Right_To_Censor 1,951 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 i'm now sure more than ever that thomson has something to do with that blog Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectre 1,663 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I dont think may feel its a formality. Look at John terry - by law found innocent of racism, the EFL found him guilty.If fear the same type of situation here.The biggest reason for that was the differing standards of proof. John Terry was found not guilty in a case that had to be established by the prosecution beyind reasonable doubt, on the other hand the FA found him guilty on the balance of probabilities, which is far easier to establish than criminality.In our case a tribunal has found on the balance of probabilities that we were not operating an unlawful tax scheme and that payments to players were in fact loans and not contractual payments. That's the same standard of proof the SPL tribunal will be dealing with and if they can be convinced the loans were loans then I fail to see how they could then deem them as payments that required to be declared.It's not the case but I feel there should also be overarching questions of both "what harm has been done?" and "what is the intention of this rule?" In theory had we lsot the tax case I could at least see the logic in saying that as a result of these payments (and their non declaration) we had gained an advantage on the pitch that we otherwise wouldn't have had (although a clear argument against that is that the way Murray ran the club there's every chance we'd have had the exact same players on the same wages but with more accumualted debt) but as it stands, having won the tax case I'm left thinking the worst case scenario with regards Rangers is that they failed to declare lawful payments to their players, and then the questions come in, so what? What if we had declared these lawful loans, nothing would have happened, it isn't against the rules to give players loans and it isn't in breach of UK taxation rules so no advantage was achieved. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,404 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 A smart chap by the name of Charles Lewis responded to Thomson with this:Those of us who have actually read the Tribunal’s judgement will be less than impressed by your comments above. Cherry picking from the dissenting opinion to support an opinion that you have already formed is not just sloppy journalism but suggests a willingness to deceive the reader. I was not aware that this was consistent with normal journalistic ethics.Being a clever chap myself, I can also cherry pick from both the majority verdict and the dissenting opinion to show that contractual remuneration was disclosed to the SFA. And, further to your comment about ‘loans’, you may be interested to discover that counsel for HMRC accepted that they were loans and that they were not ‘shams’ (paragraph 188). It will be a little difficult for HMRC to go back and say “we didn’t really mean that’.Not that it matters. Any appeal can only be on a point of law and the fact that it was a majority verdict and not a unanimous one is not a point of law. If, indeed, there is an appeal it will probably be on the application of Ramsay and not on any of the points you make above.I am sure that Lord Nimmo-Smith will read the dissenting opinion. He will also read the majority decision. As the good Lord is most learned,I am sure that he will take into account when deliberating on this matter that it could all end up in the Court of Session. And that court will be most conscious of duly established decisions in law which are directly relevant to the case.Now this guy does seem to know what he's talking about, must be a lawyer.He should have put a PS.....and were coming after you thomo Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitzer007 198 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Now this guy does seem to know what he's talking about, must be a lawyer.He should have put a PS.....and were coming after you thomoHas the muppet had the balls to reply to this or is 3 names still working on the reply? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.J. MacReady 226 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergio 1,199 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Many are of the opinion the FTTT ruling means there is no case to answer with reagrds the SPL, including McCoist, just saying IMO it only takes one of the 5 cases we lost for the SPL to find us guilty doesn't it!Ban this fucking clown, .. who calls Ally McCoist ... your a fucking Tarrier ..gtf Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachothelegend 1,932 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 There will be no stripping of Titles .Wishfull thinking .He should tell his pals from Darkheed they should try beat us on the field of play.We where skint and on our knees and we still got 3 in a Row wi nae . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDIGNITY 34,090 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 thomson is no hurtin bad enuff, nuffin that a claw hammer widnae soart oot ! jist the craic eh ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalfollower 1,543 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 So even if it involves 5 players, is that title stripping justified by 5 players? Were they severance payments?a juninho payment, there really shouldnt be any case to answer Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCPRANGERS1 2,997 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I see he's calling it avoidance now.......too late you slimey prick your blog is there for SDMs lawyers to see and your previous assertions of tax evasion!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHB 63 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Bears are piling into Thomson on that blog with comments, likes and dislikes.This time we are dishing it out! Take a few minutes, make a comment (keep it clean) or just a like (for our own) or a dislike (for them).Lets get in there and swamp this blog in a blue wave of Rangers-minded content. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCPRANGERS1 2,997 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Bears are piling into Thomson on that blog with comments, likes and dislikes.This time we are dishing it out! Take a few minutes, make a comment (keep it clean) or just a like (for our own) or a dislike (for them).Lets get in there and swamp this blog in a blue wave of Rangers-minded content.Already done.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisleyroad 894 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 what a bitter disgusting bheast he has turned into, the clown had already decided 2 days ago he was going to write another anti-Rangers blog, when he was posting from Gaza that he would write a blog when he got home.YOUR HURTING, HA HA HA HA Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ger50champ 300 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I dont think may feel its a formality. Look at John terry - by law found innocent of racism, the EFL found him guilty.If fear the same type of situation here.mm 113 posts Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
weshallnotbemoved! 714 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 He seems to be actively lobbying HMRC....His obsession will be his undoing. He will be fired sooner or later Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluetiful 64 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 So Rangers are solely responsible for the closure of libraries????? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,404 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 So Rangers are solely responsible for the closure of libraries?????That's cooncil tax that is.I believe Murray paid that.......Whtye? that's another story Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 all those times we won football games 2-1 and were credited 3 points will now be reversed and victory awarded to the the team who got the single goal - it's the only solution Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blumhoilann 6,715 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 As the CLEVER man Mr.Lewis pointed out,Thomson cherry picked the ruling and stupidly omitted important parts of the finding.The 5 he refers to was about bonuses not EBTs.He also failed to say that the EBTs could NOT be considered anything other than loans as the players did not receive these monies on a contractural basis.(or words to that effect).This guy is a dick,maybe pressure should be put on C4 over his bigotry. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blumhoilann 6,715 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 In re-reading paragraph 35,it seems the 5 individuals are liable for tax and NI conts themselves,not Rangers.If Rangers are punished for these ppl, will Septic be punished for those at the paedodome who committed tax evasion in connection with their imaginary companies? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMac 1,405 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Thomsons reporting on Rangers who may have avoided £40m over ten years while back in the real world, companies like Apple and Twitter are avoiding ten times as much. Wonder if Thomson, Spiers and three names have i-Phones and Twitter accounts? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ovenwash 13 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Thomson has not a shred of credability leftHe will always find a slant to suit his own agenda, Hence when there is not a jot of evidence to support his claim of being threatened, then its a cover up by the police.He will always look for bits to suit his story rather than report the truth!No mark Journalist Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,526 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Ban this fucking clown, .. who calls Ally McCoist ... your a fucking Tarrier ..gtfWhat you talking about you loser? I said McCoist is calling for the commission to be dropped!If you are incapable of understanding posts maybe you should try postman pat books. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionRedHMS 190 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 What you talking about you loser? I said McCoist is calling for the commission to be dropped!If you are incapable of understanding posts maybe you should try postman pat books.Point is calling Ally,McCoist shows a serious lack of respect for our manager.Very Timmish. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,526 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Point is calling Ally,McCoist shows a serious lack of respect for our manager.Very Timmish.That's simply ridiculous. I'm now being told how I should address Mr Alistair McCoist MBE, maybe I should ask for a filter to keep the paranoid amongst us happy.Posted quickly while I was at work I don't have time to think about such ludicrous things. 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.