wastecoatwilly Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 18 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: Yes. Now can you address your fellow-fan's issue? He stated clearly that, "new evidence has come to light since the LNS report". Now will you like to respond to this or not? I'm sure he can read them himself plus it can get confusing for some people. Existence of Side Letters. We note that the Commission were aware of the existence of side letters to Moore, De Boer and Flo at the time of its decision of 28th February 2013 and these were taken into account when determining the appropriate sanction. The existence of side letters is not the issue that was raised in our previous correspondence, it was the nature of the EBTs that was the issue raised. In fact it would seem that the Commission themselves were confused by the switching from the irregular REBT ebts in 2002/03 to the MGMRT EBTs that are subject to further appeal with regard to regularity by HMRC. The side letters to De Boer and Flo of 30th August and 23 November 2000 related to the DOS REBTs that they were both paid under. It is not known if they had subsequent side letters relating to the MGMRT EBTs , which is possible, but as set out in previous correspondence there were two distinctive types of EBTs and the side letters supplied relate to the earlier irregular type. The position regarding the Moore EBT is interesting in that whatever EBT side letter was known to the Commission in February 2012 it could only have related to payments made to him under an accompanying side letter from the MGMRT ebts after 2002/03. That Mr Moore was paid under the REBT scheme in 1999 is a matter of supplied evidence. However there is no record of any side letter in relation to the payment under the 1999 arrangement, which may or may not have been reported in the contract lodged with the SPL and SFA. It was the absence of any side letter in respect of this payment that prevented HMRC pursuing the tax due on it as they did for De Boer and Flo in what has become known as “the wee tax case. “ The evidence of deliberate concealment by the Murray Group of the side letters to De Boer and Flo allowed HMRC to seek repayment outside the normal 6 year time limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 1 hour ago, wastecoatwilly said: That quote is the consequences of going into liquidation with no decision needed to be made,more damning than any side letters or improper players No it isn't. Your quote is an argument pursued by Oldco lawyers that the SPL had no right to issue a punishment since they were no longer a member of the SPL. And the use of Club was strictly the definition of Club in the SPL rule book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 21 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: No it isn't. Your quote is an argument pursued by Oldco lawyers that the SPL had no right to issue a punishment since they were no longer a member of the SPL. And the use of Club was strictly the definition of Club in the SPL rule book. The argument was over the date that rangers fc ceased to be a club as defined in the rules not the membership of the SPL,the date was the 14th of June 2012. The five way agreement was concluded on the 27th of july 2012 so they rolled away the stone and the resurrection of rangers fc lasted for 6 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paralytic Critic Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 10 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: Yes. Now can you address your fellow-fan's issue? He stated clearly that, "new evidence has come to light since the LNS report". Now will you like to respond to this or not? Typical bear presuming that because I do not like your club that I must be a Celtic fan. Never in all my posts have I ever declared a support to any club yet you presume that I must be a Celtic fan. As for further evidence, again I'm no expert, but the fact that your club did know it was breaching tax laws, and the fact that Regan has been proven in court to have lied about knowing your club had financial and tax issues, saying he only became aware of them after he had granted them a CL licence, but the emails prove he knew long before about these issues. I feel even these 2 points alone prove that things have changed from the report and should be enough to have a review at least on the matters. If for nothing else just to get full closure on the issues which will not go away the longer the SFA keep sweeping matters under the carpet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 9 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said: The argument was over the date that rangers fc ceased to be a club as defined in the rules not the membership of the SPL,the date was the 14th of June 2012. The five way agreement was concluded on the 27th of july 2012 so they rolled away the stone and the resurrection of rangers fc lasted for 6 weeks. you've got that spot on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 52 minutes ago, Paralytic Critic said: Typical bear presuming that because I do not like your club that I must be a Celtic fan. Never in all my posts have I ever declared a support to any club yet you presume that I must be a Celtic fan. As for further evidence, again I'm no expert, but the fact that your club did know it was breaching tax laws, and the fact that Regan has been proven in court to have lied about knowing your club had financial and tax issues, saying he only became aware of them after he had granted them a CL licence, but the emails prove he knew long before about these issues. I feel even these 2 points alone prove that things have changed from the report and should be enough to have a review at least on the matters. If for nothing else just to get full closure on the issues which will not go away the longer the SFA keep sweeping matters under the carpet. it took 7 years and 4 court cases to establish that the tax to establish that rangers owed money for tax, if it was so apparent that we were breaking the law why did hmrc lose the first two cases? you are talking utter bollocks, the advice that rangers recieved at the time was that side letters were fine. as for your regan point , when did he lie in court? never happened and more crap from you, you dont seem to understand the res 12 situation just like all the tim campaigners, it specifically refers to overdue payables, which means that we could have known that we owed money but until we recieved a bill for it it didnt affect our uefa licence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, nacho said: you've got that spot on the concept of coming back to life after death is a true miracle by the footballing authorities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 14 minutes ago, nacho said: it took 7 years and 4 court cases to establish that the tax to establish that rangers owed money for tax, if it was so apparent that we were breaking the law why did hmrc lose the first two cases? you are talking utter bollocks, the advice that rangers recieved at the time was that side letters were fine. as for your regan point , when did he lie in court? never happened and more crap from you, you dont seem to understand the res 12 situation just like all the tim campaigners, it specifically refers to overdue payables, which means that we could have known that we owed money but until we recieved a bill for it it didnt affect our uefa licence The devil is in the detail how can you make a clear case if the paper trail was incomplete? 55 EBT players only 39 side letters,the real dispute between rangers and the BBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Whether EBTs were legal or not misses the Title Stripping crucial detail - Rangers were paying their players 'off the books' and not declaring ALL remunerations to the SFA. In effect every match played during that period should be retrospectively declared as a 0-3 defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 25 minutes ago, Ken Fitlike said: Whether EBTs were legal or not misses the Title Stripping crucial detail - Rangers were paying their players 'off the books' and not declaring ALL remunerations to the SFA. In effect every match played during that period should be retrospectively declared as a 0-3 defeat. And LNS examined this, found us guilty and punished us. Justice done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paralytic Critic Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said: And LNS examined this, found us guilty and punished us. Justice done. you call that a punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paralytic Critic Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 1 hour ago, nacho said: you dont seem to understand the res 12 situation just like all the tim campaigners, Yet another blinkered bear, first one assumes that I am a Celtic fan and now this one assumes I'm a Tim. Just to make a point here not all people who dislike your club or what you have done are Celtic fans and ****. 1 hour ago, nacho said: it took 7 years and 4 court cases to establish that the tax to establish that rangers owed money for tax, if it was so apparent that we were breaking the law why did hmrc lose the first two cases? you are talking utter bollocks, the advice that rangers recieved at the time was that side letters were fine. as for your regan point , when did he lie in court? never happened and more crap from you, you dont seem to understand the res 12 situation just like all the tim campaigners, it specifically refers to overdue payables, which means that we could have known that we owed money but until we recieved a bill for it it didnt affect our uefa licence The fact that the emails between Murray and Regan were brought to the attention of the court during CW's trial firstly pointing out that Murray knew what he was up to with the side letters and that it wasn't right or why else did he refuse to declare these to HMRC years ago when asked about it, and secondly that Regan was aware of the Tax case and financial issues at Ibrox before the time he said he became aware of them.So Rangers should not have had this UEFA licence issued. As I said I'm no expert on law, but do feel that these people at CW's trial must know what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 And LNS examined this, found us guilty and punished us. Justice done. Is LNS yon toothless Spanish guy who laughs hysterically in the viral mock TV interview? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 3 hours ago, Ken Fitlike said: Whether EBTs were legal or not misses the Title Stripping crucial detail - Rangers were paying their players 'off the books' and not declaring ALL remunerations to the SFA. In effect every match played during that period should be retrospectively declared as a 0-3 defeat. You'll need to get the five way agreement nullified first my exciting friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 You'll need to get the five way agreement nullified first my exciting friend. In that case can you quote the 5 way agreement to me, my enchanting friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 25 minutes ago, Ken Fitlike said: In that case can you quote the 5 way agreement to me, my enchanting friend. Regan mentioned it the other day in regards to this, I'm sure you read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Connecting a few random dots of things in 'Rangers' defence... LNS ..5 way agreement... Regan..It's like Gabby Johnson's frontier rant in Blazing Saddles..'who can argue with that'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IggyStooge Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 No doubt that Scottish fitba' is being governed by a bunch of sidewinding, bushwhacking, hornswaggling cracker-crockers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 I don't think people realise how irrelevant LNS and the 5 way agreement is. These instruments can decide what they like but they have no legal standing. Lets suppose for example that Celtic were found guilty of bribing referees. The SFA could set up a kangaroo court and rig it so that they received only a slap on the wrist and go into a "5 way agreement" with the guilty party that they would not be punished further. They could even do this before Celtic were actually found guilty by an ongoing police inquiry and "factor it in," The fact is that the SFA rules clear state what the punishment for the crime is and any attempt to circumvent it "for the good of Scottish Football," is manifestly illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 It would appear that Celtic doesn't speak for Ross county either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.