UEFA Licence 2011 - Time to put this to bed.

[Frankie 8,151]

Should we do the same with gillivan. Past record for accuracy has to be considered.

 

Calling someone a 'roaster' isn't that.

 

TheLawMan hasn't always convinced me previously with some of his work but, in this case, he's done a fine job in dismantling a 'report' which has the usual Sevo vultures circling.

 

I doubt those eagerly publicising the report will be eager to show how the authors have been liaising with Rangers haters for years or how TLM has showed its points to be worthy of question but the proper neutral (and the newspaper lawyers) will note the lack of substance within it.

 

As such, in this instance at least, TLM deserves credit instead of insult. If you can't appreciate that then it's best you just stay out of the thread and ask what you're doing to challenge such stuff.

[Bluedell 5,342]

Always assumed HMRC discovered it and presented it to Rangers (AJ's out of left field quote), Rangers negotiated payment terms which subsequently Whyte didn't honour. Was it not the reason the Whyte "takeover" ended up falling from the initially mooted £6m to the infamous £1?

 

I'd also presumed that which would mean that they would presumably have raised an assessment prior to 31st March, but we don't know the due date of that or whether discussions had led to the due date being deferred.

 

The writer is assuming that this is the case but it seems that he doesn't know it for sure...but presumably neither do any of the resolution maddies.

 

I'm not sure either side have enough information on it, but discussions between companies and the local tax authorities happen all the time, and I doubt that a run-of-the-mill discussion would be enough for a club to be banned from Europe. I doubt that the rule is put in place for that.

[buster. 4,808]

I'd also presumed that which would mean that they would presumably have raised an assessment prior to 31st March, but we don't know the due date of that or whether discussions had led to the due date being deferred.

 

The writer is assuming that this is the case but it seems that he doesn't know it for sure...but presumably neither do any of the resolution maddies.

 

I'm not sure either side have enough information on it, but discussions between companies and the local tax authorities happen all the time, and I doubt that a run-of-the-mill discussion would be enough for a club to be banned from Europe. I doubt that the rule is put in place for that.

 

Was it not 'discovered' in the interim accounts published in April 2011 ?

 

The board, or at least the side of the table that included AJ and PM seemed to think it came from 'left-field' whilst perhaps the other side with Muir and McGill representing the bank and Sir Duped/MIM knew more about it.

 

It came at a time of long and one-sided political tumolt that was about to come to a head.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Calling someone a 'roaster' isn't that.

 

TheLawMan hasn't always convinced me previously with some of his work but, in this case, he's done a fine job in dismantling a 'report' which has the usual Sevo vultures circling.

 

I doubt those eagerly publicising the report will be eager to show how the authors have been liaising with Rangers haters for years or how TLM has showed its points to be worthy of question but the proper neutral (and the newspaper lawyers) will note the lack of substance within it.

 

As such, in this instance at least, TLM deserves credit instead of insult. If you can't appreciate that then it's best you just stay out of the thread and ask what you're doing to challenge such stuff.

Hence my post.

 

I didn't call him a roaster. I don't think he is.

 

I was just pointing out that his output rarely if ever Matches up to his much trumped bona fides. Especially on financial matters.

 

I did say he could well be right here.

 

People should be aware of his Walter mittyness so they can judge the article imho.

 

Personally the yahoo's can howl at the moon as much as they like about stuff like this. With any luck they will bring down the sfa

Edited May 12, 2016 by the gunslinger

[Tannochsidebear 2,315]

Obviously the great unwashed live breathe and sleep everything to do with their rivals (thankfully they dont put as much effort into their own club or we would never catch them!) but I am not really getting the point they are trying to make here.

 

If the SFA wrongly issued a European licence to Rangers for 11-12 (two defeats against Malmo & Maribor were the sum total of our European exploits), then so what exactly? It doesnt affect what happened to them, it doesnt affect what happened to us, and it has absolutely no bearing on future events. What exactly is the point?

[Juancornetto 1]

The Spanish FA have been issuing licences for European competition for years to their clubs who owe the Spanish Tax Service body almost €1bn between them. I can't say what proportion of that is considered "overdue payable" but I'd guesstimate it to be in the hundreds of millions.

[craig 5,199]

The Spanish FA have been issuing licences for European competition for years to their clubs who owe the Spanish Tax Service body almost €1bn between them. I can't say what proportion of that is considered "overdue payable" but I'd guesstimate it to be in the hundreds of millions.

 

Not sure if it was taxes... but at one point Real Madrid had to "sell" the Bernabeu to the local authorities for hundreds of millions so they could pay off their debts. The local authorities then sold it back to them for 1 Euro.

[buster. 4,808]

The law man talks a load of nonsense regularly.

 

He might be right for a change.

 

He's obviously not one for simple nonsense. However on 'Rangers politics' (since 2012) I've often known him to be extremely disingenuous and in my opinion, generally untrustworthy.

Edited May 12, 2016 by buster.