Jump to content
The_Kincardine

Follow Follow Glasgow Rangers. Season 2020/21

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, bennett said:

On one hand we have a blogger with an agenda, on the other hand we have a respected newspaper whose journalists have actually done their job professionally.

Ah yes, the print media. No agendas there. No sir. Well known for being completely transparent and upstanding.

Edited by EH75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

630512.jpg?b64lines=WWVzLiA=

You would say that...

image.png.e38184a05bfcb12446b008378001603b.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Did HMRC force Rangers to incorrectly use EBTs?

Did HMRC force Rangers to incorrectly use DOS's?

Did HMRC force Rangers to spend every penny they raised in transfer fees on new players instead of paying off debts that were accruing?

Did HMRC force the Scottish press to portray Craig Whyte as a billionaire?

Did HMRC force Craig Whyte to not pay VAT and PAYE while running ruining the club?

Did HMRC force Rangers fans to stick their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes and ignore the mountains of evidence that was being thrown at them left right and centre of all of the above?

There you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Did HMRC force Rangers to incorrectly use EBTs?

Did HMRC force Rangers to incorrectly use DOS's?

Did HMRC force Rangers to spend every penny they raised in transfer fees on new players instead of paying off debts that were accruing?

Did HMRC force the Scottish press to portray Craig Whyte as a billionaire?

Did HMRC force Craig Whyte to not pay VAT and PAYE while running the club?

Did HMRC force Rangers fans to stick their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes and ignore the mountains of evidence that was being thrown at them left right and centre of all of the above?

Straight from the RTC site, very good.

 

The only thing I'm interested in is HMRC getting their figures wrong and wrongly denying a cva,  not really interested in your attempts at muddying the waters.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bennett said:

wrongly denying a cva

Wrongly denying a CVA? What does the 'V' in CVA stand for, and under what circumstances would it be morally wrong for a creditor to decide not to Voluntarily accept one instead of, say, making the debtors pay their bills? Should the HMRC accept CVA arrangements for every company that tries, and fails, to fiddle their taxes, or are there other criteria involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, bennett said:

Straight from the RTC site, very good.

 

The only thing I'm interested in is HMRC getting their figures wrong and wrongly denying a cva,  not really interested in your attempts at muddying the waters.

 

 

Part of me really wishes that is what caused the implosion. It would be so much funnier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like this revelation is only making it harder for Rangers fans to take what has happened. Glorious. It would make for much more hilarity if the banter years were all for nothing however the club was only heading one way regardless of HMRC pushing the wrong button on their calculator or not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some belters on twitter tonight....

“Does this mean we come out of liquidation”

“We want our £50M back”

Thick

As

f**k


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, G-MAN said:

Some belters on twitter tonight....

“Does this mean we come out of liquidation”

“We want our £50M back”

Thick

As

f**k

 

Think the inbreeding has a lot to do with it

Edited by Sheep62

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

Why do these people kid on that they're outraged by this?

They're absolutely desperate  for there to have been some sort of government conspiracy to bring down Rangers. The idea that they were just a terribly run business that overspent to achieve unattainable goals just doesn't sound as grand does it? 

Oddly enough we have an almost eight year old thread with almost a quarter of a million posts and the general consensus from the P&B Bears is that we were a fiscal basketcase who overreached ourselves, mostly through hubris, and were the architects of our own demise.

I know you take a keen interest in matters Rangers so I'm struggling to see how you reach that conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, Kincy. The vast majority of **** on here gave up years ago - even most thickos get fed up being objects of ridicule eventually. Outside of the regular reincarnations of AWRA and the loony cabbie and sundry disposabigots we're basically left with you and Bennett. What do you reckon that says about you, staunch defenders of the cause or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Oh, Kincy. The vast majority of **** on here gave up years ago - even most thickos get fed up being objects of ridicule eventually. Outside of the regular reincarnations of AWRA and the loony cabbie and sundry disposabigots we're basically left with you and Bennett. What do you reckon that says about you, staunch defenders of the cause or what?

Absolute word salad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, G-MAN said:

Some belters on twitter tonight....

“Does this mean we come out of liquidation”

“We want our £50M back”

Thick

As

f**k

 

 

You don't appear to be too happy mate, no need to lash out... not usually  your style.

 

4 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Oh, Kincy. The vast majority of **** on here gave up years ago - even most thickos get fed up being objects of ridicule eventually. Outside of the regular reincarnations of AWRA and the loony cabbie and sundry disposabigots we're basically left with you and Bennett. What do you reckon that says about you, staunch defenders of the cause or what?

 

Someones broken his restraining order....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Massive fake news story generated by some currant dumb. Watched STV segment, Rangers were "sent down to bottom of the leagues" trumpeted the clown. Total denial about the fact they died and a new club was allowed (illegally) into the structure., nothing to do with Rangers (RIP). 

Edited by Snifter Pee Rot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I'll be honest.  

I'd be sorry to hear Rangers had been overcharged by HMRC.  I think many of those saying it would be funny because it would mean it all happened for no good reason, are probably kidding themselves.  I'd be sorry because I dislike Rangers and want them to be as guilty as possible. 

I've got some questions though:  If as Ross claims (forgive my ignorance here) HMRC are reducing the bill because it won't be collected anyway, how does that benefit HMRC?  I don't really understand the argument there.

Also, how big and how significant is the discrepancy between the bill sent, and the one now being seen as apparently appropriate?  I'm guessing the case is that the smaller bill would not have compelled Murray to sell the club to any passing crook?  How small would the bill have needed to be for Murray to have behaved less desperately?

In truth, I've never been too hung up on continuation.  The bigger issue for me was always to do with trophy stripping for deliberately providing false information when registering dozens of players over hundreds of matches.  That was never satisfactorily resolved and today's caper has no bearing on it.

Finally, why the Hell are we discussing this in here?  To the BRALT everyone...

Edited by Monkey Tennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I've got some questions though:  If as Ross claims (forgive my ignorance here) HMRC are reducing the bill because it won't be collected anyway, how does that benefit HMRC?  I don't really understand the argument there.

The portion of the bill they allegedly 'overcharged' is a part of the bill that was subject of a legal dispute. The benefit of the 'reduced bill' is HMRC not spending real money on legal fees in order to find out whether the amount they're not getting is the big amount they originally claimed, or the smaller amount that Rangers(RIP) claimed it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

The portion of the bill they allegedly 'overcharged' is a part of the bill that was subject of a legal dispute. The benefit of the 'reduced bill' is HMRC not spending real money on legal fees in order to find out whether the amount they're not getting is the big amount they originally claimed, or the smaller amount that Rangers(RIP) claimed it was.

Ok, that makes sense. 

Has the legal dispute arisen because there's pressure to review how much individuals retrospectively owe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...