The BIG strip the titles thread

[Blue92]

Yes and loans needed to be disclosed.  That's never been in doubt.
I think it's been dealt with staggeringly leniently.

MT, you seem like a level headed chap, but can't you see you are just going round in circles? This issue will never be resolved on an 'open' forum. My only question to you would be is why has the SC decision riled you up in terms of title stripping when you have admitted that it was irrelevant in that sense?

[Jimboyjones1976]

2 hours ago, nacho said:

heres you go dumbass, from the bbc, ebts no longer legal in 2010 after rangers stopped using them, you are the one making a c@@t out of yourself

 

2010: 16 May - Rangers refuse to comment on reports that the final bill could hit £50m.

December - EBTs are outlawed under new legislation.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20417847

So Rangers fans are now willing to accept the word of the BBC? Thought the Ibrox party line was that anything the BBC said was bias and attacking Rangers? Or is that only when it doesn't fall in line with the thinking of the Ibrox faithful?

[Jimboyjones1976]

2 hours ago, nacho said:

yawn, your wishful thinking on the issue is not actually fact, thats something which you seem unable to comprehend, we didnt cheat, none of us think we did, we all think the punishment fitted the crime and we believe legal experts over a message board halfwit like yourself on the issue, got it?

It's all well hiding behind the judgements made Nacho, but when the manager in charge (McLeish) and other high profile Rangers people make statements saying that they couldn't have had the players that they had without the scheme, what do you you expect people to say? McLeish was the manager of the team. He identified or sanctioned the need for many of the players. He knew of the EBT scheme too as he pocketed £1.7m from it. He was at the centre of the scandal and knew how it worked. He then made a statement which, with his explicit knowledge of what was going on, must be taken into account.

[Jimboyjones1976]

2 hours ago, The DA said:

Or in 2004 when HMRC asked Rangers for details of the scheme they were running.  First opportunity for Rangers to say, 'is this OK with you Hector?  And the side-letters, too?'

Got to say, DA has made a very good point there. The disclosure issue was s very important to this thread.

[Jimboyjones1976]

29 minutes ago, Henrik's tongue said:

Nacho pretending he isn't angry - then proceeding to reply to everyone in a fit of name calling.  

 

I know. Beyond mad childish innit?

[Blue92]

It's all well hiding behind the judgements made Nacho, but when the manager in charge (McLeish) and other high profile Rangers people make statements saying that they couldn't have had the players that they had without the scheme, what do you you expect people to say? McLeish was the manager of the team. He identified or sanctioned the need for many of the players. He knew of the EBT scheme too as he pocketed £1.7m from it. He was at the centre of the scandal and knew how it worked. He then made a statement which, with his explicit knowledge of what was going on, must be taken into account.

I thought it was the side letters that was the issue? I.e. Registration of players. If you want to go down the financial doping route then you would have to question all teams that have overspent to buy players they otherwise couldn't afford. It was a tax avoidance scheme, and after 7 years we learned that Rangers hadn't actually avoided the tax. Plus you can't just right off the judgements because they don't align with your opinion. If there was a verdict for titles to be stripped I'm sure you would hide behind it and call us cheats at every single opportunity.

[Ken Fitlike]

24 minutes ago, Blue92 said:

I thought it was the side letters that was the issue? I.e. Registration of players. If you want to go down the financial doping route then you would have to question all teams that have overspent to buy players they otherwise couldn't afford. It was a tax avoidance scheme, and after 7 years we learned that Rangers hadn't actually avoided the tax. Plus you can't just right off the judgements because they don't align with your opinion. If there was a verdict for titles to be stripped I'm sure you would hide behind it and call us cheats at every single opportunity.

Non declaration of the side letters ( effectively second contracts to ensure  'top stars' were offered enough to sign on at Ibrox) was the issue.

All remuneration must be notified to the SFA. A vast chunk of the various squads wages were concealed. 0-3 defeat for every game where even one player was slyly registered in this fashion.

'call us cheats'

I'll do that any way. because it is patently true.

[Jimboyjones1976]

29 minutes ago, Blue92 said:

I thought it was the side letters that was the issue? I.e. Registration of players. If you want to go down the financial doping route then you would have to question all teams that have overspent to buy players they otherwise couldn't afford. It was a tax avoidance scheme, and after 7 years we learned that Rangers hadn't actually avoided the tax. Plus you can't just right off the judgements because they don't align with your opinion. If there was a verdict for titles to be stripped I'm sure you would hide behind it and call us cheats at every single opportunity.

It is about registration of players, which was wrong. Personally I don't accept it was an 'error'. This 'error' in turn was the reason why players earned more. They are exclusively linked. If the verdict at the time had been to strip titles my opinion would still be the same, that Rangers cheated. In my opinion the verdict was a carve up to try and settle the issue then and allow some sort of continuation for the club at the time. I also feel it was wrong to have made a judgement when all the legal matters hadn't seen their full course.

[Blue92]

I'll do that any way. because it is patently true.

If only if there was some sort of commission that said otherwise.... oh yeah that can be disregarded because you don't agree with it.

[Blue92]

It is about registration of players, which was wrong. Personally I don't accept it was an 'error'. This 'error' in turn was the reason why players earned more. They are exclusively linked. If the verdict at the time had been to strip titles my opinion would still be the same, that Rangers cheated. In my opinion the verdict was a carve up to try and settle the issue then and allow some sort of continuation for the club at the time. I also feel it was wrong to have made a judgement when all the legal matters hadn't seen their full course.

My main gripe is that if the LNS enquiry came to the verdict that we had an advantage and titles were stripped, the people disregarding it on here would no doubt take it as gospel, case closed or 'binding'. One half of the strip the titles argument are homing in on financial doping and the other half are all about side letters, comes across as a bit of a farce.

[bennett]

17 minutes ago, Jimboyjones1976 said:

It is about registration of players, which was wrong. Personally I don't accept it was an 'error'. This 'error' in turn was the reason why players earned more. They are exclusively linked. If the verdict at the time had been to strip titles my opinion would still be the same, that Rangers cheated. In my opinion the verdict was a carve up to try and settle the issue then and allow some sort of continuation for the club at the time. I also feel it was wrong to have made a judgement when all the legal matters hadn't seen their full course.

At the time Rangers fans wanted it delayed until everything was cleared up but Scottish fitba fans wouldn't wait and said that the two matters were completely separate.

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, Henrik's tongue said:

Nacho pretending he isn't angry - then proceeding to reply to everyone in a fit of name calling.  

 

It's marvellous, but so extreme that I'm almost starting to feel pity.

The abusive names were coming so thick and fast there that I think he truly was cracking up a bit.  He really needs Rangers to keep those titles.  

[Ken Fitlike]

2 hours ago, bennett said:

As Lord William Nimmo Smith said title stripping was never an option, the rules didn't allow for it.

Do you seriously want the rulebook to thrown out just because it's sevco?

 

As soon as Rangers / Sevco came across any rule, the default response was to finagle a way round it.

And now in an almost touching Damascene conversion they parrot the mantra 'you canna alter the laws of Nimmo Smith'

[Monkey Tennis]

23 minutes ago, Blue92 said:

My main gripe is that if the LNS enquiry came to the verdict that we had an advantage and titles were stripped, the people disregarding it on here would no doubt take it as gospel, case closed or 'binding'. One half of the strip the titles argument are homing in on financial doping and the other half are all about side letters, comes across as a bit of a farce.

That's a perfectly fair and reasonable post.

I agree that if LNS had seen things differently, many of us would see that as the end of the matter.  Logic and precedent does tend to suggest that the view he reached was anomalous though, which is why we prattle on, and is also why the other side struggle to argue that he was right, preferring to just say it's done.

I do think that the message coming from the title stripping side (at least on here) is mixed and muddled.  For me and plenty others though, it's terribly clear cut.  It's about the registration of players.  Information was deliberately withheld when payment details were required and registration issues are traditionally treated very seriously in football.

Now I'm sure that the reason for presenting false information was to do with masking the fact that Rangers knew that their EBT use involved sailing close to the wind as regards successfully avoiding tax.  Frankly though, whether I'm wrong or right there shouldn't much matter.  The fact is that the false information was submitted for dozens of players over hundreds of fixtures.  It's actually quite simple and straightforward.

[bennett]

7 minutes ago, Ken Fitlike said:

As soon as Rangers / Sevco came across any rule, the default response was to finagle a way round it.

And now in an almost touching Damascene conversion they parrot the mantra 'you canna alter the laws of Nimmo Smith'

The SPL insisted that the verdict be binding, just a pity that Rodney McKenzie misunderstood the rules regarding title stripping.

 

[Insaintee]

4 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

Nacho is raging again

He's got short man syndrome

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, Blue92 said:

MT, you seem like a level headed chap, but can't you see you are just going round in circles? This issue will never be resolved on an 'open' forum. My only question to you would be is why has the SC decision riled you up in terms of title stripping when you have admitted that it was irrelevant in that sense?

Of course I'm going round in circles.  Obviously it won't be resolved on here, but the point of this place is to discuss such things.  Guys like Nacho do need put right on the stuff they've not properly grasped too. 

I wouldn't say that the SC ruling has particularly riled me up.  It has given the whole title stripping debate new impetus and a heightened profile though.  It's led to the creation of threads like this one and the emergence of various views on here.  I'm just taking advantage of that to do my circular thing.

[bennett]

14 minutes ago, Insaintee said:

He's got short man syndrome

Bairnardo is 4ft8, show some tact.

 

[Monkey Tennis]

3 hours ago, bennett said:

As Lord William Nimmo Smith said title stripping was never an option, the rules didn't allow for it.

Do you seriously want the rulebook to thrown out just because it's sevco?

 

I think that any such rule book (and its interpretation on this occasion) is open to question.

[bennett]

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I think that any such rule book (and its interpretation on this occasion) is open to question.

To question is one thing, to demand the verdict that you prefer is another thing.