amms 0 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 You'd imagine being involved with the shambles on Edmiston Drive would cause them more problems, professionally and economically, than remaining in situ. Only love for the club would lead any professional to touch us with a bargepole atm. Or perhaps the question to ask is why the administrators feel the need to hold an expensive PR company to a contract they could have broken without much comeback when Rangers went into administration. Why they want to brief journalists in any way other than 'on-the'record' is also strange. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Celtic confirmed that it established one EBT scheme in April 2005, which BBC Scotland understands was for the benefit of the Brazilian midfielder Juninho Paulista. The scheme was worth £765,000 but the club did not declare the trust payment to the Scottish Football Association or the Scottish Premier League. The payments made to the trust were declared in Celtic's annual report for 2004/2005, but in 2008 the club became aware of an event giving rise to a potential tax liability which was subsequently paid after agreement with HMRC. Interesting comment there! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18169502 Since Celtic paid the tax voluntarily, that seems to suggest they are admitting knowingly having a double contract and should receive a retrospective 3-0 defeat for every game he played - no? In contrast, Rangers had EBTs which they believed were not contracts and so didn't require tax. BTW It seems to me that if Rangers call in all the loans we're off the hook. We could just ask all the recipients for repayment at a rate of £1 per week until it is paid off. That makes them loans and not contracts. A bunch of emails sent now would supersede any current evidence would it not? They could "clarify" that the loans definitely need to be repaid. If that's all the evidence they have, that is surely all we need to do to counter it. Anyway I can't see how we can trust the BBC's claims that they have evidence. In their previous programme they claimed they had evidence that Ticketus owned season tickets for FOUR years. Now they've published evidence that it was THREE years. What happened to their previous evidence? They obviously just wing it and then publish when they actually get something concrete. So if they are not publishing, they have previous for talking shit. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 One of the things I noticed in the program when referring to some "evidence".....they said that they had "SEEN documents" to support their claims. This implies that they are not actually in possession of said documents and would there for be unable to readily provided the hard evidence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 One of the things I noticed in the program when referring to some "evidence".....they said that they had "SEEN documents" to support their claims. This implies that they are not actually in possession of said documents and would there for be unable to readily provided the hard evidence. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18175731 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18175731 Think it was more to do with the EBT's where they claimed that they had seen evidence rather than be in possession of it.... The emails linked to are only connected to the Ticketus stuff.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Think it was more to do with the EBT's where they claimed that they had seen evidence rather than be in possession of it.... The emails linked to are only connected to the Ticketus stuff.... I will be honest what they have and don't have on ebts doesn't matter. the courts and spl will decide our fate on that. believe the BBC or not its up to the individual. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbernauldGers 0 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Right guys, never seen the show and too lazy to read through pages of this. Can anybody give me a brief review of the show and what was confirned if anything thats bad and new that we did not know about? Cheers in advance. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I will be honest what they have and don't have on ebts doesn't matter. the courts and spl will decide our fate on that. believe the BBC or not its up to the individual. The problem is that they are presenting speculation as fact, without providing substantial evidence to back up their claims. There are many, many people out there who simply believe what is put in front of them. There are many many folk out there who will have watched the program last night and believe every word, and will happily pass on that info, and form their own opinions. Eventually, something that may be nothing more that guesswork is deemed by the masses to be fact. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 The problem is that they are presenting speculation as fact, without providing substantial evidence to back up their claims. There are many, many people out there who simply believe what is put in front of them. There are many many folk out there who will have watched the program last night and believe every word, and will happily pass on that info, and form their own opinions. Eventually, something that may be nothing more that guesswork is deemed by the masses to be fact. seems unlikely to.me that they guessed all of that. but its possible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 seems unlikely to.me that they guessed all of that. but its possible. Not necisarily stating that last nights info was all guess work....the ticketus section at lease showed some evidence. A lot of the rest was based on documentation that the BBC had seen. Again, these documents my be 100% valid, but without showing the hard evidence, the rest is then nothing more than speculation. What has just occurred to me is that the start of the Documentary was all about Ticketus - for which they displayed documentary proof to support their line of inquiry. However, there was very little in the way of hard evidence for the latter half of the program. Could this have been constructed in such a way to build the viewers confidence in what Daly was saying - because evidence was shown for somethings, the viewers assume that there is similar evidence for the rest without actually seing it!!! 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.