Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.

[Pete Gas]

10 minutes into EBT and chill and he gives you this look.

[Parklife]

10 minutes into EBT and chill and he gives you this look.

I'm glad that you can find comfort in your team dying by posting daft pictures on the Internet

[thplinth]

Playing devils advocate again.

Would 'seem to' call it into question. Do you think it actually will be called into question? Im not so sure as I think it will be impossible to gauge how much of an advantage was gained by using them.

If you ask yourself did the EBT's give RFC an advantage on the pitch you have to conclude yes. Of course they did that is exactly why they did them to get that advantage. As a rangers fan can you honestly deny that EBT's were done to give you an advantage?

So then you ask how much advantage? Well look at the scale of the Big Tax Case and the fact when it came time to face the music it brought RFC 1899 down. So I think we can say it was on an industrial scale.

So what should be the punishment? Well I think the Lance Armstrong type solution will be the only workable one. Just leave those years void. No way should those years be allowed to stand. That would be bullshit.

Will that happen? Probably not as despite all the general paranoia about the SFA being out to get Rangers quite the opposite is true they will do everything they can to protect you. It will only be fan outrage like last time that forces them to do the right thing if that happens.

[RenfrewBlue]

If you ask yourself did the EBT's give RFC an advantage on the pitch you have to conclude yes. Of course they did that is exactly why they did them to get that advantage. As a rangers fan can you honestly deny that EBT's were done to give you an advantage?

So then you ask how much advantage? Well look at the scale of the Big Tax Case and the fact when it came time to face the music it brought RFC 1899 down. So I think we can say it was on an industrial scale.

So what should be the punishment? Well I think the Lance Armstrong type solution will be the only workable one. Just leave those years void. No way should those years be allowed to stand. That would be bullshit.

Will that happen? Probably not as despite all the general paranoia about the SFA being out to get Rangers quite the opposite is true they will do everything they can to protect you. It will only be fan outrage like last time that forces them to do the right thing if that happens.

How many times are you going to post this same text?

I think we've all got your opinion now and I'm pretty sure no one needs a hint on mine either.

I doubt anyone will have their opinion changed either, by repetition of the same old mince (which ever side you are on).

[thplinth]

How many times are you going to post this same text?

I think we've all got your opinion now and I'm pretty sure no one needs a hint on mine either.

I doubt anyone will have their opinion changed either, by repetition of the same old mince (which ever side you are on).

FFS I am answering a question posed to me. Who do you think you are effectively telling folk what they can and cannot post?

I routinely ignore you and still you trail around after me like a sad case. Have you ever cracked a smile your whole life? Jesus...find someone else to haunt as you bore the arse off me.

[phart]

It was an illegal cost cutting exercise in an arena in which there is huge correlation between wages and ability.

As a concept it's not difficult to grasp.

[Debian]

FFS I am answering a question posed to me. Who do you think you are effectively telling folk what they can and cannot post?

I routinely ignore you and still you trail around after me like a sad case. Have you ever cracked a smile your whole life? Jesus...find someone else to haunt as you bore the arse off me.

I found these bits the most humorous.

[ShedTA]

I'm glad that you can find comfort in your team dying by posting daft pictures on the Internet

Parky I have seen a few of these joke posts going around. it appears some Rangers fans are now using the EBT thing to wind other supporters up about the trophies they won cheating using EBT's. its more of the no one likes us we dont care attitude, except with this its far more sinister. its a two fingers up to fairness, the law of the land, and all the creditors they stiffed. and the likes of Renfrew on here wonders why there is little sympathy for the clubs plight.

[Larky Masher]

It was an illegal cost cutting exercise in an arena in which there is huge correlation between wages and ability.

As a concept it's not difficult to grasp.

Though it was thought to be legal when the scheme was implemented and if it goes to a final appeal it may become legal again.

In addition high wages and high transfer fees are no predictor of a players performance on the park as Torres to Chelsea, Andy Carroll to Liverpool, Svevchenko to Chelsea and a long list at Rangers to Andy Webster to Daniel Prodan to Ian Black to Jon Daly to Bert Counterman to James Beattie to Basil Boli etc prove.

[Angus_Young]

If you ask yourself did the EBT's give RFC an advantage on the pitch you have to conclude yes. Of course they did that is exactly why they did them to get that advantage. As a rangers fan can you honestly deny that EBT's were done to give you an advantage?

So then you ask how much advantage? Well look at the scale of the Big Tax Case and the fact when it came time to face the music it brought RFC 1899 down. So I think we can say it was on an industrial scale.

So what should be the punishment? Well I think the Lance Armstrong type solution will be the only workable one. Just leave those years void. No way should those years be allowed to stand. That would be bullshit.

Will that happen? Probably not as despite all the general paranoia about the SFA being out to get Rangers quite the opposite is true they will do everything they can to protect you. It will only be fan outrage like last time that forces them to do the right thing if that happens.

Your last paragraph is what I was really asking m8. My opinion above, (that this won't be persued) isn't from a 'fans' point of view. Ultimately it's irrelevant what me, you or anyone else thinks SHOULD happen I was more thinking out loud at what I think will happen.

Like you I don't think this will go any further, although I don't agree that it's because we get any special treatment (bet you're shocked at that eh? )

I just think it's too subjective, especially in a team sport. I mean how is anyone going to even begin to gauge how much of an impact each individual player made in any one season? I don't think it's up for debate that we gained an advantage using these schemes but again that's just my opinion, someone of far greater authority than me has already ruled that stripping titles won't be considered.

That said the SFA/SPFL isn't a court of law so they can make decision based on their own opinions. You never know what that lit will do, I just can't see it in this instance.

[Larky Masher]

So what should be the punishment? Well I think the Lance Armstrong type solution will be the only workable one. Just leave those years void.

If there is punishment then this would be the logical approach to take.

[phart]

Though it was thought to be legal when the scheme was implemented and if it goes to a final appeal it may become legal again.

In addition high wages and high transfer fees are no predictor of a players performance on the park as Torres to Chelsea, Andy Carroll to Liverpool, Svevchenko to Chelsea and a long list at Rangers to Andy Webster to Daniel Prodan to Ian Black to Jon Daly to Bert Counterman to James Beattie to Basil Boli etc prove.

"I didn't know you couldn't do that" is not a valid argument in law.

Yet if i list the 100 best paid versus 100 least paid, there is a huge qualitative difference in ability.

No one is saying it's a predictor, merely that in general the more you pay the better the quality of the player. There are exceptions. but that's sometimes down to the manager mis-paying. Not all players are payed at their "true" Value.

You could maybe see someone doing it to pass on a bit of cash in a small business, but withholding millions of pounds of tax-money so you can pay already rich people more to ensure you win a two horse football race is a bit beyond the pale.

[Larky Masher]

"I didn't know you couldn't do that" is not a valid argument in law.

Yet if i list the 100 best paid versus 100 least paid, there is a huge qualitative difference in ability.

No one is saying it's a predictor, merely that in general the more you pay the better the quality of the player. There are exceptions. but that's sometimes down to the manager mis-paying. Not all players are payed at their "true" Value.

You could maybe see someone doing it to pass on a bit of cash in a small business, but withholding millions of pounds of tax-money so you can pay already rich people more to ensure you win a two horse football race is a bit beyond the pale.

But "I thought I could" is the argument that the Rangers' case has been about, HMRC are looking to simply looking recoup unpaid tax there is no sign of criminal charges being made.

Using moral equivalence is nonsense, tax avoidance is tax avoidance regardless of the amount.

[stocky]

IF it is cheating, then the Titles get removed from the club.

However the Medals could stay with the players as it was not the individuals fault, it was the 'whole' that cheated not the 'part'

Rangers gained an advantage by playing players they could not afford.

But i think the individuals are blameless.

The Lance Armstrong example is the fairest way to go ahead. leave those years blank,

isnt that what the did for Juventus the years they were found to have broken the rules, and Marseillaise in the E.C.

Why does it matter so much to Rangers fans if they lose the titles, they were there when they were won, they shared the glory, u cant take that away.

The memories etc.

Is it only so they have more than celtic? if thats the case , it will only be a few years till celtic overtake them anyhow, so why have the tainted titles on your record.

[phart]

But "I thought I could" is the argument that the Rangers' case has been about, HMRC are looking to simply looking recoup unpaid tax there is no sign of criminal charges being made.

Using moral equivalence is nonsense, tax avoidance is tax avoidance regardless of the amount.

I'm not using equivalence i'm saying they are not equivalent, not that they are.

[Debian]

IF it is cheating, then the Titles get removed from the club.

However the Medals could stay with the players as it was not the individuals fault, it was the 'whole' that cheated not the 'part'

Rangers gained an advantage by playing players they could not afford.

But i think the individuals are blameless.

The Lance Armstrong example is the fairest way to go ahead. leave those years blank,

isnt that what the did for Juventus the years they were found to have broken the rules, and Marseillaise in the E.C.

Why does it matter so much to Rangers fans if they lose the titles, they were there when they were won, they shared the glory, u cant take that away.

The memories etc.

Is it only so they have more than celtic? if thats the case , it will only be a few years till celtic overtake them anyhow, so why have the tainted titles on your record.

I like your trolling style.

[Larky Masher]

I'm not using equivalence i'm saying they are not equivalent, not that they are.

I interpreted "You could maybe see someone doing it to pass on a bit of cash in a small business" as you suggesting that was acceptable.

Anyway I've got ironing to do so must go.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Larky Masher

[Glasgowmancity]

However the Medals could stay with the players as it was not the individuals fault, it was the 'whole' that cheated not the 'part'

From a tax/HMRC point of view, that is wrong

[bruce778]

I don't see the difference between what rangers did and other clubs who have incurred insolvency events did. They all racked up debts they couldn't pay. If rangers paid this tax bill tomorrow it would be a moot point.

People seem to be ranking the tax man higher than any other creditor, which doesn't reflect the law of the land.

It's no different to any other big legal dispute years down the track. It just happens to relate to tax. If rangers had lost a law suit for £50m by ticketus because they owed ticketus £50m (£5m per season for 10 years), then obviously they must have used money owed to ticketus on players that they couldn't afford. Would people be reacting so hysterically then?

[Pete Gas]

I'm glad that you can find comfort in your team dying by posting daft pictures on the Internet

[sbcmfc]

I don't see the difference between what rangers did and other clubs who have incurred insolvency events did. They all racked up debts they couldn't pay. If rangers paid this tax bill tomorrow it would be a moot point.

People seem to be ranking the tax man higher than any other creditor, which doesn't reflect the law of the land.

It's no different to any other big legal dispute years down the track. It just happens to relate to tax. If rangers had lost a law suit for £50m by ticketus because they owed ticketus £50m (£5m per season for 10 years), then obviously they must have used money owed to ticketus on players that they couldn't afford. Would people be reacting so hysterically then?

I've never thought of it like that before, although I've no interest in the title stripping angle. No retrospective decision could erase the memory of the 2005 league cup final!

I suppose by using the EBT they've managed to rack up a monster of a debt, that otherwise they wouldn't have been able to?

[stocky]

I don't see the difference between what rangers did and other clubs who have incurred insolvency events did. They all racked up debts they couldn't pay. If rangers paid this tax bill tomorrow it would be a moot point.

People seem to be ranking the tax man higher than any other creditor, which doesn't reflect the law of the land.

It's no different to any other big legal dispute years down the track. It just happens to relate to tax. If rangers had lost a law suit for £50m by ticketus because they owed ticketus £50m (£5m per season for 10 years), then obviously they must have used money owed to ticketus on players that they couldn't afford. Would people be reacting so hysterically then?

i think the tax man is ranked ' bigger' than the rest, ie they can VETO stuff that other creditors cant.

and that is the whole point. they are ranked higher.

if it was money owed to ticketus or a.n.other, then a deal would have been done, 1p in the pound or something. the Tax man doesnt do that sort of thing.

Its the fact that they owed tax is what makes it different,

[Debian]

i think the tax man is ranked ' bigger' than the rest, ie they can VETO stuff that other creditors cant.

and that is the whole point. they are ranked higher.

if it was money owed to ticketus or a.n.other, then a deal would have been done, 1p in the pound or something. the Tax man doesnt do that sort of thing.

Its the fact that they owed tax is what makes it different,

Yes they do. They made a deal with Arsenal on the exact scheme. They settled for £30m.

[Fairbairn]

SPFL to "discuss" Rangers tax case verdict.

[stocky]

Yes they do. They made a deal with Arsenal on the exact scheme. They settled for £30m.

so why didnt they do it with Rangers. I dont understand. I was always under the impression that this would set a precedent and thats why they dint do it

I presume it wasnt exactly the same thing, however please correct me if i am incorrect. .