Robbed of Four in a Row

[Danny 0]

'Robbed'. It is a slightly tabloid word, and maybe even over-emotional, but I cannot shake off the feeling that Rangers have been nigh-on cheated out of our fourth league title in a row. Even if we do not wish to descend to 'lower levels' by saying 'cheated', circumstances this past season certainly have not been fair and it has been an extremely uneven playing field which ultimately effectively gifted Celtic the league.

 

Ibrox Noise: Robbed of Four in a Row.

 

For all the jubilation at gubbing them and stopping them winning the league at Ibrox, there lies a horrible feeling of unfairness. Comments and feedback as always, appreciated.

[craig 5,199]

Administration was Feb 14th Danny....

 

EBT's are schemes to AVOID tax, not evade.

[craig 5,199]

Good read Danny. I whole-heartedly agree, our season went spiralling out of control the moment that Naismith got injured at Pittodrie.

[Danny 0]

Administration was Feb 14th Danny....

 

EBT's are schemes to AVOID tax, not evade.

 

What is the difference between avoid and evade!?

 

As for the date, didn't we apply for admin on Val's day then actually go into it the day after?

[calscot 0]

What is the difference between avoid and evade!?

 

As for the date, didn't we apply for admin on Val's day then actually go into it the day after?

 

When it comes to tax, one is legal and the other is not. Pretty black and white.

 

For example, an ISA is tax avoidance, getting paid cash in hand and putting in a tax return saying you earned half the amount is tax evasion.

 

Here's an even simper version of tax avoidance: You don't like paying VAT but you want to give your co-workers a treat on your birthday - so instead of biscuits, you buy cakes... You've just avoided 20% tax.

 

Tax evasion: you sell someone some biscuits but on your tax return you put cakes and so pocket the VAT.

 

However, it does get a lot more complicated and when done aggressively it starts getting to the stage whether the veracity of the motives behind the scheme can be tested.

 

In the case of Rangers they used a loophole where money could be placed in an offshore account administered by trustees. If they give discretionary amounts to people without anything in return without obligation, the payments are not liable for tax.

 

The question is whether in Rangers case the amounts were obligated, discretionary and whether anything was received in return - eg playing for a team in professional football matches.

[rbr 1,278]

What is the difference between avoid and evade!?

As for the date, didn't we apply for admin on Val's day then actually go into it the day after?

 

About 6 years in jail

[Danny 0]

Just checked my dates, Craig you're right. Dunno why I thought it was 14th then the 15th.

 

And cheers chaps on the distinction between avoidance and evasion. I literally thought it was the same thing.

[caseyjones 0]

I'm sorry, but that whole article is nonsense if it is to be approached from the premise that we were cheated. The Naismith injury wasn't anything to do with us being cheated, neither was McGregor chucking one into his own net.

 

The luck that we carried in many of those early league games deserted us, once again highlighting McCoist's limited ability as a manager. This resulted in the huge points turnaround with Celtic, one which was made all the worse with the ten point reduction we received for going into administration. Even then the team compounded it by surrendering in three straight home games, putting us out of yet another cup competition and ending any remote chance of keeping pressure on Celtic going into the final stages of the league.

 

As great as Sunday's result was, it was for pride only, and no matter how many times the league is described as tainted, the table will still show that they are crowned champions, and if we are really honest, they have been the better side.

[Frankie 8,892]

I think they have been the better side as our run before administration was dreadful. Add in our non-league performance this season, then our form has been desperate at times.

 

Generally speaking we've not been cheated out of anything but the loss of Naismith and administration have been crucial factors.

 

On the other hand, Celtic have been no better than average themselves. After they came back from 0-3 down at HT against Killie (we drew the same day at home to St Mirren), one could sense a slight turn in morale. To their credit Celtic then went on a very good run and with our own capitulation, would be clear enough even if we hadn't had our financial problems.

[Danny 0]

I'm sorry, but that whole article is nonsense if it is to be approached from the premise that we were cheated.

 

No, the implication about unfairness was later in the piece if you read the whole thing. I used the word 'cheated' because in a roundabout way it feels similar.

 

The Naismith injury wasn't anything to do with us being cheated, neither was McGregor chucking one into his own net.

 

I agree.

 

The luck that we carried in many of those early league games deserted us, once again highlighting McCoist's limited ability as a manager. This resulted in the huge points turnaround with Celtic, one which was made all the worse with the ten point reduction we received for going into administration. Even then the team compounded it by surrendering in three straight home games, putting us out of yet another cup competition and ending any remote chance of keeping pressure on Celtic going into the final stages of the league.

 

LUCK!? Luck doesn't have you going till October 29th without conceding away goals. It doesn't have you thrashing your old rivals at home. We were quite simply good. Yes, we were good.

 

As great as Sunday's result was, it was for pride only, and no matter how many times the league is described as tainted, the table will still show that they are crowned champions, and if we are really honest, they have been the better side.

 

Can't agree. I consider this opinion nonsense.