thiepvalwood 33 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 charlie will accept anything they throw at him to protect "his" investment, high fives and clapping like a fukin seal ain't gonna change charlie's MO.Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Evidence?Note, Brown's drunken ramblings do not count. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,288 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 can't believe anyone is hanging their hat on anything this lying bastard of a man says.someone must have told him his knighthood is in danger if the tribunal find us guilty, hence his reaction.he sure as fuck ain't doing this to give us peace of mind thats for sure.forget anything he says its all fuckin crap.Probably because the alternative is to believe a lot of bitter bastards in the sfa who would stop at nothing to see us knocked so far back that we would take decades to recover Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StornowayBlue 630 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Do you think the judge has come to a decision on ebt case?Very much so Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,404 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Well at least Mr Murray has opened the door for legal action.If he is correct that the SPL are changing the laws again after the event.He has always maintainted that there were no dual contracts.It's only because of that BBC programe old Adam saying that there were(and that everybody was at it) that there is an investigation.The rest of Scottish Football community has had it's fun over the summer, it's time to stop Rangers bashing and get on with the football.Otherwise we'll see them in court Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,404 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 charlie will accept anything they throw at him to protect "his" investment, high fives and clapping like a fukin seal ain't gonna change charlie's MO.The Titles wouldn't effect his investment.The Titles would change our historyIt might not be Mr Geen's fight but it is ours Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Evidence?Note, Brown's drunken ramblings do not count.Evidence ? pishing all over a Law Lord who gave us a decision, now fuck off ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Evidence ? pishing all over a Law Lord who gave us a decision, now fuck off !I think you'll find Regan did that by blackmailing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 I think you'll find Regan did that by blackmailing.You are one of life's simpletons, nobody blackmailed anyone charlie shat it and pissed a Law Lord off in the process, only he hasn't found that out yet but he will. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 You are one of life's simpletons, nobody blackmailed anyone charlie shat it and pissed a Law Lord off in the process, only he hasn't found that out yet but he will. OK then, the SFA were being totally reasonable and not blackmailing at all with our membership to play football.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ace1 49 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 You are one of life's simpletons, nobody blackmailed anyone charlie shat it and pissed a Law Lord off in the process, only he hasn't found that out yet but he will. To be fair, ray, based on what the alternatives were, it was the lesser of the evils & at least he got it delayed to 1st Sept. Not ideal. But that's why he's CEO & you or I aren't. He had to make a tough decision & you can't please all of the people all of the time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevotrueblue 382 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 About time he came out and said something,, the longer he remained silent the more strength it gave to the case against us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 charlie will accept anything they throw at him to protect "his" investment, high fives and clapping like a fukin seal ain't gonna change charlie's MO.You have a brass fucking neck talking about anyone's MO, merchant of fkn doom, your MO is clear for all to see.Unlike Green who has been trying to fight our corner. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ace1 49 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 You have a brass fucking neck talking about anyone's MO, merchant of fkn doom, your MO is clear for all to see.Unlike Green who has been trying to fight our corner.This Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 To be fair, ray, based on what the alternatives were, it was the lesser of the evils & at least he got it delayed to 1st Sept. Not ideal. But that's why he's CEO & you or I aren't. He had to make a tough decision & you can't please all of the people all of the time.Remind me how much tv money that tough decision got us, as there was no tv deal worth the name without The Rangers, take your time now it is a very round number. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 You have a brass fucking neck talking about anyone's MO, merchant of fkn doom, your MO is clear for all to see.Unlike Green who has been trying to fight our corner.charlie couldny fight sleep ya doughba' Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertent 2,081 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Charlies crap at cut n paste too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 You are one of life's simpletons, nobody blackmailed anyone charlie shat it and pissed a Law Lord off in the process, only he hasn't found that out yet but he will. Not one word of what you say in that post is true. Except maybe the 'simpleton' comment, which may or may not be true, I really can't comment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 Not one word of what you say in that post is true. Except maybe the 'simpleton' comment, which may or may not be true, I really can't comment. So why did you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Not one word of what you say in that post is true. Except maybe the 'simpleton' comment, which may or may not be true, I really can't comment. Why was spangles banned in the 1st place, i thought it was because he was a taig...if so it's hard to see why he is back doing the exact same thing with increasing desperation... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misteral 2,952 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Murray is just summarising the clubs argument v HMRC. The crux must be how the players applied for the loans from the 3rd party trust and what the repayment terms were. I would thank that HMRC need to show that the loans were, on the balance of probabilty, never intended to be repayed and therefore tax evation. Do they have evidence of this? Have any payments been made back to the trust by the loanees or not? We don't know, we haven't seen the paperwork. However, the decision is (strangely) taking too long to be made public. I think the court is trying it's best to find in HMRC's favour but finding it difficult to put forward a justifiable 'ratio decidendi' . If we are found liable they know that if the decision is based on weak evidence then we will appeal. The devil is in the detail of the loan repayment arrangements, whether they were reasonable in the circumstances and whether they were adhered or not. TBH, I think we will eventually win the case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain1712 336 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 charlie will accept anything they throw at him to protect "his" investment, high fives and clapping like a fukin seal ain't gonna change charlie's MO.that may very well be true, green will be tempted to accept title stripping as it doesn't affect the value of the club ( his investment ). It's all very well Murray releasing this statement, but I would expect and indeed demand of him to send in a top legal team to fight our corner it is the least he can do to help clear up this mess of his making. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian The Bear 3 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Disagree Iain,I can see an effort now being made by Rangers to, as DM said it, "Draw a line under this".They can't make us accept feck all with a legal case on EBT's pending so feck off until it is, when it comes out in our favour (remember MIH used them too so DM is fighting for his company) then they can scuttle off and we can ask the ginger about his "comments".Ally, Ekk, DM and Walt a couple of days ago starting to open questions and suggestions, Green with bigotry in our first game, I think we have now reached the point of no return, we have done enough so it is time for NO SURRENDER for our club. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet Jim 897 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Murray is just summarising the clubs argument v HMRC. The crux must be how the players applied for the loans from the 3rd party trust and what the repayment terms were. I would thank that HMRC need to show that the loans were, on the balance of probabilty, never intended to be repayed and therefore tax evation. Do they have evidence of this? Have any payments been made back to the trust by the loanees or not? We don't know, we haven't seen the paperwork. However, the decision is (strangely) taking too long to be made public. I think the court is trying it's best to find in HMRC's favour but finding it difficult to put forward a justifiable 'ratio decidendi' . If we are found liable they know that if the decision is based on weak evidence then we will appeal. The devil is in the detail of the loan repayment arrangements, whether they were reasonable in the circumstances and whether they were adhered or not. TBH, I think we will eventually win the case.Spot on.EBT – legal until loophole closed by HMRC.Then we stopped using them!Never contractual!Loans, loans, loans you thick bastards!Take our titles and we will regain them in court and expose your tuppenny faith under the rule of BRITISH law.Dipshit Lawyers, SFA & the SPL, we have our licence and have accepted our punishment.But, beware of the wounded Bear.We’re coming to get you,We’re coming to get you,Cause we can!I hate the pope’s sexual tendencies and Gingers RA, but we are bigger, stronger and simply, We Are The Best.We’re coming to get you,We’re coming to get you,Cause we can! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mairydilk 22 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Murray shouldn't have let this carry on for as long as it did, but it's good that he seems to be putting a lot of the speculation to rest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet Jim 897 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Murray shouldn't have let this carry on for as long as it did, but it's good that he seems to be putting a lot of the speculation to rest.We’re coming to get you,We’re coming to get you,Cause we can! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.