Even I cannae stomach half the pash they used to write before I stopped buying papers alltogether!

As longer as its not about how inept your manager is - you bears will love it

*long

I don't understand

Zico, Nothing new there

Zico - you need to think like a Zombie to understand

Traynors greetin his eyes oot " it wiznae just rangers, it wiz uveryone else as well. boo hoo hoo "

Heaven forfend than anyone point the finger at Rangers.

I mean, they never did anything wrong. It was down to (insert faceless organization/bitter tim/diddy club here)

blacksod, see whit ifu is saying about you

timo, Read the post again, or do you have some difficulty with reading?

Eck, haven't read it. I assumed from the op that it was another scribe looking to lay blame everywhere but at edmiston.

timo, so you just open yer gub and say whatever tosh is in your head? Typical

'But like his colleague Hugh Keevins if it in any way it points the finger in any way, at anyone other than Rangers, he gets the usual venomous abuse from the usual suspects.'

Explain this then? I assumed, I think fairly, that he had 'pointed the finger' at forces outwith Ibrox.

I don't make a point of seeking out his articles.

The column
Might be a good idea for some folk to read it and see what is actually being said like

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/are-we-being-taken-for-mugs-by-image-rights-1352783

In short......can of worms opened with this SPL investigation....should it have been, can the SPL afford it, and are they perhaps wishing they didnt but had to

Go on now then...debate away lads

timo If you would read Traynor's article you may understand a bit better, he never said Rangers had done nothing wrong, but again you assume that was the case. Typical

Cheers st3vie

I read it.

Eck. What you saying?

As for the article, well, bring it on. If the football authorities and government feel that image rights are exploiting tax loopholes illegally,then of course, any club that is guilty of a crime should be punished.

Evidence would be nice though

tim

I think the point Traynor is getting at here is that if these kind of deals are common place and there are no requirements to disclose every penny a player gets in other sports, and even in other countries within football....is it not a bit of a stupid rule for teh SFA/SPL to be applying, and perhaps a bit of a nanny state kind of thing.....no need??

I mean ask yourself.....what Rangers have done is try and avoid paying tax, and teh tax man has caught them at it and pulled them up for it.

Its only been since the tax man pulled them up.....TWICE....and Rangers going into liquidation, that the SPL/SFA or whoever is pushing this rule to be followed to the letter (I dont know these days), that it has even been realised this rule is broken.

Whats the point in having a rule like that if it takes near on 10 years for someone to even realise its being broken, let alone try and "back punish" for it happening, displaying just how fcking inept you are in the process??

Isnt a proper boot in the baws, yer come uppance delivered from the tax man, and adminstration enough??

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Yes - absolutely - lets SEE the evidence.

In fact, while you are at it, how about letting us see the evidence of the side letters / dual contracts.....

You can't - oh I see.....

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

"If anyones gets that money; it's the club and it's declared as income and taxed accordingly"

Ginger....the key point is that in some cases, image rights can be included in the negotiations of a contract, without any actual wording or reference to the income that both the club and the player might earn via them.

So in effect, through signing for the club, the image rights that player gets can be classed as paymets the player is receiving purely for being a football player at a certain club...and therefore does that fall under this rule the SFA/SPL apply??

Its a complicated thing....but the point here is, whether the tax was paid or not, the investigation is into payments being disclosed, thats why Celtic were investigated...tax has sod all to do with it

If there is evidence to prove beyond all question that dual contracts / side letters existed (maybe the actual documents themselves), the various anti Ranger bloggers would wet themselves to get hold of such & publish.

And yet, nothing, anywhere, from anyone.

Even you must think that it just a little bit strange.

What with RTC & McGillivan being "crusading investigative journos".....

As I said st3vie, if clubs are breaking the law here, especially regarding tax, then I would strongly support prosecution.

The RFC case hasn't been decided yet, but HMRC felt there is a case to answer.

If they ever went after Celtic, and Celtic looked like they had been operating a scheme to cheat the taxpayer, then I would want Celtic to be forced to pay back whatever it owed.

Also, I must say, this does seem like an exercise in 'aye, bit'.

But this isnt tax we are talking about here tim

Its undisclosed payments

You guys really ned to separate the two things here a bit.

The tax case has relevane to this investigation yes, absolutely......but the subject matter and prosecution criteria is entirely different.

If Celtic cheated teh tax payer, then yes, you are right.

If Henrik Larsson signed a deal with Nike when he was playing for the club, and that deal had to do with adverts with Larsson in a Celtic shirt, so that both Celtic and Larsson pocketed......and that deal would not have been struck if Larsson was not a Celtic player, and if allowance for that money coming into was taken into account when negotiating Larsson's contract...then is this something that should be disclosed, this is the point being made here