time. Such conduct going on at Ibrox had dodginess and tawdriness and a lack of honesty written all over it. Last Thursday, with the white heat of the Rangers case fanning out all across Scottish football, the SFA was forced to stick its head out of its bunker. The ruling body issued a stony-faced response to the Supreme Court ruling, which basically said that its own legal advice was such that the Rangers case was closed for them. There was nothing more, the SFA averred, to say or do on the matter. This was a wrong response but it was no great surprise. This vexed Rangers case has been the scourge of the SFA, to the point of terrifying it. From the very top, where once Campbell Ogilvie was an SFA president, having also been a Rangers FC board member and an EBT recipient, the saga has proved excruciating for the governing body. And now it doesn’t have the stomach for the legal fight, as it would surely become, if any title-stripping of Rangers relating to those years was pursued. Yet doing nothing does not seem to be an option for the SFA. There is a visceral anger towards Rangers across the Scottish game which, as things stand, is not going to be quenched. Saying “we intend to do nowt” only aggravates that sense of injustice. Until this week, it was perfectly feasible for the SFA and the SPFL to stall and obfuscate, because the EBTs saga had not been concluded. But it has now — and emphatically — and Scottish football fans are angry. It could be that there is not a case, as deplorably as Rangers FC behaved, for title-stripping. I’m not fully convinced of the arguments for it myself. But the SFA should, at the very minimum, reopen the case and explore fresh legal advice. A review will cost money but, for the sake of justice and integrity, that money needs to be spent. It cannot be beyond the wherewithal of the SFA to appoint a number of legal minds and substantial football figures to reconsider all the facts. And, that done, if there is deemed no need for title-stripping, then let that be the association’s final say on the matter. Sir David Murray, a wounded man this week, has stated that using EBTs allowed Rangers to have players the club might otherwise not have been able to afford. Alex McLeish, the former Rangers manager, said something very similar when interviewed. Dave King, the current Rangers chairman, in a spurt of graciousness, even appeared to apologise for the EBTs racket going on at Ibrox. Rangers themselves obviously have regret, bordering on remorse, for what went on. It was deeply wrong and gave Rangers an advantage. The SFA needs to look again at the matter. It is no good saying “the case is closed”. Adopting such a stance makes the governing body look timid and weak and lacking in credibility. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/i-want-to-see-sfa-reopen-the-case-on-what-took-place-at-rangers-8c2qfs62h I fail to see dishonesty when the trusts were declared in the accounts. 'Dodginess@ and 'tawdriness' are matters merely of opinion: do I suppose that Spiers would condemn each and every mechanism and instance of tax reduction similarly? Do I cocoa. An unmistakable miasma of stale hypocrisy emanates from him, as usual. The Creep is 'unconvinced' of the argument pro title stripping, yet wants the SFA to spend time and resources on re-exploring this issue. Clearly he feels that titles should be expunged from the records, can't think of a proper argument, he is certainly not clever enough, and hopes that a brainy big boy will (be appointed and told to) come up with a rationale. The SFA issued a statement under legal advisement,the import of which which seems to have escaped his notice. Of course that advice was not what Spiers wanted to hear, so he chooses to ignore it. I imagine that Spiers' solution would be constant re examination, until somebody, from somewhere, comes to a conclusion with which he would 'feel comfortable'.

The defrauding of the (then) Inland Revenue was openly discussed in the 50s and 60s. The fhilth even had a turnstile nicknamed "The Willie Maley Gate", as the proceeds from this were paid to the Manager (Maley) cash in hand. Another "open secret". The piggery has a press full of them.

To me. the cover ups come close to criminal conspiracy, and attempting to thwart the ends of justice.

But all the goals scored against them were the result of Masonic refereeing, and, thus, really should have been disallowed.

The Chief Executive Officer was on holiday? For this observer, the entire god damned team was on holiday; a holiday from Hell.

It seems that Pedro C took a wage cut to come to Ibrox. At first sight, that appears a strange form of nepotism.

It is interesting that players and staff of fhilthfootballclub seemed to invest, simultaneously, in the same/similar tax dodges, some of which were, I think, actually illegal, and which were promoted and marketed by the same 'consultancy'. One might think that there was some coordination. One might think that the agency for this was the club itself. One might think that if the club was instrumental in staff signing up to the scams, it might be liable for losses suffered. One might think that if it promoted such apparently advantageous financial cantraips, it intended to gain an economic advantage over other clubs in the League.

"The Celtic board issued a statement agitating for a re-opening and reversal of the decisions previously made when, in fact, nothing has changed. It is disappointing that they have attempted to influence the footballing authorities to alter its historic football honours by calling on administrators and lawyers to achieve off the pitch what its teams failed to do on the pitch." Agreed.

I take your point, but the day we give any credence whatsoever to, far less found anything upon, the ravings of that fucking imbecile is the day we perish.

Since when did Barry Ferguson do the hiring and firing at Ibrox? Many allege that he was instrumental in the demise of P le G, but he was inside the tent then, not, as now, outside, trying to piss in.

....and unlikely to regain his mojo @Ibrox, I suspect.

In my view, Whyte acquired Rangers with the sole view of driving it onto the rocks. Any interest he had in 'saving Rangers' was related solely to how much money he could make. A more responsible owner may -would- not have been able to deal with the BTC, but the processes resulting from that level of debt would have been handled better, more transparently, and the Club, and the assets, tangible and intangible, in all likelihood would not have ended up in the hands of the whores, rogues, and comic singers they did, thanks to Whyte's initial acquisition.

They would be struggling under somebody like Moyes........Oh, wait..

Irrespective of rights, wrongs, or bald economic pragmatism, it is my fear that the clubs will undertake a plebiscite, as they did re: expulsion from the Prem Lge, and that a few thousand -if that- cretinous bigots will determine that honours won on the pitch are removed from the record.

"Like a dug oan a beetroot", as they say in the coarser parts of the realm.

Selling Lukaku to ManU for £75Mill, apparently.

The real villains? Since the inception of the BTC, there was a school of thought which asserted that EBTs were an established method of tax avoidance, and that the case against Murray Group (incl Rangers) was due to its maladministration of its schemes. It appears now, unless I am misreading the situation, that the EBT strategy employed by Murray, under advisement, was completely flawed in principle, irrespective of how it was put into practice. If that is correct, the real villains were, presumably, the architects of an unsound, defective mechanism to avoid Income Tax. Murray, of course, would have to be criticised for seizing upon it with such gusto, so he too would be among the black hats. Quite what the implications are is beyond me.

H's been watching the British Lions; actually, it's quite easy to confuse them with a part time football club from the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

Two things concern me. 1. Fitness. In the two competitive games so far, the team has looked off the pace, lacking sharpness, physically, and, I am afraid, mentally. I know it is early in PC's tenure, and in the season, but it has to be addressed; pdq. 2. PC is a technical coach, with ideas about how a team should play. I wonder, however, about his qualities as a man manager, and motivator. Again it is early, but the performances against part timers from Luxembourg have lacked drive, dynamism, direction, and appeared tentative which I fear is indicative of a lack of confidence. I think these two concerns are related.

I can only give the players 9 points each: 1 pt for not wearing green boots 1 pt for turning up 1 pt for having their tops tucked into their shorts 1 pt for playing the match at walking pace to enable the opposition to compete 1 pt for doing their utmost not to embarrass the opposition by any demonstration of skill whatsoever 1 pt for saving supporters money by reducing the no of games to be played and paid for this season 1 pt for, thoughtfully, removing those who played against Berwick, Chesterfield, and other ignominious defeats, from the dunces' corner 1 pt for exiting European competition before the Glasgow Fair, surely a record Bonus: 1 pt for giving the rest of football a right good laugh I give the Manager 10 points, for orchestrating this travesty of a performance.

Advocaat was 0 - 3 down to Shelbourne, of Dublin, at HT, in a game played at Tranmere, in what I think was his 1st competitive match. However, his team won 3 - 5, and went on to qualify.

Relax, Vukic is with FC Twente, following release by Newcastle, as far as I know.

I watched this on TV, and I cannot think of a worse performance, not even Berwick. We have reached a new nadir. Defence, if we may call it that, was chaotic almost each and every time it was pressurised. Midfield, was one paced, that of a pedestrian, and predictable. Attack was not good enough to trouble a team of part timers with a substitute keeper. Overall, the team failed in basic matters of skill, particularly passing, which was poor, and pressing, which seemed non existent. As for drive, direction and determination, don't make me laugh.