Guest carter001 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 The point is that whether this is as "legal" as the SFA embargo was? They have rules and guidelines to obey, much like the SFA has. If they have no such stuff for a newco, bad for them. They should whip them up and pass them. (Though I have no doubt that they manage that in no-time.) Stripping titles ... would mean that they have hard evidence on any miissuse of the EBTs and if they found something, it should be reported and laid bare in an legally sound way. Have they the powers of stripping a team of titles? If so, where does it start or end? With a single player who played 5 games and getting naughty 30k and thus had next to no influence, or large scale misuse? Can the SPL actually strip us of titles when the SFA should be the body investigating? For once, again, I can see them working neatly hand in hand though. In any case, we should challenge any claim for missuse and check out whether this is actually true. Obviously, we would know (or rather, someone would knew), but then again, this EBT use is muddied water anyways. And while we are at it, no matter whether the Scum paid for their own EBTs, having them running fullfills the same legal problem for the SPL/SFA that we now encounter. Exactly! Robbing a bank and paying the money back a year later doesn't excuse the fact - You still robbed the bank, regardless of the value. Celtic had an EBT, and i'm sure payments have been made to players at all clubs over the years. No in the form of EBT's but, other tax free benefits. I wonder if the SPL/SFA will clean house and investigate everyone..............somehow, I don't think so! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,263 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 ... that is why we need a good QC. On a sidenote, I find the apparent ultimatum to Green - that the newco would take a penalty or not being voted back in SPL/SFA - being nothing short of coercion. That's why we need a good QC. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Still, you feel that getting rid of potentially £100m of debt ought to incur some sort of penalty. Not even the most fanatical of Bear would argue that we should avoid sanction altogether. It's a question of content rather than principle, for me anyway. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,263 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Fair enough. Right now though, we are being punished for one man playing havoc for one year behind the scenes. One year not paying tax and PAYE is the reason why we are in admin, not the EBTs. That we shed them along with the other stuff is "fortunate", but some will argue that had SDM not sold to Whyte, we wouldn't have gone into admin - at least not that fast and dirty. And we still do not know whether the EBT stuff did actually go against us. Anyway, there seems to be no objectivity amongst those doing the decisions within the authorities. If that continues we should indeed look to higher authorities, authorities, who will look at the motives of those taking the decisions here. Obviously ... if we sue the SFA / SPL for their lack of objectivity or draconic punishments, the Scum's European dream will go out of the window. And if the SFA et al want to inflict further damage ... well, what can they do that would strike us more? Withdraw our membership sine die? Yes! That would draw world wide interest to this whole affair ... and I doubt that they would harbour such a thought. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest carter001 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Still, you feel that getting rid of potentially £100m of debt ought to incur some sort of penalty. Not even the most fanatical of Bear would argue that we should avoid sanction altogether. It's a question of content rather than principle, for me anyway. I agree there should be punishment but, I don't think even Osama, Saddam and Kim Jong il sitting round a table could have come up with such a list!!! Liquidation is quite a punishment without anything else. We will accept going to the 3rd div if that is what they agree but, if they choose to keep us in the SPL that is for their benefit, not ours. And as such, should be the end of it. no further points deductions, loss of tv money etc. Ah, but we made tax free payments to players and cheated! different crime, different punishment. Don't keep adding the 2 'crimes' together, giving severe penalties, then having another go with further punishment a few days later. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Liquidation is quite a punishment without anything else. We will accept going to the 3rd div if that is what they agree but, if they choose to keep us in the SPL that is for their benefit, not ours. And as such, should be the end of it. no further points deductions, loss of tv money etc. Ah, but we made tax free payments to players and cheated! different crime, different punishment. Agree completely. I agree there should be punishment but, I don't think even Osama, Saddam and Kim Jong il sitting round a table could have come up with such a list!!! Now that's an episode of 'Come Dine With Me' I would have enjoyed watching. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Obviously ... if we sue the SFA / SPL for their lack of objectivity or draconic punishments, the Scum's European dream will go out of the window. And if the SFA et al want to inflict further damage ... well, what can they do that would strike us more? Withdraw our membership sine die? Yes! That would draw world wide interest to this whole affair ... and I doubt that they would harbour such a thought. Wish I was as confident as you! I actually fear a 'no Rangers at all' scenario coming soon...unthinkable, but potentially possible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,263 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I'm not confident, nor am I fond of any kamikaze-like scenarios like I wrote above. If worst comes to worst though, we should make a stand, even though it might be the last. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest carter001 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Agree completely. Now that's an episode of 'Come Dine With Me' I would have enjoyed watching. Forgot to add that other dictator Lawell to the list!!! oops 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Still, you feel that getting rid of potentially £100m of debt ought to incur some sort of penalty. Not even the most fanatical of Bear would argue that we should avoid sanction altogether. It's a question of content rather than principle, for me anyway. We need to sort this out. We did NOT have £100m debt wiped out. We did not gain a sporting advantage from not paying £100m of debt. If our own fans are falling for this stuff no wonder the other fans are gunning for us. We didn't pay tax due to a tax avoidance scheme to the tune of about £23m, the rest is due to HMRC coming after us retrospectively. Tax avoidance is not a crime and our club were advised it was legal and it was never hidden. I heard three external contractors here talking about their accounting and they are doing a ton of tax avoidance - one uses his company to "pay himself" just three grand a year of PAYE wage and that's pretty normal. Tax avoidance is rife and I would be shocked if there was one club who hadn't dabbled in it. If we're to be so severely punished then so do the rest of the league to some extent. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.