BFTD Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 All the Rangers fans when this boy posts: Edit: not you, CowdenConvert - MIRTH-LOL-ROFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I think the collection of assets certainly does reach 54 chum, if you look in the Ibrox Trophy Room there are far more than 54 trophies and cups (assets) in there. In fact, there are so many that they don't all fit in the Trophy Room at the same time mate. How many assets do Inverness Caledonian Thistle have?Are we counting Caledonian and Thistle's assets in addition to the assets accrued by ICT? If so it's a good haul. Does that mean, since Rangers as they are are an undertaking of a collection of assets, that ICT are two clubs fielding one team? Or 3 clubs? Or 1 club?Remember it is the gentleman who purchased those assets who had his legal representation describe the club currently playing as Rangers as "a collection of assets forming an undertaking" it certainly confuses the issue. FWIW I am assuming that the LCC stands for legalise cannabis campaign? You should lay off the grown up hydroponically grown hybrids mate. Stick to the old school weed and build up a tolerance before moving on to the big boy stuff, it's frying your brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 you're deluded. EBT's didn't mean that Rangers benefitted by having a better squad. It meant that the Directors etc benefitted instead could invest less money in the squad to get the same result. It's not financial doping, especially when the SPL knew about EBT's and accepted Rangers used them every season in the period they were used. Anyone in the SPL could have used them at that time as they were fair game according to the SPL at the time. All's fair in competition rules when, the competition owners and organisers (The SPL) accepted they were within the rules at the time. Celtic used an EBT with Juninho. During the EBT period the amount of titles won was fairly evenly matched between Celtic and Rangers, so it was clearly not unfiar or unbalanced> If Rangers didn't use EBT's they would have still got star players of the same quality, it just means that the directors would have had to spend more at the time, or the club would have had to take on debt (of the amount EBT's saved, who knows) to sustain it for the period. You can't grasp at straws to try change the rules of the competition years later, when Regan etc and the SPL accepted EBT's were fair at the time they were in use. One of your directors, appearing in court as "Mr Black", admitted that the system was used as a cost effective way of getting better players in than they could otherwise afford. Had Celtic done the same, given they were even with you despite being at a disadvantage in terms of "tax efficiency", it stands to reason that if they were "tax efficient" they would have been able to afford better players for a lower outgoing. Celtic, logically, would have been ahead of Rangers. Rangers could only remain close to Celtic because they were "Tax efficient". As for your statement about the EBT's being known about and accepted, I'd suggest you were being disingenuous if it wasn't apparent that you are either 14 years old or an absolute moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 14 year old blue bigot moron, I wid guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 14 year old blue bigot moron, I wid guess I thought he'd already been outed as a 'Timposter' - I just skim over his posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I thought he'd already been outed as a 'Timposter' - I just skim over his posts. I thought he had admitted himself that he is a teenage lad at college studying IT and stuff... ...just the type of guy to portray the rangers fans in a quality fashion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRF-LCC-RFC Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 The EBT system was used as a cost effective way of getting better players in than they could otherwise afford. Had Celtic done the same, given they were even with you despite being at a disadvantage in terms of "tax efficiency", it stands to reason that if they were "tax efficient" they would have been able to afford better players for a lower outgoing. Celtic, logically, would have been ahead of Rangers. Rangers could only remain close to Celtic because they were "Tax efficient". Did you read King's statement re EBT's released a week ago? http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-5/ Excerpt: (his first point) "the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRF-LCC-RFC Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I thought he'd already been outed as a 'Timposter' - I just skim over his posts. no mate, I'm 21 and a Rangers fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 no mate, IQ 21 and a Rangers fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 no mate, I'm 21 and a Rangers fan. Practice that but swap "mate for your honour. It will serve you well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I take your point that Dave King did indeed put that statement out, but that needs to be considered alongside the fact that Dave King is a liar and cannot be taken at his word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milhouse Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Rangers will retain the titles. 54 WATP http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-5/ A predictable, shameless cocktail of arrogance and entitlement. HMRC, however, won't bend over for "The People", and we can only hope that they eventually bring them down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 So the fact you could not defend for a few minutes against Scott Macdonald had nothing to do with it then? MacDonald must've been using performance enhancing ebt's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Did you read King's statement re EBT's released a week ago? http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-5/ Excerpt: (his first point) "the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances." If only courts of law worked like that. Judge: you are accused of x, what do you have to say for yourself Accused: no I didn't do that Judge: oh ok sorry about that, off you go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Did you read King's statement re EBT's released a week ago? http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-5/ Excerpt: (his first point) "the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances." You are aware Dave king also said he would put in £30m (Jerry maguire has a phrase for this) He's also said he wants to buy old co and merge the two (why would he want to do that I wonder?) All he's done at the moment is started a pissing contest with Mike ashley that he has hee haw chance of winning and may end up with him in jail in the UK and breaching licence in south Africa. Ashley has also put himself on the rangers retail board opposite king. Have you looked at the terms of the joint venture? Boardroom deadlock which can't be mediated by a 3rd party allows sports direct to buy out rangers international fc for the value of the previous years profit. He's also now targeted the fit and proper rules that allows king there, imagine he wins that one too. He will literally make him his bitch all across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 The best thing King has done is hire a semi competent manager who has them winning football matches in the lower leagues. As long as that is happening they can happily distracts from the real goings on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 There was a presentation about it at Hampden a few years back, as I recall, on the theme of - vote to put the Newco* into the First Division, or face Armageddon. The clubs chose to ignore it, and permitted the Newco to enter the Third instead. A considerable setback, as was the hammering off Motherwell in the playoff last year, but only a setback. *Sorry BM, slip of the keyboard. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9379754/Rangers-in-crisis-Friday-the-13th-could-be-particularly-unlucky-for-Ibrox-newco.html An SPL chairman who was present at the meeting said last night: “The brochure was very unimpressive and even more so because the wee diddy clubs got copies that were stapled together, but Celtic’s was spiral bound. “It was also more than unfortunate that they were open at the page which referred to the voluntary transfer embargo when somebody got an alert on their Blackberry to say that Ian Black had announced he would sign for Rangers if they were accepted into the SPL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 So the fact you could not defend for a few minutes against Scott Macdonald had nothing to do with it then? Again, being disingenuous. Who is to say Rangers would have had a squad capable of taking it to the last day? Who is to say that had Celtic been offering an extra 300k per year here or there that they wouldn't have found a centre half better than Balde or a keeper better than Douglas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 no mate, IQ 21 and a Rangers fan. Unlikely IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 49 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.