sounds as if the conference chairman wants this to happen. Another 'Massive' team. calling everyone tin-pot, mocking Tamworth’s away attendance and just being a right nuisance in general. Great.
And no one likes them enough to help them through their self inflicted problems. Numpties.
Spot on.
However - is there anything to stop Rangers (apart from FA and Leagues approval) continuing to play in the Scottish Leagues, yet at the same time putting a 'seed' team at the lower levels of English senior football?
As the seasons pass, their investment in their English League team grows and presumably becomes successful working it's way through the English non-Leagues until it is finally promoted to Football League status.
It could even be called AFC Rangers and because it would be a member of the English FA, could develop in the same way as AFC Wimbledon, for example.
No doubt it would need to be a 10 year project - but it could prove a legitimate way for Rangers to actually earn a place in English professional football.
Or they could just buy Stockport County - and be done with it!
They are desperate aren't they. And no one likes them enough to help them through their self inflicted problems. Numpties.
You mean like being pursued relentlessly by HMRC who in fact turned out to be wrong ?
What I want to know is, if the payments made to players were in fact loans, as was decided in the First Tier Tax Tribunal, when Rangers got into financial difficulties, why were these loans not asked to be repaid? I'm sure an extra £48m would have come in jolly handy!
Also, HMRC are appealling the judgement aren't they?
They are desperate aren't they. And no one likes them enough to help them through their self inflicted problems. Numpties.
You mean like being pursued relentlessly by HMRC who in fact turned out to be wrong ?
What I want to know is, if the payments made to players were in fact loans, as was decided in the First Tier Tax Tribunal, when Rangers got into financial difficulties, why were these loans not asked to be repaid? I'm sure an extra £48m would have come in jolly handy!
Also, HMRC are appealling the judgement aren't they?
Peter Sutcliffe is also appealing his judgement too.
I have no understandings of the nuances of the tax system, I infer that you dont either. However the judges (are they judges at a tax tribunal?) do, and they found that Rangers had done no wrong.
They are desperate aren't they. And no one likes them enough to help them through their self inflicted problems. Numpties.
You mean like being pursued relentlessly by HMRC who in fact turned out to be wrong ?
What I want to know is, if the payments made to players were in fact loans, as was decided in the First Tier Tax Tribunal, when Rangers got into financial difficulties, why were these loans not asked to be repaid? I'm sure an extra £48m would have come in jolly handy!
Also, HMRC are appealling the judgement aren't they?
Peter Sutcliffe is also appealing his judgement too.
I have no understandings of the nuances of the tax system, I infer that you dont either. However the judges (are they judges at a tax tribunal?) do, and they found that Rangers had done no wrong.
I'm certainly no tax expert but I did read up on this at the time and the reports did all say that the loans were repayable but that no repayments were made. Indeed, the fact that they were classed as loans was the whole crux of the case.
It's also worth noting that the tribunal was not unanimous.
In its ruling - which was endorsed by two judges, with one dissenting - the FTT said the lengthy appeal had been heard over 29 days.
"At a late stage in its deliberations it became clear that the tribunal would be unable to issue a unanimous decision. It is conscious of and regrets the consequent delay," it said.
"The majority view reflects the argument that the controversial monies received by the employees were not paid to them as their absolute entitlement.
"The legal effect of the trust/loan structure is sufficient to preclude this. Thus the payments are loans, not earnings, and so are recoverable from the employee or his estate."
The dissenting opinion came from Dr Heidi Poon, who concluded that the money received by the employees through the trust constituted earnings for income tax purposes.
They are desperate aren't they. And no one likes them enough to help them through their self inflicted problems. Numpties.
You mean like being pursued relentlessly by HMRC who in fact turned out to be wrong ?
What I want to know is, if the payments made to players were in fact loans, as was decided in the First Tier Tax Tribunal, when Rangers got into financial difficulties, why were these loans not asked to be repaid? I'm sure an extra £48m would have come in jolly handy!
Also, HMRC are appealling the judgement aren't they?
Peter Sutcliffe is also appealing his judgement too.
I have no understandings of the nuances of the tax system, I infer that you dont either. However the judges (are they judges at a tax tribunal?) do, and they found that Rangers had done no wrong.
I'm certainly no tax expert but I did read up on this at the time and the reports did all say that the loans were repayable but that no repayments were made. Indeed, the fact that they were classed as loans was the whole crux of the case.
It's also worth noting that the tribunal was not unanimous. Thus the payments are loans, not earnings, and so are recoverable from the employee or his estate."
A majority verdict recorded Rangers still means Rangers won. Charlton beating Blackburn 2-1 is still a Charlton win !
I don't know why the loans weren't repaid, I think there's s lot more to it than them being simple loans that you or I would take out with our bank - again if they were I'm sure the tribunal wouldn't have found in Rangers favour, and surely Rangers administraitor would have serious questions to answer if they didn't collect millions of pounds owed to a company for which they were administraitors.
I'm not entirely sure why you are attempting to argue with me over whether Rangers won or not. Where did I say they didn't? Where did I say they have done anything wrong (legally)?
I'm not entirely sure why you are attempting to argue with me over whether Rangers won or not. Where did I say they didn't? Where did I say they have done anything wrong (legally)?
This isn't an argument.
You distinguished them winning by saying it wasn't a unanimous verdict, which of course is correct, I just wanted to clarify that either way Rangers were proven innocent (if that's the correct term).
You also questioned why the loans weren't repaid, which I also responded to. That's genuinely how debates work.
Debates generally respond to the points raised rather than going off on tangents. I asked why the loans weren't repaid. You responded that Rangers had done no wrong. Plus your posts were pretty condescending in tone.
Debates generally respond to the points raised rather than going off on tangents. I asked why the loans weren't repaid. You responded that Rangers had done no wrong. Plus your posts were pretty condescending in tone.
I apologise if I came across as condescending, it wasn't my intention and as I said I don't understand the ins and outs of tax law either.
And I thought I had answered your question re the status of the loans, simply that you are assuming that they can be repaid in the same way a regular bank loan could. I think if that were the case the court would have questioned why Rangers administraitors hadn't pursued these outstanding sums for the benefit of Ramgers creditors.
Either way Rangers won their tax case and as stated above I'd imagine that Charles Green is using this latest statement as a bargaining position with the SFA/SPL as they can now see how badly top flight football in Scotlsnd needs Rangers.
I'm not comparing Rangers to a normal 4th tier team, no point in that. I'm simply questioning the fact that because they're pissing the Scots division 3, people think they'd stroll the conference. I don't think it'd be as much of a stroll as some would think and would argue that a decent conference side would probably be a match for a Scottish division one team. The two best sides that Rangers played this season, both beat them.
I think they've easily got enough in the tank. Comparing how teams do in a league with a massive points cushion isn't really a guide for how they'd do in another. The reason Rangers will never do this is actually the Championship. Ploughing through the English leagues will doubltessly be more challenging than the Scots equivalents, but it's do-able with the resource advantage that they have. Until you get to the CCC and you're suddenly up against EPL parachute money and a host of clubs that can operate at a similar or higher level. At that point you have a support used to endless success suddenly sitting in tier 2, maybe struggling a bit.
That said, if Green is playing the long game he might see Rangers as a Man City that he can flog for a profit if they get to close to the promised land of the Premiership.
It would be wrong in my opinion if, say, Dover Welling are deprived of their rightful place in the Conference come the end of the season to accommodate a bunch of Jocks who don't like the league they're in.
corrected for you Len ;-)
I'll take that correction Stoney. I don't know why I didn't think of Welling myself.
Probably because Chris Kinnear has just joined Dover as manager from Margate, the non-league team I support.
Welling have been stuck in that league for too long. This year they have a really good chance of winning promotion to the conference so why should Rangers be allowed to jump the queue? I wouldn't even be happy with them joining the Isthmian league as they would probably interfere with my current non league team Lowestoft Town's promotion push.
I'm thinking about the cost of teams travelling to Scotland for Rangers' home games ....and of course the die hard fans.
Thats a good point.
I was thinking that if ( and that's a big if) Rangers were to join the English non league, joining at a level similar to Wimbledon would seem fair. Taking into account Fanny's point, you could not expect southern clubs non league clubs to have the budget to travel up to Scotland for a league game (although that would likely be entertaining) so may be Rangers would have to join the Northern equivalent of the league Wimbledon joined, so that the travelling is reduced.
This makes Guernsey the first team from the Channel Islands to compete in mainland British football, and the club will be funding the cost of both its own and other teams' travel to and from the island.[7]
Comments
Another 'Massive' team. calling everyone tin-pot, mocking Tamworth’s away attendance and just being a right nuisance in general. Great.
However - is there anything to stop Rangers (apart from FA and Leagues approval) continuing to play in the Scottish Leagues, yet at the same time putting a 'seed' team at the lower levels of English senior football?
As the seasons pass, their investment in their English League team grows and presumably becomes successful working it's way through the English non-Leagues until it is finally promoted to Football League status.
It could even be called AFC Rangers and because it would be a member of the English FA, could develop in the same way as AFC Wimbledon, for example.
No doubt it would need to be a 10 year project - but it could prove a legitimate way for Rangers to actually earn a place in English professional football.
Or they could just buy Stockport County - and be done with it!
Also, HMRC are appealling the judgement aren't they?
I have no understandings of the nuances of the tax system, I infer that you dont either. However the judges (are they judges at a tax tribunal?) do, and they found that Rangers had done no wrong.
It's also worth noting that the tribunal was not unanimous.
I don't know why the loans weren't repaid, I think there's s lot more to it than them being simple loans that you or I would take out with our bank - again if they were I'm sure the tribunal wouldn't have found in Rangers favour, and surely Rangers administraitor would have serious questions to answer if they didn't collect millions of pounds owed to a company for which they were administraitors.
You distinguished them winning by saying it wasn't a unanimous verdict, which of course is correct, I just wanted to clarify that either way Rangers were proven innocent (if that's the correct term).
You also questioned why the loans weren't repaid, which I also responded to. That's genuinely how debates work.
And I thought I had answered your question re the status of the loans, simply that you are assuming that they can be repaid in the same way a regular bank loan could. I think if that were the case the court would have questioned why Rangers administraitors hadn't pursued these outstanding sums for the benefit of Ramgers creditors.
Either way Rangers won their tax case and as stated above I'd imagine that Charles Green is using this latest statement as a bargaining position with the SFA/SPL as they can now see how badly top flight football in Scotlsnd needs Rangers.
Glad to be of assistance.
That said, if Green is playing the long game he might see Rangers as a Man City that he can flog for a profit if they get to close to the promised land of the Premiership.
I was thinking that if ( and that's a big if) Rangers were to join the English non league, joining at a level similar to Wimbledon would seem fair. Taking into account Fanny's point, you could not expect southern clubs non league clubs to have the budget to travel up to Scotland for a league game (although that would likely be entertaining) so may be Rangers would have to join the Northern equivalent of the league Wimbledon joined, so that the travelling is reduced.
This makes Guernsey the first team from the Channel Islands to compete in mainland British football, and the club will be funding the cost of both its own and other teams' travel to and from the island.[7]