Jump to content

five stars

Senior Member
  • Posts

    2,809
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by five stars

  1. I've estimated how much HMRCs relentless pursuit of Rangers cost the British tax payers.

    10 million - from refusing the offer to settle from murray

    3 million - lawyers and staff costs of the BTC

    12 million - PAYE which would of been paid from season 2011/2012

    35 million - reduced PAYE (from a much smaller wage bill) and reduced Vat (from ticket prices being reduced). If we spend three seasons in the lower leagues at around 12 million a season.

    Obviously I've made various assumptions, but I don't think it's an unreasonable estimate.

    Hopefully the end-petition will get enough signatures to trigger a debate in parliament and HMRC can explain why they cost the tax paper 60 million quid.

  2. There is an article in the sun today detailing arrests made for sectarianism since 2010. The figures show 909 arrests for abuse against catholics and 606 arrests for abuse against Protestants.

    The bishop tartaglia is quoted in the article saying " It seems incontrovertible now that our problem is not so much sectarianism but anti Catholicism. This is regrettable because popular culture is inventing all kinds of new reasons to marginalise and hate catholics. "

    So let's look at the figures again, 909 offences against catholicism which we can assume were committed by those from a protestant background. And 606 offences against protestantism by those from a Catholic background. Now we need now to take in to consideration that there are around 800,000 catholics in Scotland and around 3,500,000 from a protestant background.

    My statistic skill aren't great but it seem that going by the figures that someone from a Catholic background is three times more likely to commit a sectarian crime than someone from a protestant background. 909 offences from a group of 3.5 million as opposed to 606 offences from a group of 800,000.

    The bishop seems to want to put this head in the sand and pretend that there is no such thing as sectarianism just anti Catholicism. In my opinion not a good start by the new communications mouth piece of the Catholic church in Scotland after cardinal Keith O 'Brien gave up frontline duties after his bigot of the year award.

  3. The way i see it is the sfa/spl wanted to strip us of around 15 trophys when we had not been found guilty of anything. It didnt look good for them at the time when the five party agreement was revealed in the media, the sfa said they would respond with a statement 48 hrs but they never did. With the result of the BTC going for Rangers their position now looks pretty desperate. Trying to force a club to accept a unpresidented punishment when they were not guilty. I may be wrong and of course they have the right to explain why. So again i ask the question why?

  4. The SFA should of been held responsible for allowing Whyte to take over. They are regulators of the game and are supposed to make sure anyone buying/running a club is a fit and proper person. Surprised some of the shareholder have not tried to sue the sfa for they clearly failed in thier duty.

  5. Lloyds must of known what was going on. They wanted their money back before the result of the big tax case ,which if it went again Rangers, could of resulted in them losing their money. They would of known that Whyte was shady but forced the sale anyway. Dont know if they did anything illegal but as they claim to be a company with a corporate social responsibilty policy, they certainly didnt apply it on this occasion.

  6. It seems the sfa have been able to influence the press to drop the story. So maybe they feel they can now get away with not releasing a statement. Any decent journalist would be chasing them for their response. Any decent jounrnalists out there?

  7. Dont forgot the serious allegation in the paper at the weekend from a SFL insider that there is a "witchhunt "against Rangers. You would expect the spl/sfa to have quickly released a statement rejecting the allegation. As they have not done so have we to presume that they agree with the statement?

×
×
  • Create New...