Jacksgranda Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Shame his parents IVF wasn't... One key to the left and you would have been accusing them of being a terrorist organisation... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 ^^^ Factually incorrect. Hiya Tedi, Hiya pal what a fuckin loser 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 20,000 pages tomorrow. What a milestone. Be there or be a nobody 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) 20,000 pages tomorrow. What a milestone. Be there or be a nobody 200,000 replies you mean.* *didn't really need to post this, just doing it to bring us closer to the landmark. Will be disappointed if the 200,000th post doesn't go to shull tbh edit: bugger, Kincardine's right - had scrolled up and glanced at the reply count, just rounded up from Gaz's figure in his post rather than the correct figure. All Gaz's fault imo Edited November 18, 2015 by Thistle_do_nicely 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) 20,000 pages tomorrow. What a milestone. Be there or be a nobody 20,000 replies you mean.* *didn't really need to post this, just doing it to bring us closer to the landmark. Will be disappointed if the 20,000th post doesn't go to shull tbh Deary fucking me......... For the benefit of The Brains Trust above......that was the 199,907th post on the 6,664th page Edited November 18, 2015 by The_Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 If you don't like it tell him to stop. No need to ask what page you're on, china. Definitely not the same one as me, thankfully. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) Wot? Confirmation that the EBTs were undeclared secondary contracts? Graeme Souness being paid £30k by the Rangers dodgy tax trust long after his employment or any legitimate payments from the club had ceased, in what appears to be return for conning Blackburn Rovers into offloading a three legged dog surplus to Rangers requirements on them when he was the Blackburn manager? (Which brings open the question whether the Rangers Trust has been used for massive bribery throughout Rangers dealings in world football as of yet to be investigated) David Murray funding Rangers virtually entirely via Bank Of Scotland loans, who once taken over by Lloyds TSB when the banks began to collapse and quite rightly wanted to see the colour of Murray's own money as security - and hence time for a sharp exit? Craig Whyte's "off the radar wealth" being that he was really just a front man for the Prince of Monaco, who wanted to own Rangers but wanted it kept quiet? Quarter of a million of Rangers trust money that supposedly went to Banstead Athletic FC but they have never even heard about (straight out of the Bill Hiddleston at Third Lanark one, that!) Haudit and Daudit being up to their eyeballs in Whyte's dodgy takeover scheme and funding via Ticketus in the first place, showing their £25 million writ against Rangers old lawyers to be a complete smoke and mirrors job more to con prospective new owners that there was £25 million more money coming in to pay off Rangers monster debts What the hell else did you want? Everyone in Rangers had sold their souls in EBTs to the devil, in return for which they shagged goats and Chick Young every Sunday on the full moon on an alter drenched with the blood of the most succulent lambs? Did you have the program on mute or something? It's confirmation of the use of EBTs for non-discretionary payments - which would make them liable for income tax, and this income tax wasn't paid. Everyone's known for ages that EBTs have been used - that's never been in dispute. What has been in dispute is that they were used in lieu of a full salary - a "top-up". If you do that, you need to pay income tax on them. The side letter quote in Papac's case indicates that's what's going on. Given that the documents are in possession of a court, even if we took the least charitable view possible of Daly I don't think it's very likely that he'd lie by omission. Do the SFA actually look at club accounts? Anyone who is underwhelmed obviously doesn't understand the significance of some of the "revelations". Not every detail/consequence was spelled out. It appears the BBC has enough evidence to make a series on Rangers misdemeanours. That alone is hugely significant. Quote from the article on the BBC website. When Dutch goalkeeper Ronald Waterreus negotiated his contract to join Rangers, in 2005, his agent questioned the tax scheme. Mr Wattereus' agent was told by a club representative in correspondence seen by BBC Scotland that using the trust was "...in the interests of Ronald as it enables him to receive funds tax-free". The representative added: "I can confirm that we will not pay these amounts to [Ronald] unless they are made through the use of the remuneration trust." The use of the word "these" is crucial there if you ask me. Had the scheme been discretionary, it would have said any amounts. By saying "these", it indicates amounts which have already been mentioned/agreed. Also as pointed out, the FD emailed Payroll to query Papac's wage drop, and (paraphrasing) "so the difference is being paid by the EBT?" Reply - "Yes", As mentioned, using EBTs to reduce tax isn't illegal, but doing so via non-discretionary EBTs, is. It certainly looks like the balance of probability test will go in HMRC's favour. [sIGH] I see your problem - you're aware EBTs were widely used, assume discretionary payments are rare in business, and thus everyone must be just as culpable as Rangers. However, annual bonuses which really are discretionary are very, very common in high compensation fields. With a few exceptions, a large chunk of investment bankers have always received bonuses as a large chunk of their total comp. And as I heard many, many times from acquaintances in 2008-2010 those bonuses really are discretionary in the sense there is absolutely no legal obligation to pay it. Lots of people in the City and Wall Street found their actual bonus to be far, far less than the worst case scenario they had ever imagined. Lots found out thy got no bonus right before getting fired Bankers accepted this because they have a great deal of practical ability to move if they get screwed and think they can make up a bad year. There is generally a huge turnover in banking and other fields right after bonus season because people leave if they are unhappy. Football players, on the other hand, sign binding multi-year contracts and can't f**k off to play in another league because they didn't get a bonus. They also have short careers that can end at any time via injury. They are the last people on Earth who would want 40% of heir comp in truly discretionary bonuses. Which is why he smart money was always on side letters - now the BBC has seemed to verify hey exist (although I old be much happier if hey had hown something akin o the leaked draft). As to why this exists - finance professionals can MOVE. There have been a number of bizarre schemes to reduce taxable amounts payable by the City (I recall back in the day bonuses being paid in Turkish Lira with a currency derivative attached so the gap caused by predictable inflation was taxed at a lower rate). The justification generally is the structure is so complicated it won't be abused except by the narrow subset of people who will f**k off to Geneva or New York if pressed overmuch and who pay massive taxes on other amounts at an individual and firm level anyway. Thy get shut own over time when they begin to be systemically abused. This may be a bad justification, but it's a justification. If Rangers were paying football players as football players expect and need to be paid, they implement departed fom the minimal logical justification behind allowing EBTs as a shady and contingent grey area. Rangers was the equivalent of he member of the Animal Libration Rights movement living in a housing scheme in Hamburg who claims he can keep a hunting rifle because the law allowers hunters in rural Bavaria to have one. Probably shouldn't have the loophole at all, but it logically doesn't apply at all to you. Had a quick wee trawl though edit: as in I searched for a post containing "side letter" from Swampy since I recalled him making a post around the time of the documentary and I was curious to have a look at the reaction at the time - all posts quoted from around the time of the documentary. Some terrific, box-office analysis there. Easy to forget how dodgy the administration was - no lay-offs in staff or players etc... Edited November 18, 2015 by Thistle_do_nicely 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 200,000 replies you mean.* *didn't really need to post this, just doing it to bring us closer to the landmark. Will be disappointed if the 200,000th post doesn't go to shull tbh edit: bugger, Kincardine's right - had scrolled up and glanced at the reply count, just rounded up from Gaz's figure in his post rather than the correct figure. All Gaz's fault imo I'm on the app and this is page 19,992. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I'm on the app and this is page 19,992. Must be including Tedi's deleted posts. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Those'll be accounted for by side letters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipster Dufus Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Must be including Tedi's deleted posts. Obviously I missed those/them. What did they say (or not say, ultimately)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Obviously I missed those/them. What did they say (or not say, ultimately)? Mainly Tedi parroting whatever the current party line is. Once it's obvious even Tedi can't pretend it's true anymore he deletes it. I'm not sure if he realises how much entertainment he provides - I think he actually believes he's winding people up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 In 2012, King said, and I quote, "Some of the representations made have betrayed more of a victim status. But I think somebody needs to apologise.Clearly, that is not for Charles Green to do. But I am happy to say that I really believe we should be saying sorry and I think there is something to be sorry about. And as a former director when these things were going on, I am minded to do so.‘With regard to EBTs, I was on the board so I have to take some responsibility.And I follow the logic of the argument that if we lose the tax case then we probably gained some competitive advantage.I believe that, on behalf of myself and most of the board members who were with me and probably agree with me, that we should apologise for this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 bugger, Kincardine's right - So it has taken from my first post on this thread in 2012 until now for sense to finally dawn. Mods, you may put The Big Thread to rest. Sense has finally prevailed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 So it has taken from my first post on this thread in 2012 until now for sense to finally dawn. Mods, you may put The Big Thread to rest. Sense has finally prevailed. How ironic that his post proclaiming that you are right, is in fact wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 How ironic that his post proclaiming that you are right, is in fact wrong. Says the bloke who declares that proof of guilt is someone not being arrested. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Says the bloke who declares that proof of guilt is someone not being arrested. Did I really say this? No, I think you were making the argument that not being arrested was proof that no criminal activity had taken place. Nice attempt at revisionism though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Did I really say this? Yes 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Yes Liar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRF-LCC-RFC Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 The Advocaat era was incredible to watch. I compare it to Falkirk spending £10M on players and celebrating winning the petrofac cup like it was an achievement. It really made the bears unbearable. The fact they spent all that cash and when challenged in Europe came up short isn't to be mentioned though. It was all about trebles, beating Sellick and orange tops. Please just die No mate. Rangers invested well in Murrary Park in that period. Over ten million pounds. One of the best world class youth academies in the world tha's going to bear fruit for Rangers for decades to come. Barrie McKay from & many others from this youth academy are arguably better than anything in the Falkirk team at the moment. Your just jealous that Rangers are the most successful team in Scotland. Is another club in the country not allowed to spend money? 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.