Tone are you just pretending to be stupid?

double the fun eh

are you just pretending your all above board

'your = you're











Tone you're not just pretending to be stupid?

aah the p-ishy spelling polis - i'm guilty m'lud

get used to that word 'guilty'

get used to that word 'guilty'


I will.



I'll no get used tae, 'i'm' though.

Tone, what I'm trying to get at here is this, a small mickey mouse club with a stadium capacity of 20,000 can suddenly be taken over by super rich guy he then throws his own personal wealth at gaining promotion or whatever. That club has now an unfair advantage over the rest of the teams and it has nothing to do with their own income.Nobody would bat an eyelid though in that situation but it is still an unfair advantage.

Aye hillbilly, but this sheik's cash is legit.

That is the central point in the whole argument.

What about Abramovich's cash? That's all above board isn't it?

"Yes st3vie, but this is millionaire footballers we are talking about here.

It's not a public service.

Anyway we're getting away from the fact that youse pyoor bumped us oota trophies!"

Rangers owing HMRC means Rangers are in debt to the taxman.

If ANY club is in debt to a state owned bank...that club is also in debt to the taxman.

The point being made here is that because Rangers owe the taxman , that makes things so much different.

It doesnt, debt is debt, and if Rangers titles are invalid because they are in a massive amount of debt...then the achievements of any club in such debt are also invalid.

If it boils down to debt being sustainable....how do you judge that??

Lloyds HBOS reeled Rangers debt in when it stood at £30m, which was less than its turnover.

In 2009, around the same time, Fulham's turnover was £67m, and their total debt stood at £203m....nearly TRIPLE their turnover...and their wages to turnover ratio was close to 70%, pretty similar to Rangers at the time.

So whats the difference?

'debt is debt'

We don't live in a vacuum st3vie, and this story is big news now.

The bank argument is fallacious as they are, at best, a hybrid operation, but still with an overwhelming market ethos.

The taxman is different. Especially in England when the NHS is under threat, and Scots are widely viewed as sponging off the rest of the UK.

His cash is legit but his teams rise to stardom is still gained by having an unfair advantage. I thought that's what this thread was about... somebody suggesting that because Rangers gained an unfair advantage we should forfeit some of our trophies.

'unfair'

That's the word. The sheik can account for his as legal.

Arguably, your club broke the law to fund the team.

tim -allegedly a law was broken, but who knows where the money allegedly not paid went? DID it stay in the club or was it trousered? You, I, and nobody on here knows either way.

So calls of "cheats" "strip 'em of the titles" etc are really pathetic and TBH beneath what I would expect of proper Celtic, and other, fans.

Davie,

I personally think the question is worth asking.

I understand the opposition to it, but it's not wild or unbalanced to ask if Rangers would have signed Van Bronkhorst etc without this scheme.

And these players gave Rangers a better team than most.

Wait a minute - it seems that Whyte has been with holding tax as well - and it CERTAINLY has not been put into the team.

Why is it therefore anywhere near likely that IF tax was with held illegally through EBTs, that the money was put into the club?

It all boils down to the team on the park.

If a large chunk of these players were playing but the club was not paying tax for their services, then it does, arguably, call into question the legitimacy of the footballing operation.

If it was the dinner lady getting paid by EBT it would be different, of course.

No, it calls into question the legitimacy of the directors involved.

Which would be the same if the dinner lady had been involved too.

Dinner lady might help with nutrition, but she doesn't stick the ball in the pokey.

"The taxman is different. Especially in England when the NHS is under threat, and Scots are widely viewed as sponging off the rest of the UK."

Can you tell me which part of this invalidates Rangers titles...that is after all the point being made, and its the point I am arguing.

Rangers in debt means Rangers are in debt....the fact they are in debt to the taxman makes it personal, makes the country look bad, has ramifications for the NHS etc..etc..etc...that is all true

It doesnt add any weight to the argument that their titles are invalid though does it?? debt to the taxman, at the end of the day....it just debt, and there are many many clubs round the world in far far more debt than Rangers are...so why should their titles be invalid and not the others??

Tax avoidance is illegal st3vie

So, you could argue that teams were put on the park to win honours by illegal means.

only a blinkered bear would try and argue thier way out of this one (<----- spell-check please p-ishy)

Tim

Tax avoidance is legal my man.

*evasion

EBT were proven to be legal tax avoidance schemes

Rangers ran EBT schemes.

The point being argued is how they operated them and whether that invalidates the tax loophole. Lets not suggest otherwise.