Shades75 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Just watched a bit on YouTube for a quote. Speaking about Ronald Wattereus contract. "not only were the payments not descretionary but..." That is factually incorrect according to the court. Could you put the statement in context please. Or post the link. Thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 There are leaps in your logic here. The ruling saw the money offered via EBTs as legitimate loans; as opposed to contractual wages. That doesn't mean they weren't payments. No the court says it will not define what a payment is but under the tax rules laid out for EBTs these were not considered payments or emoluments. Have you read the majority opinion? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Just watched a bit on YouTube for a quote. Speaking about Ronald Wattereus contract. "not only were the payments not descretionary but..." That is factually incorrect according to the court. Fair enough. He shouldn't have used such unequivocal wording. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 No the court says it will not define what a payment is but under the tax rules laid out for EBTs these were not considered payments or emoluments. Have you read the majority opinion? And those tax rules are unimportant in the context of the SPL investigation. I've not yet read the majority opinion. I really should - I believe it wouldn't take me long. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Could you put the statement in context please. Or post the link. Thank you. Sorry on my iPad so it is difficult to post links. 16 minutes into the program, it is available on YouTube search men who sold the jerseys Full quote "so not only were the payments not discretionary but the company insisted this was the only way he would get the money" Factually incorrect since EBTs were found to be discretionary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 We've been over that 94 million before, and it's only one of many things I and others have been wrong (so far) on. If only we could all be infallible while we sip our cocktails in Bar 67, Eh, Bennett? As you say, as a result of their behaviour, rangers are in liquidation. A new club is currently plying its trade in D3, where it was preferentially placed with disregard to due process. Obviously, you and the other rangers fans want to see rangers play at the top level again. Would you not rather it was rangers, rather than a facsimile club? Then you could talk about rebuilding, and returning, without everyone knowing it was a sham and that the new club will be playing in each division for the very first time as they rise through the divisions. I sure would Norm but that'll take a few years. I really don't care what some wee bit of paper says, oldco or newco, it's the same club to me and always will be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Whyte is under a police investigation re;his acquisition of the club and other financial transactions so there is no way that anyone other than him should be held accountable for his actions. HMRC are pursuing Whyte on this,do you seriously think that his actions deserve these debts being paid irrespective of what he has done by others. Sorry,people want creditors paid,then as far as i'm concerned it would only be the smaller creditors,it's called a compromise. I don't think he'll be the only one under police investigation before long, to be honest. And cherry-picking? Well, the verdict last week is being trumpeted as a victory, despite: 1. Finding of guilt in a number of cases. 2. The club not even contesting some cases. 3. The two judges stating clearly that they cleared rangers because they "had to", due to HMRC's poor preparation of Argument. So, legally, rangers were exonerated of a mountain of potential debt. No complaints, I presume? Well, the same law says that Craig Whyte was acting as an agent of the club. It wasn't his personal tax he withheld, and he didn't (as far as we know) syphon any money from the club's account for his own use. The withholding of PAYE, VAT and NIC was done by rangers. That's the law. I accept that the MBB is a slippery b*****d, and I bet you all wish you'd watched that BBC documentary rather than protesting about it. By the same token, I (and many others) do not see rangers as even slightly innocent in the BTC. They knew things were dodgy long ago, and tried their best to obstruct the investigation. By "natural justice" standards, IMHO both Whyte and rangers have got off lightly - so far - but that's what you pay expensive lawyers for. Resorting to a legal verdict, in particular one still subject to appeal, is a risky debating tool. When Michael Jackson was cleared, was there one parent in the Western world who would have gladly left their children in his unsupervised care? OJ Simpson was cleared and, protected by the Double Jeopardy precedent, wrote a book detailing how he fucking did it! So - rangers shed debt, due to the application of the law. Whyte's tax-dodging lands on rangers' doorstep, due to the application of the law. Swings and roundabouts, really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Ffs, someone posted me a message about Greenocks own version of Don Corleone chapping at the door of SevCo with offers to assist and or "invest" Shite really does attract flies.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Oh Norman, this may require your attention, Rangers can wait till later. The Compliance Officer has issued the following Notices of Complaint: Alleged Party in Breach: Kenny Shiels, Kilmarnock FC Match: Kilmarnock v Inverness Caledonian Thistle – 3rd November 2012 Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 68 (By making comments in a radio interview on 3rd November 2012 that impinge upon the character of a match official by suggesting that the match official may bear a grudge against you should you answer a question relating to decisions taken by him during the above match.) Disciplinary Rule 68 (By making comments in a newspaper article published on 8th November 2012, in advance of a Judicial Panel Fast Track hearing held on 8th November 2012, that impinge upon the character of a match official by suggesting the match official would not be acting with integrity if he did not “admit he made a mistake.”) Disciplinary Rule 71 (By not acting in the best interests of Association Football by making comments in a newspaper article published on 8th November 2012, in advance of a Judicial Panel Fast Track hearing held on 8th November 2012, and in advance of the relevant match official submitting his report in respect of a red card appeal, by suggesting the match official would not be acting with integrity if he did not “admit he made a mistake.”) Fixed Suspension Offered: No Principal Hearing Date: Thursday, 13th December 2012 Mr Shiels has until Wednesday, 5th December 2012 to respond to the Notice of Complaint. Rule 68: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA, shall in an interview, a ‘blog’ on the internet, on a social networking or micro-blogging site, or in any other manner calculated or likely to lead to publicity (i) criticise the performance(s) of any or all match official(s) in such a way as to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official; or (ii) make remarks about such match official(s) which impinge on his character. For the avoidance of doubt this rule applies (i) whether reported to the Scottish FA by a referee for misconduct or otherwise, and (ii) where remarks are brought to the Scottish FA’s attention, or of which the Scottish FA becomes aware, by whatever manner or means. There shall be a presumption that any material published in such manner was published in the name of and/or with the authority of the person or body bearing to have published the material. Rule 71: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football. Furthermore such person or body shall not act in any manner which is improper or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive or indecent or insulting words or behaviour. Alleged Party in Breach: Kenny Shiels, Kilmarnock FC Match: Kilmarnock v St Johnstone – 24th November 2012 Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 203 (Misconduct at a match by dissent, adopting an aggressive attitude and by the use of offensive, insulting or abusive language.) Fixed Suspension Offered: No Principal Hearing Date: Thursday, 13th December 2012 Mr Shiels has until Wednesday, 5th December 2012 to respond to the Notice of Complaint. Rule 203: No member of Team Staff shall commit Misconduct at a match, including but not limited to committing acts of the kind described in the Schedule of Offences in Annex C (including where there is aggravation by any factor, including but not limited to prolongation of the incident; combination of different offences; continued use of offensive, abusing and/ or insulting language and/or behaviour; calling a match official a cheat and/ or calling a match official’s integrity into question; failure to comply with a match official’s requests; adoption of aggressive behaviour towards a match official; any racist, sexist, sectarian and/or otherwise discriminatory element; and the degree of any physical violence), breaching the Post Match Protocol and committing Unacceptable Conduct. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 And those tax rules are unimportant in the context of the SPL investigation. I've not yet read the majority opinion. I really should - I believe it wouldn't take me long. I wouldn't say unimportant but not the be all and end all. The SPL could easily say they still regard the loans as payment but they then move onto shaky legal ground. An important fact for the SPL investigation not talked about is that the FTTT was conducted under English law and the SPL ruling should conform to Scots' Law or at least take legal meaning and precedent from it. If the SPL found Rangers guilty then an legal challenge wouldn't consider the FTTT as legal precedent but only as evidence. We could be left with a very dissatisfying result that under Scots' law the side letters are contracts bu under English law they aren't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Start to finish, does that help? No, it doesn't. If I quote you, I quote you, using that handy wee button marked "reply". I don't change quotes, I don't part-quote, and I certainly do not alter quotes. So, another lie. An apology would help, at this point, you know.... Ah bollox, what am I thinking.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) And those tax rules are unimportant in the context of the SPL investigation. I've not yet read the majority opinion. I really should - I believe it wouldn't take me long. It won't take you that long - certainly not as long it would take to read the dissenting opinion. Which is, in all fairness and ignoring the actual case here, pretty fucking unusual. Downright strange, in fact. ETA: I'm assuming. Criminal cases are more my subject, but this does raise the old eyebrows. Edited November 28, 2012 by WhiteRoseKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Oh Norman, this may require your attention, Rangers can wait till later. The Compliance Officer has issued the following Notices of Complaint: Alleged Party in Breach: Kenny Shiels, Kilmarnock FC Match: Kilmarnock v Inverness Caledonian Thistle – 3rd November 2012 Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 68 (By making comments in a radio interview on 3rd November 2012 that impinge upon the character of a match official by suggesting that the match official may bear a grudge against you should you answer a question relating to decisions taken by him during the above match.) Disciplinary Rule 68 (By making comments in a newspaper article published on 8th November 2012, in advance of a Judicial Panel Fast Track hearing held on 8th November 2012, that impinge upon the character of a match official by suggesting the match official would not be acting with integrity if he did not "admit he made a mistake.") Disciplinary Rule 71 (By not acting in the best interests of Association Football by making comments in a newspaper article published on 8th November 2012, in advance of a Judicial Panel Fast Track hearing held on 8th November 2012, and in advance of the relevant match official submitting his report in respect of a red card appeal, by suggesting the match official would not be acting with integrity if he did not "admit he made a mistake.") Fixed Suspension Offered: No Principal Hearing Date: Thursday, 13th December 2012 Mr Shiels has until Wednesday, 5th December 2012 to respond to the Notice of Complaint. Rule 68: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA, shall in an interview, a 'blog' on the internet, on a social networking or micro-blogging site, or in any other manner calculated or likely to lead to publicity (i) criticise the performance(s) of any or all match official(s) in such a way as to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official; or (ii) make remarks about such match official(s) which impinge on his character. For the avoidance of doubt this rule applies (i) whether reported to the Scottish FA by a referee for misconduct or otherwise, and (ii) where remarks are brought to the Scottish FA's attention, or of which the Scottish FA becomes aware, by whatever manner or means. There shall be a presumption that any material published in such manner was published in the name of and/or with the authority of the person or body bearing to have published the material. Rule 71: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football. Furthermore such person or body shall not act in any manner which is improper or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive or indecent or insulting words or behaviour. Alleged Party in Breach: Kenny Shiels, Kilmarnock FC Match: Kilmarnock v St Johnstone – 24th November 2012 Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 203 (Misconduct at a match by dissent, adopting an aggressive attitude and by the use of offensive, insulting or abusive language.) Fixed Suspension Offered: No Principal Hearing Date: Thursday, 13th December 2012 Mr Shiels has until Wednesday, 5th December 2012 to respond to the Notice of Complaint. Rule 203: No member of Team Staff shall commit Misconduct at a match, including but not limited to committing acts of the kind described in the Schedule of Offences in Annex C (including where there is aggravation by any factor, including but not limited to prolongation of the incident; combination of different offences; continued use of offensive, abusing and/ or insulting language and/or behaviour; calling a match official a cheat and/ or calling a match official's integrity into question; failure to comply with a match official's requests; adoption of aggressive behaviour towards a match official; any racist, sexist, sectarian and/or otherwise discriminatory element; and the degree of any physical violence), breaching the Post Match Protocol and committing Unacceptable Conduct. They should have checked Rule 174(b), which clearly states: Kenny Shiels says what he wants. HTH. Have you seen how far he went when sent to the stands on Saturday? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I'm sure the majority on here would be satisfied .... Quick informal poll Greenie if you are happy 'that under Scots' law the side letters are contracts' Reddie if you ain't .. Shameless whoring, Dhens! I'm remaining neutral on the vote, but guess which way I'd go..... You can fucking EARN your greenies, young fella! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I sure would Norm but that'll take a few years. I really don't care what some wee bit of paper says, oldco or newco, it's the same club to me and always will be. And therein lies the problem. Deep down, you know it's not the same club. And if you do hold that opinion - as many of your fellow berrz do - you will be reminded of it for years to come, probably for longer than the fans in the stands know WHY they're "not raaaanngers ennnii moaaaarr". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepitsafe Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Yes. Yes they can. I was around Ibrox the day Charlie was valuing the place - I knew because he had a scrap of paper, a pen and a calculator. He shouted at a guy in a hard hat that he couldn't be fucked with it anymore and that £80m 'will just have to do'. I knew there and then I'd be investing. Have a green one! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 And therein lies the problem. Deep down, you know it's not the same club. And if you do hold that opinion - as many of your fellow berrz do - you will be reminded of it for years to come, probably for longer than the fans in the stands know WHY they're "not raaaanngers ennnii moaaaarr". Blah, blah, blah...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I am sure the supposed Killie supporter was quoting the BBC about the new club stuff, I wonder how he will spin their latest article Rangers are now playing in Division Three after liquidation and those who follow the former Scottish champions are ensuring capacity crowds wherever they play How can we be a new club and former Scottish champions? http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/20528888 Some angry posts will be coming your way, still the same club and officially not tax cheats. Nothing ever goes right for Norman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I am sure the supposed Killie supporter was quoting the BBC about the new club stuff, I wonder how he will spin their latest article Rangers are now playing in Division Three after liquidation and those who follow the former Scottish champions are ensuring capacity crowds wherever they play How can we be a new club and former Scottish champions? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20528888 "There has to be some serious thought because this problem is not going to go away," said Green Referring to his club as "this problem" isn't going to help. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Some angry posts will be coming your way, still the same club and officially not tax cheats. Nothing ever goes right for Norman The bold bit is factually incorrect, Rangers (playing in the 4th tier of Scottish football) are a new club using the name Rangers. This has been proved on many occassions in this very thread. Going by what you said the other day Rangers were found to have been tax cheats in 5 of the cases disputed and had already admitted using the same method of tax cheating in other cases. Or were you lying the other day? 0 Quote Link to comment 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.