forlanssister 3,132 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'd like to see Murray answer questions under oath. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,132 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Bollocks, I misread this - Sky News, not Sky Sports News. I was wondering where the hell it was. You didn't miss much it was hardly Paxmanesque (should be on Sky News during the night anyway). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'd like to see Murray answer questions under oath. If he had an ounce of dignity he would've been in Govan last night for the 5Live show and answering live questions. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,132 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 If he had an ounce of dignity he would've been in Govan last night for the 5Live show and answering live questions. Thought it was a bit bland but quite an impressive cross section of a panel they had, we bit feisty at the end though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Did I hear correctly that Jeff Randall said "as a supporter of the Club?"We need all the friends we can get these days. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,858 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Randall interviews Minty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2h6gqk_Ybw&feature=youtu.be 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,869 Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Did I hear correctly that Jeff Randall said "as a supporter of the Club?"We need all the friends we can get these days. Yes, Jeff is a Rangers fan and a shareholder. Edited March 20, 2012 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,869 Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 A reasonably interesting 10mins actually. OK, the more difficult questions weren't asked but we did get assurances the dual contract allegation is nonsense (if you believe SDM that is). As for the EBT stuff, I don't think much light was shed there. However, with each passing day I'm more inclined to think HMRC will settle rather than pursue us through higher courts. We can only but wait and see. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Och, that seemed just like more of the same. Experts getting dragged before cameras telling us all the potential, possibilities that maybe, or may not happen, but who in fact don't know anymore than anybody else. I think I do agree with though. Rangers are certainly getting the most 'high profile' attention from the media, even though there are other companies in court as fighting the same issue. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The so-called expert was pathetic. Didn't sound like he knew what he was talking about at all. Maybe it was a combination of TV nerves and not wanting to say too much, but you really wanted someone who could get the situation and explain the possible scenarios more clearly to the layman. Ironically, the most compelling and most knowledgeable sounding person in the piece was SDM. Interesting that the actual amount of tax avoided was reported as £9M which makes the demand for £49M look ridiculous. If that is true is just points to HMRC using Rangers as a high profile example to scare companies into paying back taxes that they are most likely not due to pay due to the EBT loophole. The way HMRC are working is just not the kind of governance I want in my country. I want to live somewhere where fairness is paramount rather in some evil empire. Yes, we want companies and individual to pay their fair share of tax, but if there is a loophole, then use the law to close it as quickly as possible. It can't be that hard and once it's done then there is no defence. Instead we let companies use it for ten years, close the hole and then put them out of business with unaffordable retrospective demands with huge interest and fines. I just can't see how that's even slightly moral - even for the most insidious of tax avoiding companies. The crappy thing is that they are going after a company with a loyal following of innocent people and because of the passage of time the original owner who used the scheme is no longer connected. Just what kind of justice are they trying to achieve? It also seems to me that you can't start charging interest and penalties until you've made the actual demand for the money, and even then it should be suspended until its legitimacy is resolved in court. It is a mess, but the mess is of HMRC's making and it stinks to high heaven. People can argue all they like about how that's how it works, but my point is, it shouldn't work that way, it's just not a morally just way of doing it. It's ironic that it seems in Spain that the government, instead of trying to put clubs out of business by demanding tax they don't really owe, they are trying to find a way to reduce the demands of tax that clubs do owe. 0 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.