calscot

Can't they take money from the CVA and then sue Whyte for losses? What if Whyte loses and has the means from his companies to pay? He will have made a huge loss... You have to guess that his guarantor companies are about as solvent as Rangers... Or will be insolvent very soon.

No.......................................

Thinking about it - do we need Ireland? (And remember last time?) We should just go for sharing with Wales - they have potentially three great stadiums. We will have five when Aberdeen's new stadium is ready. Besides we're both from the same country with the same currency.

They could put all three teams in the qualifier groups with the two best non-qualifiers going through to the finals...

Don't know about Brimingham, they were a yo-yo team when he arrived. They're not much different now. Aston Villa were on their way down but he didn't help any. I don't think he can be fully blamed for where they are but he certainly didn't do much good.

But I interpret that as, "We need people with a combined wealth of hundreds of millions to be able to afford the 20 odd million needed to successful at this level."

But isn't the whole thing based on the fact that it's a kid on thing about it being discretionary but nobody can really prove it - as how to prove intentions? Again I think the fault lies with HMRC who should not allow tax to be based upon supposed intentions. It's weak at best. It's almost like prosecuting people for joyriding a Ferrari when they test drive it because you then suspect they had no intention whatsoever of buying it... So the premise is that we were "kidding on" and the SFA "know it" - but to me that applies to Celtic too. Their "evidence" for us will be flimsy and subjective.

I can't disagree with that.

Had to laugh at that one!

I doubt he's crazy but he's never a hero. At best he was a dirty rat that did a dirty job which may benefit us but he did it for his own gain. We could have had the same benefit (losing the threat of the BTB) but it could have been done in a much more passable way. However, no-one wanted to take the fall. In a way it could be good this way as we have a cartoonesque villain who we can blame without taking the responsibility ourselves.

I am very confident that the over-the-top spending will never again happen at Rangers.

STV mentioned it was a "group of people".

I disagree, if HMRC had done a fair and proper job, they'd have demanded the tax after the first year of the EBTs. We then would not have done them again and would not be in this position. Despite SDM being a bit dodgy, that would be fair and just treatment. SDM did what he thought was legal and clever, by all accounts it seems like HRMC were fine with it then changed their minds. They also were not fair in the their dealings after the fact - you can't fairly backdate something that everyone thought was legal and ask for the full amount. Taking it to extreme unfairness you can't then treble it with interest and penalties. At best this is entrapment. Also if you or I don't demand our money from someone within six years, we lose it - why not them? Imagine you cut though my land every day for 10 years which you know is a bit dodgy but I turn a blind eye. Imagine then I decide to charge people for going through my land and as I have CCT coverage of you for the past 10 years I decide to backdate it with interest and then penalties on late payment. If we went to court would you be in the wrong or would I? Actually the court would decide that since you have cut through my land for 10 years it now becomes your right of way... It's easy to blame Murray 100% - until you re-frame it for something about yourself. Some may say that it's in the rules that HMRC can do this, but that does not make it right. In every other part of law it is considered wrong and pretty much extortion. HMRC are being no less dodgy or disingenuous than SDM and I would say they are a lot worse.

I don't think it matters how wealthy you are - it's about how much you are prepared to pay before walking away.

The last game I played such a game was relatively easy to finish high up in the table but that was a long time ago. However, I'm pretty sure it's designed to allow you to progress to keep you addicted and buying the next version. But imagine if you played and: were given a new owner who pissed about in the transfer market and so you had to do your best at the bottom of the barrel, and proceed with a very small squad; after a great start had your best player injured for a season plus long term injuries to other key players, which results in a severe loss of form; found a bargain replacement playmaker and immediately had him banned for two games for what would have been a bookable offence; had a perfectly good goal chalked off against your rivals which leads to a loss; had your next best player sold for half his value but received no money to spend; had your club go into administration which resulted in a 10 point deduction and caused a run with 3 points out of 12 when you'd have expected 9 or 10; had a couple more players leaving for free; had a transfer embargo applied for the next season ... - I think you'd be fuming with the game and on the verge of binning it! If despite all that you finished a good second and then you were sacked - you'd probably be binning your computer as well. I think compared to Ally's season, FM is probably a dawdle... :devil:

I did mention the cups. You or I could have done just as well? I think you need to apply for a Premiership manager's job and earn £4m a year. Eck could only manage 72 points and third place in his last season and yet has had two Premiership jobs. Advocaat achieved one less point (if you discount the 10 point penalty) with far better players at his disposal and yet has gone on to take huge jobs. PLG has had a load of top jobs and would have been unable to match Ally in his first season. So if you are as good as these guys, just who are you the manager of? Or are we talking a computer game here? I'll bet you can't even manage a team to the top of the table at itsagoal.com where instead of playing against the computer you play against other people. FM is deliberately easy to make it enjoyable to play.

But then we don't finish first more often than not, so finishing second in the most damaging off-field conditions in our history along with a 10 point penalty starts to sound pretty remarkable and definitely a pretty big achievement. How many times would we have finished better than second with a 10 point penalty. Not often, and quite often it would be less than second. Putting it that way, it's a pretty good position to finish in. If nothing else, if you don't see it as an achievement there is no way you can logically say that it is a failure. I'll bet anyone on here would be well pissed off if they were judged so harshly for being merely average and adequate under fantastically negative conditions.

Should all shareholders of all the clubs be named? We have what 26,000 - how many do Celtic have? I'm starting to think it sounds ridiculous. I agree that they should limit themselves to the board of directors.

That's ironic - I use that as my spam account... I'll check it out.

Most of us run a bank account and have financial experience, including debt - money is in our lifeblood too... However, I think while being free to discuss the issues we should perhaps sometimes be a bit more humble about our expertise in both arenas...

That may be - but it doesn't solve the two contracts issue does it? If EBT's are a double contract crime at the SFA, then it seems they are guilty whether they paid the tax or not.

I can see the attraction for him - big clubs will be suspicious of his eye injury and age, so if he wants to continue at a smaller club and develop coaching skills, then why not choose one with an emotional payback? One where you will be welcomed with open arms and idolised. The problems at Rangers have come at a bad time for him - and he'd have probably enjoyed himself more if he came back a couple of years ago and played for his old mentor in a championship winning team. The timing is a bit unfortunate for him - especially if he's 100% serious and then we have a transfer embargo. If we win the appeal and he does come, it will certainly cheer the fans up a bit - although you will get the usual grumpy ones talking about him being passed it etc.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king - in football terms, Scotland is the land of the blind...

And I think the difference is that most Rangers fans are now realistic and know the kind of decisions that need to be made. We're now far more in tune with the finances at our club, together with the dangers of overspending. We've had ten years of it culminating in what we have now so we're well conditioned to not have pie in the sky expectations.

I don't get the article at alll; it seems written by someone who doesn't have handle on the situation. HMRC do not seem interested at all in maximising the return from Rangers. If they were they would have done a deal on the BTC at a much reduced demand and over a long and affordable timescale. Say they settled for £15m over 15 years and Rangers agreed - the Whyte saga would probably never have happened and they would have received their £15m plus the £13m owed from last year, plus £4m from the small tax case. That's £32m. Now it seems like they will receive about £2m instead. That's the tax payer losing £30m - a 16th of what they could have had, just because HRMC wouldn't deal. The reason they are getting so much less is BECAUSE they played hardball. So the question is, are they just stupid - or is there another agenda? The most probable answer is that there is another agenda, and that is to make an example of a high profile football club that will cause aftershocks around the country. Rangers may end up not pay much of what is owed but they will have paid big time in other ways. It's a bit like sending someone for torture in Guantanamo for a year for not paying their taxes, then letting them off with a small payment and then people still complaining they got away with not paying their taxes. Rangers haven't got away with it, the pain has been terrible and will leave lasting scars. It seems to me you get your money or you get your punishment, you can't ask for both. So it seems the agenda here is for HMRC to show a sort of ruthlessness when it comes to dishing out pain as punishment rather than making sure they get their money. This will scare a lot of companies including football clubs into being put off any dodgy, aggressive tax avoidance schemes which could save the taxpayer billions in the future. That sounds a bit more clever to me - but Rangers have certainly paid for their sins.