Posts: 1,630
Threads: 120
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
2
This 'sporting advantage', derived from extra income, has been present in Scottish football virtually from Day One.
Strip out all the extras and variables and go to a flat-rate admission price, the same for all clubs, then :
... if your stadium is 50K or 60K and none of your opponents are above 26K, then you have a permanent 'sporting advantage', based upon income.
Maybe both Rangers and Celtic should be stripped of all their League Titles and Cup honours ???
This all being in the name of 'sporting integrity', of course.
AVFC RFC SAFC
Posts: 1,794
Threads: 21
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
0
New being fantastic Fred old toxic no thank you!
Posts: 2,774
Threads: 12
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
1
I'm being accused of being gay so batter in
Posts: 1,794
Threads: 21
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
0
(07-11-2015, 00:30)Fredstersafool Wrote: I'm being accused of being gay so batter in
Is not that your job ?
Posts: 304
Threads: 5
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
1
(06-11-2015, 21:02)Larry-AV Wrote: This 'sporting advantage', derived from extra income, has been present in Scottish football virtually from Day One.
Strip out all the extras and variables and go to a flat-rate admission price, the same for all clubs, then :
... if your stadium is 50K or 60K and none of your opponents are above 26K, then you have a permanent 'sporting advantage', based upon income.
Maybe both Rangers and Celtic should be stripped of all their League Titles and Cup honours ???
This all being in the name of 'sporting integrity', of course.
Larry, sorry but you are a total cock. Stick to supporting villa. What a totally absurd comment to make regarding income. Going on the defensive as usual and trying to weasel an excuse for the blatant financial cheating carried out by yer " second" team.
HHGH
Posts: 1,630
Threads: 120
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
2
07-11-2015, 03:22
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2015, 03:38 by Larry-AV.
Edit Reason: Typo.
)
Having ploughed through the Court of Session Judgement, its key points are :
1} The payments from Rangers (and other respondents) to the Principal Trust constituted redirection of emoluments, i.e., payment for services rendered by the employee to their employer through their work.
2} Being emoluments, they are subject to Income Tax, prior to their transfer to the Principal Trust. That means the employers (including Rangers) should have paid income tax prior to the transfer of funds.
3} Any transfer of monies between the Principal Trust and the Sub-Trusts would be subject to taxation too, but that would be under the taxation applicable to Trusts and not the taxation applicable to income.
This is the latest judgement in this saga; whether BDO appeals against it remains to be seen.
AVFC RFC SAFC
Posts: 304
Threads: 5
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
1
07-11-2015, 04:22
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2015, 04:59 by TIN TIN.)
So to sum it all up, tax evasion by the club in Seemple terms
Can you not admit that your club just died in 2012 and was re- born as Sevco. Admitted into the lower league of Scottish football, by false pretences as they could not provide 3 years of audited accounts, as per spfl rules, but hey ho, it's Rangers ( newco) - Nae probs
(05-11-2015, 11:41)supercooper Wrote: The debt was 27 million Fred How much was Hearts?
Hearts debt approx 25 million poop. Disnae compare with oldco, in view of the big tax case, so ultimately now about. £ 70 odd million for you chaps. Difference is hearts went into admin( not liquidation) and survived. Truth be told, yer club is still in liquidation but hey ho, life goes on in the Sevco dream world
HHGH
Posts: 1,794
Threads: 21
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
0
So we died but survived to fulfill your bitter needs, what is it plastic Lanarkshire man.
Posts: 2,774
Threads: 12
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
1
Your no rangers anymore,now you may contest that but one thing that can't be contested is the biggest percentage of you are scumbags,
Posts: 8,018
Threads: 55
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
3
(07-11-2015, 03:22)Larry-AV Wrote: Having ploughed through the Court of Session Judgement, its key points are :
1} The payments from Rangers (and other respondents) to the Principal Trust constituted redirection of emoluments, i.e., payment for services rendered by the employee to their employer through their work.
2} Being emoluments, they are subject to Income Tax, prior to their transfer to the Principal Trust. That means the employers (including Rangers) should have paid income tax prior to the transfer of funds.
3} Any transfer of monies between the Principal Trust and the Sub-Trusts would be subject to taxation too, but that would be under the taxation applicable to Trusts and not the taxation applicable to income.
This is the latest judgement in this saga; whether BDO appeals against it remains to be seen.
They have until early december to appeal the decision i read.
|