MrSifter

I do like the bold Donald but I'm afraid his time at Rangers was wretched. He never defended the club or the fans and allowed Duncan Ferguson to be prejudiced. He also shat all over the fans by deflecting for Murray at various AGMs. He played with a rattle snake and got badly bitten.

A Rangers fan writes to the SPL's very own Wilhelm Frick, Rod MacKenzie.

Not sure if this has been raised as I've not read the thread but what about Scottish Cups and League Cups? Wouldn't it be silly if we were stripped of league titles but kept these? If they stripped leagues then surely the SFA would have to launch an investigation of their own and the SFL too.

Delahunt has never hidden the fact he's a Shettleston. I remember reading an interview with him in the Yellow pages (oddly enough) about fifteen years ago. Under the "best views in Glasgow" he said Porkheid.

I was expecting something better than the drafting of a twelve year old. This is, to be sure, complete and utter pish. What a waste of a thread.

How underwhelming.

Edit - just seen you've edited the OP.

I always think people confuse the reason the Club was founded with what and who it came to represent. One was spontaneous and one came organically as the Club and support grew together. Rangers were the premier Scottish club and represented the best of Scottish values of the day. Ruth Dudley Edwards makes the point that RCs are more accepting of hierarchy and rules than Presbyterians. She makes the joke if you put six Orangemen in a room you'd get ten different opinions. That to me sums the Rangers support up. We're a broad and diverse church with many different opinions. I'd rather this than a one size fits all monoculture with a monobrow. The thing with the mhankies is their historical narrative isn't as this TRS article portrays. It plays into the myth of "Irishness". The simple fact is they were founded as a Roman Catholic club to keep RC Glaswegians out of Protestant soup kitchens. There's is a tale of anti-integration and sectarianism.

Taxation isn't immoral because you get to keep some of the money you've earned? You're actually arguing that? What you've just said means our lives and labour belong to the state. You're arguing for slavery. Free range slaves on the tax farm.

That's true, but the whole thing about tax becoming a moral issue is quite recent. It's part of a wider agenda being pushed by politicians simply because they spend too much of other people's money and always want more to waste.

The issue is paying taxes and morality. What is complete nonsense is to say taxation is the reason we live in the society we do. Individuals have the right to life, liberty and property. Any act which infringes upon these is immoral. Taxation infringes upon this and is therefore immoral. Some people might actually be forced to pay for whatever services they use without taxation of other more industrious individuals. Heaven forfend that ever happens, we couldn't dare have such fairness.

"Fair share". You can judge someone's character by how much they want to ponce off others. Just because some consequential good comes from taxation makes it in no way moral or fair. There is no such thing as a "fair share".

What's moral about taking someone else's hard earned money in the first place? It's remarkable, politicians call people "greedy" for wanting to keep their own money but never accuse someone of being "greedy" for wishing to take someone else's money. Tax can in no way be an issue of morality as the very premise of taxation in the first place is immoral.

Since when did taxation become an issue of morality? If you go to the root of taxation it is, under the threat of violence, the state taking money that someone else has worked for and earned. In any other context this is theft. We now have politicians and discredited bloggers trying to tell us tax avoidance is immoral. How dare people legally keep more of their own hard earned money instead of giving it to politicians to spunk as they like.

How much of this was down to Martin Bain? As far as I could see, he was responsible for negotiating contracts and transfers. He never appeared great at either.

LTSB's responsibility was to get their money back for the shareholder/taxpayer. With the uncertainty of the cases it's only natural they would apply pressure. LTSB employees played a blinder (from their point of view) in recovering all their liabilities. Whatever way you look at this, all roads lead back to David Murray, an inveterate liar.

That part was very telling and worthy of a weasel politician. This is just another one to add to Murray's list of lies - "I'll only sell to someone if it's in the best interests of Rangers." David Murray only ever does what's in his own interests.

So you think the Record (who have been surprisingly reliable about the whole fiasco) just made this report up? No comment from Murray when he could easily rubbish the report tells its own story.

SCOTLAND'S newspaper can exclusively reveal the contents of the secret dossier prepared for Rangers directors on Craig Whyte's dodgy business dealings. A PRIVATE investigation commissioned for Rangers showed Craig Whyte had a record of tax avoidance, failed companies and double dealings – before he was sold Sir David Murray’s majority shareholding. The Record has obtained a copy of the report. It was presented to Murray and some of the directors meant to monitor the sale, including chief executive Martin Bain and chairman Alastair Johnston. Our revelations come as the Insolvency Service investigate the actions of Rangers directors during Whyte’s takeover. The report, prepared by private investigators Titon, described Monaco-based Whyte as a “fuyant” – French slang for an evader or manipulator. It warned there was no evidence to back claims circulated by Whyte’s spin doctors that he was a billionaire with plenty of cash to finance Rangers. In fact, it said, there was no evidence he was even a multi-millionaire. The report talks of “the questionable source and extent of his reported wealth”. This should have raised concerns that Whyte could not keep his pledge to spend £27.5million on the takeover. That in turn should have sparked fears that the cash would have to come from elsewhere– either from debt, or from cash raised on future season ticket sales. Titon also found that Whyte had used a false birth date when registering as a director of 16 separate companies. He registered using the date of January 18, 1969, instead of his true date of birth, January 18, 1971. This would make it look like Whyte was involved with fewer companies than was actually the case, since a search of records at Companies House would not show up all his directorships. Titon said: “It is possible that these entries were made in error “However, one would question how there could be 16 such discrepancies, and of these businesses all but one have since dissolved.” The report gave detailed information on Whyte’s string of worthless directorships and failed companies. Titon found that Whyte was appointed secretary and director of a company called Zemfill plc on August 31, 2010, then resigned as director the following day. They also found clear evidence of Whyte’s methods when it came to tax. The report highlighted how his failed companies put money into other Whyte businesses – instead of paying the taxman. This tax avoidance should have been a clear warning that Whyte might fail to meet his tax obligations at Rangers. The investigators said one of Whyte’s companies, Vital Holdings Ltd, owed £500,000 in corporation tax when their final accounts were filed in 1997. According to Titon, the bill was not paid. Shares were instead bought in two other Whyte companies, Hire Access Group Ltd and Vital Plant Services Ltd. The five men told to vet the deal Titon wrote: “It would seem that the company avoided meeting its tax liability by divesting funds elsewhere across Craig’s other businesses.” The investigators said Whyte arrived in Monaco in 1999, amid reports that he was facing a probe over non-payment of PAYE bills for staff at one of his businesses in Britain. Rangers were forced into administration, then liquidation, after Whyte took the decision not to pay the club’s PAYE bills. The investigators also found that a string of Whyte companies had not filed tax returns. Again, he would use the same tactic at Rangers. Titon wrote on the first page of their report: “Our findings to date raise some clear areas of concern, which range from alleged billionaire fortune that is in no way substantiated through business, to commercial relationships associated with financial anomalies.” The investigators highlighted complaints about Whyte’s business dealings in Monaco. They wrote that he never bought any real estate or registered companies in the principality. To do so, he would have had to register as a permanent resident, which would have meant enrolment in the local police database and due diligence and credit worthiness checks. Titon said there were rumours that Whyte had left his luxury Monaco apartment without paying the last month’s rent, but the claims “could not be formally substantiated” The report said Whyte acted on behalf of a company called First Capital Securities SA, seeking clients from France, Switzerland, Germany and Russia, without authorisation and without declaring it to the Monaco authorities. First Capital were “based in Switzerland, but officially declared bankrupt by the Swiss magistrates court”. Titon said Whyte had also operated under the name Liberty Capital Ltd. The investigators added: “A series of financial complaints and civil disputes have been raised against Craig operating under these company names. “The complaints are based on finding the owner of these business entities, in order to recover funds. “In the local French lingo, he has been described as a ‘fuyant’ – evader as well as a clever manipulator.” Titon listed a string of companies Whyte either controlled or was involved in which had been “struck off” or “dissolved” soon after being formed. They warned: “Some of the companies dissolved as quickly as they had started, such as CSS Ltd and USG Ltd, ISS 1996 Ltd, VPS 1996 Ltd and HAG 1996 Ltd. “Such company management does not reflect the success Craig is reported to have achieved. “Some of the companies still had outstanding charges on file at the time of dissolution. “Some refer to the subject as a ‘billionaire’ or ‘multi-millionaire’. However, it could not be possible that he amassed such a large personal fortune from these companies alone.” Rangers boss Ally McCoist advises former owner Craig Whyte to stay away from Ibrox Whyte was disqualified as a company director for seven years in 2000, but the investigators made no mention of the ban. Rangers directors had access to the findings of the due diligence probe into Whyte at least two weeks before the sale was agreed. Sir David Murray last night declined to comment on the Titon report. Sources close to Murray emphasised that there was no legal reason not to sell the club to Whyte. They said both Whyte and his lawyers had provided proof that they had the funds needed to clear the club’s debt, and that Murray had not known Whyte had financed the deal by giving the rights to future season ticket sales to London-based firm Ticketus. The Insolvency Service have confirmed that their Investigations and Enforcement Directorate are considering the conduct of Rangers directors. They are looking at the actions of the board ahead of the sale to Whyte, as well as what went on after the takeover. A spokesman said: “Each case has its own merits and complexities.” He said the Service had no knowledge of the Titon report, and he could not comment on anything which could form part of any investigation.

You obviously don't know who did what.

Why would Lord Nimmo Smith and the two QCs just hand out the exact punishment the SPL wanted?

I thought the centrally based lot were more accurate. On the breakfast show this morning the midget sports reporter referred to the original Glasgow derby and said "That's if you forgive the fact it's technically a new Rangers Club". How many times do this organisation need to be told the fact of the matter? Same club, unbroken history with a new holding company. This has been recognised by the SFA and members of the judiciary. Why are the BBC willfully spreading misinformation? It's getting boring sending yet another complaint letter.

It's the old thing of the bullied becoming the bully. Tarriers perceived themselves as being put upon and victimised. No matter how well educated, they perceive themselves to be victims in a hostile land. With this mindset it is only natural that once one of them gets in a position of influence he surrounds himself with people of like mind. It then perpetuates to what we have today. They are a particularly vociferous minority and their insane views are now given mainstream airtime by their better educated brethren that have gained positions of influence. As an aside, I used to work with a woman from Newry, County Down. Lovely woman, genuinely very nice but of an old school RC mentality. She told me that growing up in the 1970s she was at an all girl's school. They were told by the nuns, priests and teachers it was their responsibility to each have at least five children so the Protestants would eventually be outnumbered in Northern Ireland. Now if that's the mindset engendered in people, it's a very difficult thing to break down.

Where do I say that? You really have got this terribly juvenile habit of attributing views to other posters. Views that they neither hold, imply or allude to.

Do the state do any of these things well without gross waste? There's a perfectly good argument for taxes to fund law and order and defence of the borders. The problem is that people and companies resent paying taxes to the extent they do (and UK taxes are exorbitant, only a fool would argue otherwise), even more so when they see what the state wastes their hard earned money on. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and is an absolute right for individuals and companies. It becomes particularly widespread when tax rates are obscenely high. People like you always think the solution is to give the state more power (just as long as that state isn't Israel, eh?) and allow it to tax and spend as much as it wants. Clearly this doesn't work.