Bluedell 5,371 Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 if my case is built on how much it means to me and i have the cash but don't pay then yes. its like sending your mate along to a custody battle to tell the judge how much you miss your kids. Ridiculous analogy. It's like fighting a custody case and part of your legal fees being paid by your dad rather than yourself. The fact that your dad pays your legal fees has no impact on how much you want to keep your children or how much you love them. Does it matter that although you have the cash to pay it, your dad is willing to pay so that you will have more cash to spend on your kids in the future? It's sad that some fans would rather the club be out of pocket rather than use the RFFF just to have a go at Green. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Im not convinced of that Cotter. For instance how about employing a professional lobby group to push for an enquiry into HMRC and their dealings with our club ? But that's not the core issue here. The titles are of concern to everyone - no doubt. But they are also the property of Charles Green (viz his company with controlling interest of Rangers) - I cannot see why it would not be his responsibility first and foremost to pay for the defence of his investment. When he eventually comes to sell the company he will be selling those titles to the new buyer. It's much more ambiguous what can actually be done there, it could take all sorts of time and since the tax case already did it's damage the main purpose is revenge and satisfaction. I'd like to see HMRC pulled up don't get me wrong but fighting for our titles is much more urgent and relevant, a very real threat. Who said Charles Green wouldn't or won't DA? Unless you're suggesting he asked the RFFF to do this they've made the decision, are you really expecting him to come out and tell them 'no thanks'? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,371 Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 I cannot see why it would not be his responsibility first and foremost to pay for the defence of his investment. It IS his responsibility first and foremost to pay, but that doesn't preclude him allowing the RFFF to contribute. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 i wouldn't expect charles to say no to this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 It's much more ambiguous what can actually be done there, it could take all sorts of time and since the tax case already did it's damage the main purpose is revenge and satisfaction. I'd like to see HMRC pulled up don't get me wrong but fighting for our titles is much more urgent and relevant, a very real threat. Who said Charles Green wouldn't or won't DA? Unless you're suggesting he asked the RFFF to do this they've made the decision, are you really expecting him to come out and tell them 'no thanks'? Well firstly its not revenge or satisfaction with regard to HMRC - more curiosity. For instance why was our club selected over the EPL clubs who have used EBT's ? Particularly when it has been reported that the administration of our EBT scheme by the Murray Group was in fact exemplerary. Furthermore why did HMRC wait a full 9 months on taking action regarding Whyte's non-payment of PAYE ? As to the second point - perhaps he will, and my confusion of the RFFF statement is in no way a criticism of Charles Green. There are 2 issues for me on this - 1. Since the tribunal decision the mainstream media have been very quiet of the subject of title stripping, with a number of neutral commentators (as well as pro Rangers commentators) suggesting in view of the tribunal decision, title stripping should not be on the agenda. Im surprised that the RFFF have re-surrected this subject, but I fully acknowledge they may well be privvy to information which Im not. 2. No I dont expect CG to say "no thanks" - I just didnt expect the offer to be made in the first place. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Sorry FS and GS, your attitudes on this really come across as if you have serious issues with Green. If you disagree with the decision of The RFFF committee then you could debate that but the immediate need to try and bring Green into a decision that has very little to do with him seems to show a bit of an obsessive attitude. My view would be the same irrespective of who our CEO is. If no titles are stripped and a monetary punishment is levied should the RFFF monies be used to litigate that when the club is sitting with over £20m + in the bank? Perhaps the RFFF would have been better waiting to see if in fact any titles are actually stripped before issuing the statement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 I'm not having a go at green. what be said about the investment. was clever and correct. i just think the rfff got this a little wrong. partly because of greens stance. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Well firstly its not revenge or satisfaction with regard to HMRC - more curiosity. For instance why was our club selected over the EPL clubs who have used EBT's ? Particularly when it has been reported that the administration of our EBT scheme by the Murray Group was in fact exemplerary. Furthermore why did HMRC wait a full 9 months on taking action regarding Whyte's non-payment of PAYE ? As to the second point - perhaps he will' date=' and my confusion of the RFFF statement is in no way a criticism of Charles Green. There are 2 issues for me on this - 1. Since the tribunal decision the mainstream media have been very quiet of the subject of title stripping, with a number of neutral commentators (as well as pro Rangers commentators) suggesting in view of the tribunal decision, title stripping should not be on the agenda. Im surprised that the RFFF have re-surrected this subject, but I fully acknowledge they may well be privvy to information which Im not. 2. No I dont expect CG to say "no thanks" - I just didnt expect the offer to be made in the first place.[/quote'] The commission hasn't been scrapped, that's reason enough to still be fearful. It would not the first time football decides it is above the law. Fair enough, I suppose where we disagree is that you don't believe the RFFF should be using the money this way. I'd like those answers from HMRC myself but as you say it is more curiosity, and I think the threat to our honours is more urgent and important than that right now. It may still be a possible use if title stripping does not become an issue. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 one plus of this is it let's the SPL know that the defence has deep pockets here. this may make them cautious about their verdict. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 one plus of this is it let's the SPL know that the defence has deep pockets here. this may make them cautious about their verdict. I personally, wouldn't have advocated the whole issue being resurrected GS 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.