calscot

The headline makes it sound like The Fugitive with tracker dogs chasing him down in a forest or something...

From what I have read, his accusation certainly lack veracity - the EBT payments were NOT hidden in the accounts. I've seen them in there with my own eyes. i really can't see where his accusations are going as all he is saying is that he himself was incompetent and negligent as a director. He didn't know what was happening under his nose and didn't do anything to find out. You have to wonder how he knows anything now, 12 years later from his livingroom, if he knew nothing then when he was actually on the board. The thing is, at which point do you start to sue a rambling old man with too much bitterness in his old age?

I agree with this. But dealing with something every day and so being immune to it, does not make it right. That argument reminds me a bit of the film Brazil where many just accepted the system and played along with it without question of its morality. In the film, Buttle may have been tortured to death but the wife did get a refund for the cost of his torture as it was an administrative mistake and so everything was "done properly" by the government. The wife may disagree with it "but them's the rules." As the outside viewer seeing it "fresh", we are appalled by the insane, bureaucratic society we witness. However, I would still question whether you see what is happening to Rangers as a normal occurrence. It seems to me that that is not the case. Rangers seem to be singled out for extra special treatment which is different from their approach to other cases, and I can't see how that is fair in any system. To me it's like the Aluko affair, the SPL bring in bad rules which are badly implemented and not applied evenly. They may be following procedure correctly but they are not doing it fairly and justly. Laws are supposed to be transparent, fair and just and it doesn't seem to be the case here. It makes me wonder what you think about CW. If he has not broken any laws or trading rules then what he is doing is normal in business and is his approach for all his companies. If he has worked within the rules, just what has he done wrong?

You have to wonder why he is even doing this. He must have some agenda as all he is doing is potentially harming the club. The time to speak out was when he was on the board or just after he left. All he is now is another enemy of Rangers who was complicit in setting us up for this shit The weird thing is that SDM gets a lot of flack these days for mismanaging the club but he's never *deliberately* tried to harm us like some of these guys.

It was recently but I'm afraid I can't say exactly when. They didn't say it in the same words bit they alluded to the same thing. Feel free to doubt me though. My memory is far from perfect.

I agree with you but for a technicality. Stokes was booked and so was given a punishment at the time. Aluko wasn't booked but given a penalty instead which was scored. The two game ban was therefore at best, a petty and ill-conceived attempt at evening things up somewhat. That's not necessary for Stokes.

Why do you have to sell for a profit, Why not spend the money and enjoy the hobby of being a big-shot football chairman? Then, when you get bored, sell it on for the same as you paid for it. You could even pay yourself an 800k wage for the privilege of working part time, and it could make business deals easier. There is more to life than making a profit and in fact when you get to a certain wealth it starts to become a bit pointless - which is why so many start to spend their money on overpriced stuff, producing films, buying vineyards and putting their name on the wine or they start giving it away to appear philanthropic. If you want a bit of fame and celebrity status, there's only one space available for The Apprentice and five for Dragons Den, but there are plenty of football clubs and Rangers is more famous than most - and right now it's a bargain.

The administrators have also said it and HMRC, while doing all sorts of Rangers laundry in public, have declined to deny it or qualify it. It's not a card they need to keep close to their chest unless it's true or they like the idea of the bluff.

Come -on surely I'm allowed a bit of drama now and again? If that was clearly the case it would have been done and dusted a long time ago - like five or six years ago. Raking up stuff from ten years ago that have been properly and visibly posted in the accounts and tax returns every year, over technicalities that you can't readily prove is totally different to what you're suggesting. Well you've changed to a new argument which makes it unfair to attack my words. I think you can see I'm arguing in the scenario where the EBTs were done properly. You obviously seem to know that they weren't even though the court case is not resolved. Like I said, the worst that Rangers can be done on is a technicality. I never said they should ignore any tax that is not being properly paid - my argument is quite the opposite!!! The problem is that they DID ignore it for ten years, allowing Rangers to think they were being completely legal, and now are raking it up, adding impossible interest and fines, and trying to put the club out of business in an immensely over aggressive manner where they are threatening the club with years of litigation during which Rangers cannot trade properly. I think they should DO THEIR JOB PROPERLY and TIMELY. And if they fuck up as in this case then they should be more empathetic and less aggressive. And also, they should forget about it if they have been that incompetent and the tax debts are over six years old. I can't even see how penalties are appropriate for their mistake. It's a bit like parking with two wheels on the grass verge outside your house for ten years with the council saying nothing and then hitting you with 3650 fines of £50 after they've changed the rules as they've thought about it and then found some technicality to get you on. I'm talking about fairness here and it's obvious they are not being fair - except to you. Again your basing your argument on the obvious falsehood that the tax is being properly collected. The problem is that they didn't ensure this and it's also obviously debatable whether the tax is "proper". This shows how timeliness is important. Imagine you buy a house and then get stuck for £100k fine for the previous owner not paying his council tax for ten years? Is that fair? If it is true, the absolutely it is their fault. The rules on this are obviously far too grey and Rangers and thousands of other companies were being given expert advice that what they were doing was correct. Even if Rangers were doing it wrong, then if the tax man was timely, Rangers could have adjusted the way they did it or chosen to drop it altogether. Imagine going in to work 5 minutes late every day for ten years. Nobody says anything so you think it's ok and then wham, you're sacked for persistent lateness. Is that fair? That is for you to see - although I know it's not your strong point. I've given plenty of explanation. It's basically not telling people the proper rules, not telling them they are breaking the rules and then retrospectively and aggressively and severely punishing them for consistently breaking the rules - except add in, that those punishing you don't really know the rules themselves and they are going to punish you whether you actually broke them or not. I'd say that's immoral. To be honest, if it's about the tax footballers pay then it seems to me that HMRC have no beef with Rangers, they should be chasing the players for non payment of tax, not the club. It is income tax so I can't see how the club is liable. I never said we don't owe the tax - nobody knows that yet. My complaint is the unfair way they are going about it as explained above and many times before. I have no idea where you get that from. Bit of a non sequitur. The tax should be the tax, whether they are footballers or whatever. There are many ways of tax avoidance - ISA's for example I am suggesting the Government should work at clarifying tax situations and apply them in a fair and timely fashion. When that is not possible they should be pursued in an appropriate and fair manner. I really can't see how that has been done here. Rangers have not really been "bad" here, at worst they have been unwise and slightly careless. I don't see why they should be aggressively put out of business for that. It's pretty obvious that Rangers have been tax avoiders not tax evaders but they have been treated by all and sundry like the latter. It all seems a bit like innocently tripping over your own lace and then being given a retrospective two game ban for simulation. I know you don't agree with me on this, but you could at least try to understand my viewpoint. There's more to situations than just cold, calculated numbers.

The so-called expert was pathetic. Didn't sound like he knew what he was talking about at all. Maybe it was a combination of TV nerves and not wanting to say too much, but you really wanted someone who could get the situation and explain the possible scenarios more clearly to the layman. Ironically, the most compelling and most knowledgeable sounding person in the piece was SDM. Interesting that the actual amount of tax avoided was reported as £9M which makes the demand for £49M look ridiculous. If that is true is just points to HMRC using Rangers as a high profile example to scare companies into paying back taxes that they are most likely not due to pay due to the EBT loophole. The way HMRC are working is just not the kind of governance I want in my country. I want to live somewhere where fairness is paramount rather in some evil empire. Yes, we want companies and individual to pay their fair share of tax, but if there is a loophole, then use the law to close it as quickly as possible. It can't be that hard and once it's done then there is no defence. Instead we let companies use it for ten years, close the hole and then put them out of business with unaffordable retrospective demands with huge interest and fines. I just can't see how that's even slightly moral - even for the most insidious of tax avoiding companies. The crappy thing is that they are going after a company with a loyal following of innocent people and because of the passage of time the original owner who used the scheme is no longer connected. Just what kind of justice are they trying to achieve? It also seems to me that you can't start charging interest and penalties until you've made the actual demand for the money, and even then it should be suspended until its legitimacy is resolved in court. It is a mess, but the mess is of HMRC's making and it stinks to high heaven. People can argue all they like about how that's how it works, but my point is, it shouldn't work that way, it's just not a morally just way of doing it. It's ironic that it seems in Spain that the government, instead of trying to put clubs out of business by demanding tax they don't really owe, they are trying to find a way to reduce the demands of tax that clubs do owe.

Ticketus will have to play ball somewhat as the last thing they want is liquidation. As I see it, if that happened they would be due nothing as they "don't lend money", they "buy up future tickets". They would own 75k of tickets for a company that no longer exists. They do, however, want to avoid being included in a CVA as they would only get a fraction of their money back. Personally I think it would be fair enough if they get £18M of their money back plus a normal rate of interest - the rest they can demand from whoever they gave the money to. That's all I think we owe them. I'd be happy for all other creditors to get their money back too - except for HMRC. I'd like us to pay this year's tax in full but bugger all of the EBT money. The bill for the latter just doesn't seem right - it's retrospectively collecting a tax from before the loophole was closed. They had ten years to close it and didn't - we went with the assumption that is was ok. If they had challenged it after a couple of years then fair enough - we could have paid up and then stopped. I can't even see how a debt from more than six years ago is not statute barred in any case. The whole thing smacks of entrapment. I think they need to admit their mistake and at worst, do a deal that is affordable to the club with maybe a wrap on the knuckles - say some kind of yellow card for future tax issues. So basically we need a bidder to offer a price which is just enough to make the club debt free - say £19M to Ticketus + say £10M to HMRC + say £3M to the other creditors = £32M. Sounds like a fair price to me. Then they could raise say £8M from the fans in a share issue to invest in the playing squad and give 20% equity in return.

I agree with everything you say except for one: right now he'd be a first choice in the team for me. Given a fully fit, in form and motivated squad, he wouldn't get in my choice of team, but right now he's one of the best players we have available. He wasn't even playing his first, second or third choice position on Saturday and yet was our best defender by a long way.

You could be right but for me there was more compelling evidence of contact on Aluko, I've yet to be convinced there was any on Stokes and I also think the latter convinced me more that he was being theatrical. I've never really argued that Aluko should have had a penalty, but in my opinion there wasn't enough evidence to conclude that it was definitely a dive. To me it should have been play on. Perhaps it should have been for Stokes too. I don't subscribe to the view that is must be a penalty OR a dive. There are plenty of shades of grey in between which are obfuscated further by the burden of proof.

A complete non story of coulds and buts with an obvious anti-Rangers and pro-Catholic slant. What crackdown? Kearney is obviously an idiot if he thinks 50,000 English fans are offended by Flower of Scotland. "The supporters COULD face a staggering portion of tea and buns IF they are not charged for anything, as arresting officers COULD do this as part of an apology. "There were NO arrests at the Celtic game as that COULD have incited violence at the game."

Are we so hard up now that the team will be wearing bibs instead of proper tops? Who have been donating the bibs? I agree that bibs won't be very stylish...

I think the arrests were just the normal breach of the peace at a football match - of which there were two out of 50,000 people. The papers just put them in the same story as the new law to sensationalise them. I don't remember any confirmation that the arrests were done using the new law. Really the story should have been about how amazingly well behaved supporters are at matches these days... but that doesn't sell newspapers.

It could be postponed...

That's more conclusively a dive than Aluko. Will he be getting a two game ban? The worst bit is that he dragged his left foot to look like he'd been tripped, it's something that doesn't look normal for either a foul on his right foot or an innocent stumble. It looks like he was trying to catch the defender with it to manufacture a trip.

Never knew he was the favourite before to "remain" the favourite. But he's my favourite at the moment so that sounds good to my ears. I really dislike Man City for the middle eastern money that is making a mockery of the EPL and deep down wouldn't really want that for us, but right now a scenario like that at Rangers would be so funny for the total meltdown it would cause...

I would say while McCulloch's performances have been chequered in the past (although reports of his poor performances have often been exaggerated or even made up), he's been one of our better performers lately, despite being shifted round the field quite a bit. By all accounts he was even our best defender against DU. He's not only risen to the occasion by offering to play for free, he's also one of the few that has risen to the occasion on the pitch too.

In your opinion. To me it wasn't much different from that Irish rugby player who went down after a tug against Scotland. Almost had a penalty try but there was too much cover. However the Scots player was yellow carded and sin-binned and a penalty awarded. And THIS was rugby. Speak for yourself and not for others. We don't all see things as black and white as you. 100% wrong. There was literally contact. The photos clearly show this. Whether it was enough to send him over is something no-one will ever know for sure. Oh, except some people just KNOW these things. :fish:

Finally made my donation by finding a local RBS and paying in the branch.

I'm leaning towards Kennedy as my preferred bidder. I really don't want a cash poor consortium with funding from Ticketus - doesn't seem that much different to Craig Whyte...

That arithmetic has just got to be wrong. It's more like £1.5K a week. NI has a ceiling around the same point that the 40% tax bracket comes in. According to an online tax calculator it would be £1,531.05. Or £6,634.56 a month. As it's only short term, I'm sure it will be liveable. I'm of the opinion that the more you earn the harder it is to spend it without being a bit indulgent or even moronic (drugs etc). Most rich people have to make up expensive hobbies just for the sake of it - art collections, antiques, supercars etc. PS 10k a week nets you £22,726.23 a month. That's a decent amount of dough.