Gaz92 966 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 To start off, I understand there will be very little new in this, but hey, it's my day off, and I thought I'd round everything up before tomorrow's judgement begins.Having done a bit of googling, I think it's safe to say the upcoming commission could produce another world's first for Rangers FC. I know it's something we're brilliant at - world's first team to reach 50 titles, currently holding a world record of 54 titles, and recently broke the record for a fourth-tier league attendance. But this one could be a new, bizarre one - the first football team to have their title's stripped for a tax issue. I've searched everywhere, and I can see no other example. Two recent cases of stripped titles are Juventus and Marseilles, both for influencing match outcomes, through their manager and owner, respectively. I think we can agree that this punishment is acceptable. Although the fans have vehemently defended their sides over this, people at both clubs had a direct influence over what happened, and it is cheating. The battle on the pitch is no longer 11 v 11 in a fair match. Juventus were stripped of two titles (which the club still recognise) and Marseilles one (but were still allowed to keep their Champions League win, after beating Rangers in the semi-final).I think we can also agree that our case is completely different from this. First of all, there has still never been any outcome of the EBT case against Murray International Holdings. The decision has been expected for months and months, but has still never come to anything. Will it ever? The tax scheme was perfectly legal, and seemingly above board at the time. Was the EBT used as a contractual payment, or as a loan (as intended to be), does anyone really know? With this put aside, were is the precedent even coming from to strip these titles? Has this done before? No. Has there ever been any suggestion of it being done before? No, not as far as I can see. The use of EBT's gave Rangers no advantage on the pitch. There was 11 men out there who had to fight and scrape for these titles, who had to win the games off their own work. There was no outside influence on the park, and Neil McCann put it well on the first day of the season.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKfdYwjNLR4And was also mentioned by Alex McLeish on Goals on Sunday just yesterday. How can such a punishment be justified? These are just two of many who have defended the clubs payments at the time. We've done nothing warrant this potential punishment, and I think every single last one of us will fight until the very end to make sure that our titles remain intact. I hope our current owners have the fight for the title, as to be stripped of more trophies than I think any other football team has been stripped in one go can simply never be accepted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigie79 67 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 It won't happen if anything our punishment will be a fine which will help prop up the SPL at our expense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz92 966 Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 And whatever happens, they can never take these away: Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz92 966 Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 And these... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzapat 83 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 To strip us of titles would only benefit one team and open up a whole can of worms that the SPL and SFA would never be able to close.A fine (if found guilty of nothing more than an administration error) is the most sensible option, but we all know that is lacking in the Scottish Game.Even if they did strip titles, they can never take away my memories. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
c9kay 6 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Some of those videos bring goosebumps, we've definitely been spoiled during my lifetime :-)Regarding the OP and the part about it being the tax issues, it's not due to this that they are threatening to strip out tittles. It's due to the supposed dual contract which they are classing as a form of cheating. That couldn't be further from the truth IMO as surely any team that have debt (90% of the SPL teams) could be classed as cheating as they are using money they don't have to buy / pay players. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis 1,011 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 It wont happen because we did nothing wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottyc06 6,915 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I think the biggest shocker in that post is that you have your day off on a Monday... What's that all about? No very fair is it!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,281 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Is it because of a tax issue? I thought it was to do with rules on un-disclosed payments to playing staff. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippinEck 3,708 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Let's be honest, I don't think they were ever intended as loans but if people who were part of the scheme were to pay anything back, would that not help our case? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djbroxybear 660 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Why should the New Co be penalized for the Old Co, i mean the SFA/SPL didn't pay New Co the runners up money for last season as it was won by Old Co so there seems to be double standards. We also payed off Debt from Old co which we didn't have to do the whole thing stinks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Some of those videos bring goosebumps, we've definitely been spoiled during my lifetime :-)Regarding the OP and the part about it being the tax issues, it's not due to this that they are threatening to strip out tittles. It's due to the supposed dual contract which they are classing as a form of cheating. That couldn't be further from the truth IMO as surely any team that have debt (90% of the SPL teams) could be classed as cheating as they are using money they don't have to buy / pay players. So Man city cheated last year then? Man united have cheated for years aswell then? The same with Chelsea when they won the league. And what about Real Madrid last year did they cheat aswell? If it is so clear that we "cheated" why has nothing ever been decided on the the dual contarcts. How long have they been digging for? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,281 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Why should the New Co be penalized for the Old Co, i mean the SFA/SPL didn't pay New Co the runners up money for last season as it was won by Old Co so there seems to be double standards. We also payed off Debt from Old co which we didn't have to do the whole thing stinks.I hope that is a tongue in cheek remark rather than a serious point! The answer is obvious as to why we should be penalised if found to have done anything outwith the rules.Of course I get your point, but we have to be consistent nonetheless. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I hope that is a tongue in cheek remark rather than a serious point! The answer is obvious as to why we should be penalised if found to have done anything outwith the rules.Of course I get your point, but we have to be consistent nonetheless.Why don't you tell us then? Do u relies that it was "LEGAL" or are you saying that the lawyers involved were all lying? And the point is we haven't been found Guilty of anything. If we "done anything outwith the rules" then why has nothing ever been decided? Maybe because nothing was done "outwith the rules"? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergio 1,199 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Why don't you tell us then? Do u relies that it was "LEGAL" or are you saying that the lawyers involved were all lying? And the point is we haven't been found Guilty of anything. If we "done anything outwith the rules" then why has nothing ever been decided? Maybe because nothing was done "outwith the rules"?The Rules in place at the time, or the rules in place now ? That is what David Murray is Saying, it is o.k to change the rules, but to then punish us for breaching them before they were changed is not on., and that is what they are trying to do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBear. 8,499 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I hope that is a tongue in cheek remark rather than a serious point! The answer is obvious as to why we should be penalised if found to have done anything outwith the rules.Of course I get your point, but we have to be consistent nonetheless.They're making the fuckin rules up as they go along mate Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsa 3,906 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Let's be honest, I don't think they were ever intended as loans but if people who were part of the scheme were to pay anything back, would that not help our case?Ridiculous post. Pay back to who? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippinEck 3,708 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Ridiculous post. Pay back to who?The "trust" from which they "loaned" money... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,281 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Calm down guys seems you all have mis understood the post, a bit touchy?My point is that if we are adjudged to have broken rules, regardless of what they are or when they were made up, then to paraphrase the op, the newco must pay the penalty as it were, the only way that wouldn't be the case is if the oldco and newco are unrelated in the eyes of the SFA, which quite clearly isn't the case!That was my point! Quite straightforward I think! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangers Rob 29 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 And whatever happens, they can never take these away: Or this Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velo 16 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 And whatever happens, they can never take these away: "the helicopter is changing direction"! Fucking loved that day. Was in the canaries in a rangers pub getting served the beers by a lassie that was running about outside taking orders while we were all standing in the sun because there was no room inside. Ended up drunker than I can('t) remember!Edit: typo 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.