Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2023/24

[AJF]

I will also add, that I think my views above will be shared by most other Scottish football fans, even if they don’t care to admit it.

They can claim that we’re not Rangers anymore - which away fans often sing, while seated in Ibrox, watching a team called Rangers, with the same fans that have been going there for decades.

Deep down, they still recognise us as Rangers.

[hearthammer]

1 hour ago, bennett said:

An expert in Scottish corporate law are we?

 

Not at all.  I am, though, a Scottish football fan who has witnessed the biggest sporting case of tax avoidance and sporting cheating in Scottish/UK history.

The Corporation tax references are allocated to individual companies/businesses as they commence trading as that entity.  The the rangers acquired their business reference number in 2012.  The previous entity that held a CT reference trading as rangers football club ltd (??) is currently being liquidated and ceased to be active in 2012.

I was actually hoping AJF would be the first to break ranks and tell it factually as it is.  However, the multiple use of the word "probably" is as good and close as can be expected.  So thanks, AJF for the diplomacy.      Cheers

Edited July 17, 2020 by hearthammer

[AJF]

6 minutes ago, hearthammer said:

Not at all.  I am, though, a Scottish football fan who has witnessed the biggest sporting case of tax evasion and sporting cheating in Scottish/UK history.

The Corporation tax references are allocated to individual companies/businesses as they commence trading as that entity.  The the rangers acquired their business reference number in 2012.  The previous entity that held a CT reference trading as rangers football club ltd (??) is currently being liquidated and ceased to be active in 2012.

I was actually hoping AJF would be the first to break ranks and tell it factually as it is.  However, the multiple use of the word "probably" is as good and close as can be expected.  So thanks, AJF for the diplomacy.      Cheers

At risk of being labelled a pedant, Rangers were found to Avoid Tax rather than Evade it.

It may seem minor, but it boils down to legality. Tax Avoidance is exploiting a loophole to gain a tax advantage that was never intended and is not considered illegal.

Tax Evasion is hiding your profits under the mattress and failing to pay tax on it, which is very much illegal.

So, while they were naughty, they weren’t naughty naughty.

[kilMARKnock]

At risk of being labelled a pedant, Rangers were found to Avoid Tax rather than Evade it.
It may seem minor, but it boils down to legality. Tax Avoidance is exploiting a loophole to gain a tax advantage that was never intended and is not considered illegal.
Tax Evasion is hiding your profits under the mattress and failing to pay tax on it, which is very much illegal.
So, while they were naughty, they weren’t naughty naughty.

So was that cheating or just gaining an unfair advantage?

[hearthammer]

5 minutes ago, AJF said:

At risk of being labelled a pedant, Rangers were found to Avoid Tax rather than Evade it.

It may seem minor, but it boils down to legality. Tax Avoidance is exploiting a loophole to gain a tax advantage that was never intended and is not considered illegal.

Tax Evasion is hiding your profits under the mattress and failing to pay tax on it, which is very much illegal.

So, while they were naughty, they weren’t naughty naughty.

I'm aware of the difference between "avoidance" and "evasion" and, indeed, the old rangers were definitely guilty of the former.  No-one has suggested "evasion" to my knowledge as that is a serious crime in its own right.  The "avoidance" scheme they chose to adopt (DOS/EBT) was just that, an "avoidance" scheme that was, if used correctly, deemed eligible by the scheme promoters at the time it was first used.  That is where the scheme fell down for the old team. 

They lured top class foreign players by producing dual contracts.  The first was submitted to the SFA governing remuneration and terms of the contract, etc.  They also created a second contract whereby a separate, agreed amount would be paid, tax-free into an offshore account via an "EBT" deposit.  This is where they were"naughty", naughty, naughty, ad infinitum".

 

[AJF]

14 minutes ago, hearthammer said:

I'm aware of the difference between "avoidance" and "evasion" and, indeed, the old rangers were definitely guilty of the former.  No-one has suggested "evasion" to my knowledge as that is a serious crime in its own right.  The "avoidance" scheme they chose to adopt (DOS/EBT) was just that, an "avoidance" scheme that was, if used correctly, deemed eligible by the scheme promoters at the time it was first used.  That is where the scheme fell down for the old team. 

They lured top class foreign players by producing dual contracts.  The first was submitted to the SFA governing remuneration and terms of the contract, etc.  They also created a second contract whereby a separate, agreed amount would be paid, tax-free into an offshore account via an "EBT" deposit.  This is where they were"naughty", naughty, naughty, ad infinitum".

 

Sorry, your previous post had mentioned “the biggest sporting case of tax evasion” which is what led to my reply. I certainly didn’t mean for it to come across as a lecture

[Romeo]

Well to answer that, it’s a slightly convoluted answer.

In my eyes, my “original team” are still the team I go and support now. However, I do accept that Scottish Corporate law may view that differently, and from a technical viewpoint I understand this is a different... legal entity, perhaps?

But, to me anyway, football is not a sport that is played out in a corporate playground.

I often use the duck test (sometimes referred to as the elephant test) as a way of explaining how I feel: if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

So, in this case, if a team looks like Rangers, is treated like Rangers and for all intents and purposes, acts like Rangers, then it probably is Rangers.

I won’t be convinced otherwise and I certainly won’t buy into anyone’s claims that the team I currently support isn’t the team I have supported since I was a wee laddie.

Edit: and yes, to answer the other part of your question, I do accept that there were mistakes made previously and everything was not “above board”.

You've given it away there...good effort though.

 

[hearthammer]

7 minutes ago, AJF said:

Sorry, your previous post had mentioned “the biggest sporting case of tax evasion” which is what led to my reply. I certainly didn’t mean for it to come across as a lecture

I certainly did accidentally.  Apologies.  I have edited it to the correct definition to remove the semantics from the point.

If i'm incorrect with my view on the happenings i described above, i'm more than happy to be corrected.    Cheers

[AJF]

35 minutes ago, Romeo said:

You've given it away there...good effort though.

 

Given what away?

[hearthammer]

4 minutes ago, AJF said:

Given what away?

Over to you Romeo to cross-examine

[AJF]

Sadly, more racist abuse aimed towards Morelos.

 

[Florentine_Pogen]

So why are you giving this ignorant clown the oxygen of publicity via a link to a rag that most folk wouldn't wipe their arse with ? 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

4 minutes ago, AJF said:

Sadly, more racist abuse aimed towards Morelos.

 

Weren't Rangers fans just in a seething mess at the players taking a knee to highlight this racism?

 

[AJF]

8 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

So why are you giving this ignorant clown the oxygen of publicity via a link to a rag that most folk wouldn't wipe their arse with ? 

What alternative do you suggest?

Ignore it? Or simply share it from another media outlet?

[AJF]

3 minutes ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Weren't Rangers fans just in a seething mess at the players taking a knee to highlight this racism?

 

Some were, yes. 

[Drew Brees]

So, in this case, if a team looks like Rangers, is treated like Rangers and for all intents and purposes, acts like Rangers, then it probably is Rangers.
I won’t be convinced otherwise and I certainly won’t buy into anyone’s claims that the team I currently support isn’t the team I have supported since I was a wee laddie.
Edit: and yes, to answer the other part of your question, I do accept that there were mistakes made previously and everything was not “above board”.

Your team is dead mate, you support a tribute act.

[AJF]

Just now, Drew Brees said:

 

 

Your team is dead mate, you support a tribute act.

 

 

So everyone keeps feeling the need to tell us

[Romeo]

7 hours ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Weren't Rangers fans just in a seething mess at the players taking a knee to highlight this racism?

 

It's okay because it was a "small minority"

[Golden Gordon]

13 hours ago, AJF said:

 

I often use the duck test (sometimes referred to as the elephant test) as a way of explaining how I feel: if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

So, in this case, if a team looks like Rangers, is treated like Rangers and for all intents and purposes, acts like Rangers, then it probably is Rangers.

Morning AJF, is this the duck test you are referring to?

[Drew Brees]

Sadly, more racist abuse aimed towards Morelos.  

 

 

Saw this earlier, who’s the guy in the photo?

 

 

Edit, just had a look at the Suns article, they blanked out the word ‘back’, is ‘back’ racist???