babybearinoz
-
Posts
46 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by babybearinoz
-
-
Why must they be considered sectarian though?
The laws were brought in to stop sectarianism
According to the Interpretation Acts Catholic schools taken from the literal approach, could definitely be considered sectarian
Oxford dictionary;
adjective
- denoting or concerning a sect or sects:
- <a name="sectarian__4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; box-sizing: content-box; cursor: pointer; color: rgb(26, 99, 171);"> (of an action) carried out on the grounds of membership of a sect, denomination
Thus why non catholic schools have historically been 'coined' as non denominational, they have no religious affiliations. Catholic schools exist so clearly somewhere they have an express or implied statutory right to do so, but, does that necessarily mean they have an express or implied right to not be considered sectarian?
- denoting or concerning a sect or sects:
-
Best I can see without knowing all the facts is they had the opportunity to secure their position and fucked it being the incompetent agenda driven idiots they are, that is why the embargo was ruled illegal, unfortunately the common court could only refer it and it was wholly a sporting matter, not this time.
Clarify - To fellow Rangers fans I realised this may not have come across proper, I meant strictly in securing their position of jurisdiction. Goes without saying I am glad they are incompetent idiots ..... as they are a kangaroo court
-
take as long as you like on google attempting to work it out, I'll check the thread later ...........
-
And that is irrespective of 'alleged' or proven tax avoidance
Best I can see without knowing all the facts is they had the opportunity to secure their position and fucked it being the incompetent agenda driven idiots they are, that is why the embargo was ruled illegal, unfortunately the common court could only refer it and it was wholly a sporting matter, not this time.
-
waiting ???
And FYI - those legal principles have superior common law jurisdiction so the SPL can take a flying fuck
And that is irrespective of 'alleged' or proven tax avoidance
-
Right Timothy what legal principle governs liability ????
Do you have the faintest what tortious interference is ????
Let me know what you think in relation to the contractual elements of an asset sale ????
Between rattling your beads
waiting ???
And FYI - those legal principles have superior common law jurisdiction so the SPL can take a flying fuck
-
If you buy something that has a liability attached you also buy the liability. Green knew about the alleged dual contract allegations and that the SPL were requesting documentation from D&P, documentation D&P were withholding. So the investigation started prior to Green buying the titles.
Right Timothy what legal principle governs liability ????
Do you have the faintest what tortious interference is ????
Let me know what you think in relation to the contractual elements of an asset sale ????
Between rattling your beads
-
Ally needs to be seen in his position to be doing the best to 'promote scottish football' as a whole. He needs to fulfil this role impartially of what he feels for Rangers. IMO he has done the right thing, it may not even be his PERSONAL opinion but he is acting WITH 'integrity' toward the sport as a whole (more than can be said of others). On this basis, with regard to the national team Rangers fans do not need to act on the every whim of what is said by Ally, then it becomes a personal choice not a club issue. The national team has the square root of f all to do with Rangers and everyone knows how much scottish football cares about Rangers so the door has now been closed on blaming the club for anything to do with Rangers fans lack of attendance. Do you really think every teams manager says what they really think all of the time (nudge nudge, wink wink) sometimes the lines need to be read between.
I don't really know what Ally personally thinks but I think it is clever card he played with respect to protecting the club from any backlash when he made his statement.
-
you are making the same mistake as all the reporters about this case!
I am sorry but if you re read my post you will see that the BTC and the S F A case(likely) hase got fk all to do with having an EBT scheme and everything about administration of the scheme or dual contracts!
if you fail to see what the issue is - then you will go down the road of thinking others are getting away with some thing.
also for what it's worth I think the BTC will bevfiund in our favour and that the SFA will not be able to prove dual contracts!
You have still failed to see the point so I'm guessing you didn't understand my comment or chose not to take it on board ...
Out of an entire page long article which generally is highlighting the bigoted moral response toward Rangers and the media bias in reporting toward Rangers.
quote from my post 'the inequality within scottish football regarding the moral stance taken over tax schemes and the media electing to and pursuing of issues in a bias manner.'
You
have failed to comment on any of the positive points regarding the article and have elected to focus wholly on one minor questionable point - quote from the original article 'given that the moral argument that the Celtic support has been made redundant, will the moral judges of Scottish Football apply some balance and pursue Celtic for answers on EBTs, and possible dual contracts?'
The point about the EBT use really is irrelevant in the grand central theme of the article, it looks to me that the article is designed to show the inequality and bias in scotland, as I said the central theme of the article was not to compare Rangers EBT use and dual contracts with tax schemes used by others.
You have a way of trying to invalidate any justification of wrong doing toward Rangers that posters come up with by tying their comments up in semantics.
For someone who is, as one poster so eloquently put it on previous occasion 'such a politician' you really cannot be that ignorant, surely.
Your time would be best spent focusing more on the positives that can defend Rangers and the unfounded indignities the bigots in scotland are trying to inflict rather than trying to dismantle the good others that 'care' for the club are trying to do.
-
Like the blue blood
-
I can see you worked hard on this - but like the lazy shites who report on this, and as you correctly state, there is nothing wrong with EBTs - what the BYC is about is how we have administered the EBTs legally (and even that is a minefiled as HMRC are trying to use retrospective legislation).aslo I suspect (but no one knows until we see more) the SFA are not coming after us for EBT's but for secondry contracts (and again lazt to saythe are after us for using EBT's)
As suchit mattersnot that others used EBTs they are not illegal - its how they were applied.
Again, you have taken the negitive, unless of course you have simply misunderstood ?????
The point is that Rangers have been called cheats for using EBT as a tax perk and yet no-one is making issue of others taking tax breaks.
The central theme of the article was not about the comparatives of Rangers EBT use and others use of tax schemes with respect to guilt, it was about the inequality within scottish football regarding the moral stance taken over tax schemes and the media electing to and pursuing of issues in a bias manner.
-
Sorry this question has still not been addressed. PAYE is not a fine, it's statuatory.
Charles Green said we were in division 3 due to non payment of a FINE! Or words to that effect.
I want to talk about football and I have done so in other threads but this is bugging me. What does Charles mean?
To clarify
The point being missed is this
The original figure to HMRC for the big tax case even added on to shytes non payment still left HMRC with UNDER the bargaining power to scupper a CVA (the amount total was under the % required to give them the final say) it was only once the fines from HMRC were added it gave them the % to scupper the CVA agreement, that is why the fines amount was listed as disputed by D&P during the CVA meeting.
Remember, this is fines for non payment of an amount of money that was being disputed and heard in a court of law at the time.
So, essentially, CG is 100% correct it was the fine from HMRC which ultimately lead to new company formation and the need to transfer the SFA & Sphell memberships.
It was this necessary transfer of membership which was used as a loaded weapon by the zest pit of corruption that is the SFA and Sphell.
They refused to transfer the sphell membership to the new company, even although it was originally granted based on sporting merits, (sphell membership has nothing to do with the finances of the company, it is granted based on promotion and relegation, Rangers were not relegated last season), on the say so of the fans of course, due to 'integrity', they then used it to try and force us into division 1, to keep the cash cow, then they further used it to force Rangers to accept illegal sanctions for transfer into division 3.
Rangers have been scapegoated big time, by all and sundry, and CG knows it
HMRC had a point to prove
DM tried to save his own skin
shyte opened the door wide
All the mhanky bigoted and jealous arses saw their opportunity for easy pickings at what they could never have any other way
BUT, cream always rises
Rangers ARE flourishing and the SFL IS the place to be, if you take note of most Rangers fans views it finally feels like Rangers are amongst friends, football is being played the way it should be and everyone is enjoying it, except the diseased sphell which is on the decline and slowly withering away and so it should ................. that's what happens when you're consumed by bile and hate!
-
Hullo Hullo
We are the Billy Boys
Hullo Hullo
you'll know us by our noise
we're up to our knees in rebel filth
no surrender's what we'll cry
-
As someone at the game last night, I'm aware that the majority of fans there were angered by what appeard to be quite a large group, albiet a minority, of fans who chose to boo Ian Black. Many, including myself, spoke to some of the Association representatives to express our dismay at the actions of that minority. All of the reps we spoke to, who support a variety of clubs, were equally unhappy at the treatment given to Black. A statement was released today by ATAC to reinforce that point - a view shared by the vast majority of Scotland fans.
Fans' body condemn Black treatment
(UKPA) – 59 minutes ago
The Association of Tartan Army Clubs (ATAC) have condemned those Scotland fans who booed midfielder Ian Black during Wednesday's friendly match against Australia at Easter Road.
The 27-year-old Rangers player, who joined the Ibrox club in the summer after leaving Hearts, came on as a late substitute to make his debut to the vociferous displeasure of a section of the home support.
There had been controversy surrounding Black's call-up to the squad. Scotland manager Craig Levein had omitted team-mate Lee Wallace from the squad due to him now playing his football in the Irn-Bru Third Division.
Black was then targeted near the end of the game which the Scots won 3-1. It was unclear whether that was because of his Hearts and Rangers connections, or his general reputation as a hardy midfielder.
Speaking for ATAC, Jim Brown said: "One of the guiding principles of the Tartan Army is that when we come together club allegiances are put to the side as everyone throws their support behind the national team.
"It is therefore regrettable that a small section of the Scotland support chose to forget this and booed Ian when he took to the field and for the short period he was on the pitch.
"Given that this was Ian's full international debut, an occasion he has described as being the pinnacle of his career to date, these actions are especially disappointing."
After the match Black claimed the booing did not ruin the occasion.
"I'm absolutely delighted, it's probably the biggest and proudest moment of my career so far," he said.
Copyright © 2012 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
I'm not particulalry expecting any positive comments on this but thought it was important that Rangers fans know that the vast majority of the Scotland support, including the offical supporters representatives, which still include many Bears, are just as pissed off about last night as folk are on here. I think it's also worth pointing out that Ian Black has made it clear that it was still an extremely proud moment for him, and one which he regards as a high point in his career. Hopefuly he'll achieve, and be recognised for, even greater achievements both with Rangers and with Scotland.
Please kindly pass this information on to the association
They say home is where the heart is
I have lived in Australia for a number of years and to a large degree consider myself Australian but have always referred to Scotland as my home.
My Scotland top is now put away for fear of what I actually felt like doing to it after the events of late
When it is Scotland v Australia I have always opted to support Scotland and will continue to do so ....... in every other sporting event outside of football ....
Until the governing bodies of Scottish football proactively work to rid this element I will not support them, and let me tell you talk is cheap, I mean do something, it's easy to make excuses and apologies in the form of statements but actions speak louder than words, these people should have been removed for inciting hate, toward their own at that !!!!!!
I am certain many Scottish football supporters overseas, in fact I know, now consider themselves FORMER supporters of the national team !
-
Just woke up from the other side of the world not read the whole thread but getting the gist of it, this is appauling .... someone needs to do something ... authority not wanting Rangers players to play for the national team for ridiculous reasons and then they're being booed when they do .... OPEN YOUR EYES !!!!! THIS IS ALL TO PUT PLAYERS OFF SIGNING AND PLAYING FOR RANGERS !!!!!!!
-
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4476401/Son-of-a-PITCH.html
Quote from the above article
NEIL LENNON insists HJK Helsinki’s plastic pitch should be BANNED
And asked if synthetic pitches should be allowed in European football Lennon said: “No, they shouldn’t, I don’t agree with them.
“Football should be played on grass, especially at this level.
A direct statement has been made public disagreeing with a standard that FIFA, the superior and governing Football authority has approved, he is questioning the validity of a decision the governing bodies have made.....
dis·re·pute/ˌdisrəˈpyo͞ot/
Noun:
The state of being held in low esteem by the public.
That IS bringing the game into disrepute, there is the potential in this statement to alter public opinion negatively with regard to FIFA decision on allowing synthetic turf.
I think all clubs within the UK and internationally who have synthetic turf should be made aware of this statement and complain to FIFA that the governing bodies of Scottish Football have taken no action in disciplining a member who has called into question the integrity of their ground and the authority who approved it.
-
IMO we will be more deserving of the title champion than they will be of winning a TTT (tainted tarrier title)
Indeed, we will be earning every piece of it whilst they are simply being handed it .........
-
I can tell you for a fact from the mouth of a very close family member I know (a bluenose and older bear) who was unfortunate enough to have to be part of a group to do work on their (the mhanks) stadium in the late 60's that through that era and into the early 70's old man kelly was offered automated gates and declined as he said "why would I want to record the numbers entering", it was a well known fact they diddled the figures and on purpose.
-
In short an EBT and dual contracts for that matter can work in numerous ways, most NOT to the financial advantage of the club but to the player only.
If the club itself paid the money it doesn't matter how it was paid , the money was clearly there, available to the club to be paid out to players. There is no salary capping so financial advantage even in terms of incentive becomes void.
IF tax was somehow avoided to the advantage of the club(which I will add is, of all the possible scenarios in which an EBT can be used, even with double contracts, the least likely)again, it is more likely players or staff who benefited. That tax has now become due and payable.
Just like septic paid their EBT three years after use and Motherwell in 2004 paid pennies in the pound to their creditors, Rangers are being asked to pay back tax due(IF FOUND TO BE OWED).
Had septic paid tax on their EBT in 2005/2006 or 2007 would they have been able to afford certain other players ???? maybe so, but still debatable, but let's look at Motherwell, the amount of debt written off through their CVA shows that, retrospectively they lived beyond their means, if they had paid all debt owing as and when it fell due they would have been able to afford very little in the years preceding 2004 so in that case all their games should be awarded to the competitor 3-0 !!!!
This is the interesting point
The hounds of 'sporting integrity' will say these scenario differ from Rangers because debts were consequently paid.
Once HMRC has ruled on the Rangers situation, IF they find any monies owing they will negotiate a reduced figure before liquidation of the oldco to be paid from the 5.5m funds CG used to purchase the assets, Rangers tax debt will then be deemed to have been paid in full according to the agreed figure with HMRC.
The debt will then have been paid in full albeit a reduced figure, no different to Motherwell in 2004, and at a later date, no different to septic EBT and motherwell in 2004.
Scottish football has already set precedent that if debt is paid even at a later date and even at a reduced figure then there is no financial advantage.
Apparently their issue is only avoidance pur se.
Well, on liquidation and agreement with HMRC of a pay out figure from the oldco that case will be closed and Rangers will have paid their dues so you can keep your filthy paws away from the titles ............
Rangers will at that point (IF FOUND) have taken full responsibility for and made full payment owing as agreed to by the creditor for the years in question.
-
New here but would like to give an opinion. With the hatered shown by most other clubs to Rangers why should fans give them their cash at away games. Read somewhere that Clyde did not want us joining any of the higher leagues so when and if we play them away why should we go and give them our cash. Same applies to other sides.
Save your cash for Rangers and watch on TV (maybe) or listen to the radio and let them pay for extra security with an empty away stand.
It is not for Rangers fans to support other clubs by keeping them in business when our own club is in trouble and anyway they dont like us.
Do others feel the same.
fuck off and stir it where someone gives a fuck
-
actually, just GTF that mob can
-
I canny believe I actually read that. £80m isnae loose change tae anybody.
They have what they have due to their business acumen. If you think they amassed their fortune by looking on sums of £80m as loose change, then you're deluded.
Clearly deluded, I'm certain SKY are in the habit of paying over the odds just for the love of it, they have no over heads or running costs, why would they they are charitable philanthropists and care not to pay more for something than it's worth, did we all think sky was a business ....
-
forgot to add that was without Rangers gate receipts and other contribution I'm certain the diddys will make up for that
-
80 million over 5 years is loose change down the sofa to Sky. I bet clubs get the contractual amount this season and if the terms are reduced in the next contract it wont be by much.
Wishful thinking that the Sky deal will collapse and clubs will get a fraction of what they expected.
BBC had to bail half the SPL clubs out in 2002 and half of them were still deemed technically insolvent, and loose change to sky, they are a fecking business
Like the blue blood
Finally a Sheriff speaks out about the naughty song law!
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
By strict definition, all religious associations are sectarian, according to literal interpretation, sectarian is simply adherence (through religious belief, and or instruction) to a preferred denomination. Even bigotry in itself is not malicious, it is simply a narrow minded, (or intolerant) view of differing beliefs. It is a human rights entitlement to be 'sectarian', and even 'bigoted'. It is the' hate', or' incitement of', and 'harm', or 'threatened harm' elements, in direct association with the sectarianism, and or bigotry, that are the issue. That is why there is a 'protection of freedom of expression' clause in the originally enacted Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act (Scotland) 2012.
Accordingly, ordinary, non denominational schools merely provide education on religions and beliefs, so, are not sectarian. However, catholic schools make provision for religious education, but, also provide religious instruction of a particular faith, therefore, are sectarian.
Ultimately, catholic schools need to be open to parliamentary scrutiny in the same manner as all other sectarian organisations have been, to ensure they conform to, and work within the constraints of the 'hate laws'.
All in the name of sporting (sorry moral) integrity of course, haha.