RANGERRAB 3,509 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Celtic fan Rodger Mitchell (remember him) talking sense at the moment. LOL you've got be having a laugh? Wee Roger the music man? The man who tried to take on SKY TV to get a better deal & We ended up with a BBC one about a quarter of the value of the SKY one? :laugh: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,829 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 LOL you've got be having a laugh? Wee Roger the music man? The man who tried to take on SKY TV to get a better deal & We ended up with a BBC one about a quarter of the value of the SKY one? :laugh: That's the guy. Said it was time to move on, leave Rangers with titles etc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,509 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 That's the guy. Said it was time to move on, leave Rangers with titles etc. Did he say that? Last time he crawled out of hibernation he seemed to be calling Rangers a new club IIRC. At least if he says we should keep titles he seems to accept we're the same club now. Wonder if he still looks like a plump version of Harry Potter? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,614 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Rangers: Former SPL chief Roger Mitchell rejects title-stripping talk A former Scottish Premier League chief executive has described the fallout from last week's court ruling on oldco Rangers' tax affairs as nothing more than "fans' bragging rights". The Court of Session decision that the company running Rangers from 2001-10 had broken tax rules has ignited debate about stripping Rangers of five titles. "I'm a Celtic guy. I don't care whether they strip them from Rangers or not," Roger Mitchell told BBC Radio Scotland. "It is much ado about nothing." Mitchell left the SPL in 2002, four years after helping to launch the organisation, when Celtic and Rangers blocked his plans for a subscription-based SPL TV channel. ... Mitchell, speaking on Sportsound on Tuesday, called EBTs a "mechanism of financial doping" but added: "What we're talking about here is fans' bragging rights. "Scottish football should draw a line under this. We have had three times to go for this EBT. If I were in Rangers' corner I'd say 'it's 2-1 for me' and the fourth one, I don't know which way it's going to go. "Many clubs over the years have spent more than they should have to win success - Rangers, Hearts, John Boyle's Motherwell. "So where do you draw the line where somebody is using financial doping to get titles and under what circumstances should you remove them? "If they go into administration should you remove the previous five years? Maybe. Uefa has brought in Financial Fair Play to try to deal with that. "It is much ado about nothing. That is my opinion on this sad saga." 'A 120-year battle' Mitchell said his preference was to see effort being spent instead on improving the state of the game in Scotland and offered a colourful analogy for what had occurred at the Ibrox club in relation to its rivalry with Celtic. "My view of what happened is it was a 120-year battle between two titans and in 2010 one was on the battlefield dead," he told listeners. "I believe they're the same club. I'm not into this newco/oldco stuff. "They were dead but they came back. It's like France and Germany have had wars over a thousand years - they come back. It doesn't mean that they are not the same army or the same nation. "Rangers is the same soul as it was before, the fans are the same soul. As a Celtic fan, I take my bragging rights from the fact that in 2010 they were dead, lying in the battlefield, but they are back. "Next we'll start again and it will be just as interesting. "If I was still there I'd say, 'It's ending now'. It's not moving on the game." http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34782949 Not that the baying hordes will listen, but we should keep in mind that legally, the baying hordes have no say whatsoever. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,255 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Does anyone have the lns report which stated the number of side letters that were issued ,I'm sure it wasn't that many and more were issued to non playing staff than playing 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman 9 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 BBC Radio Scotland will have someone else on next saying the exact opposite, it's how it works. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,614 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) Does anyone have the lns report which stated the number of side letters that were issued ,I'm sure it wasn't that many and more were issued to non playing staff than playing I was looking at the side-letter people list and found one in the DR, which essentially listed nigh all players. How they would know is anyone's guess. The report can be found here (haven't read it now) https://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/commission-decision-28-02-2013.pdf EDIT: On 31 May 2012 Biggart Baillie disclosed a number of redacted side-letters and other letters ancillary to side-letters. A total of 50 redacted letters were disclosed, 40 of which were side-letters (one being a duplicate), six were ancillary to side-letters and four related to contractual payments to Specified Players which had previously been disclosed to the SPL. Page 29 Edited November 10, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,666 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 On EBTs and Rangers – Part 3 A lot of people are interested in the decision of the Court of Session in Advocate General of Scotland v Murray Group Holdings and others. A lot of people. On the 8th of April, at the height of the 2015 General Election campaign, Ed Balls appeared on the Today programme on Radio 4 to launch Labour’s proposal to ‘abolish’ (as he put it) the non-dom rule. The real question was whether that measure would cost money or raise money. He cited a post on this blog in which I argued that such a measure might well raise £1bn. It was the only evidence he had. I spent the whole day in media studios talking about that £1bn figure. As I write, that post on the key question around one of the highest profile policies announced in the General Election campaign, a post which has been ‘up’ for over seven months, has been read 6,911 times. And a post about a tax decision of the Court of Session ‘On EBT and Rangers FC – Pt 1‘ has been read 14,246 times. And it’s been up for six days. Why is that? *** Clearly, what is perceived to be at stake is the reputation of the club. Did it “cheat”, as Alex Thompson and others have argued? Did the club’s directors, by trying to reduce its tax bill, imperil its claim to past titles? Did the club do anything ‘wrong’? I could offer some answers to those questions. But my views would be ill-informed: I have not followed the story. To offer them would be crass: I know nothing of Glasgow or its football culture. And my expertise is as a tax lawyer: I’m not a moral philosopher. But what strikes me is this. You won’t find the answers to those questions in the decision of the Court of the Session. You won’t find them in whether the liquidators decide to appeal that decision. Nor in a decision of the Supreme Court. Not one that overturns the decision of the Court of Session; and not one that upholds it. You find the moral quality of an action only in its actors. At what they did at the time and why they did it. The man or woman who drafted the tax code knows nothing of morality. The administrator of BDO cares nothing for football titles. The judges in the Supreme Court seek only to apply the law. And whatever the directors of Rangers FC lost for its fans, and for Scottish football, when they embarked on an attempt to avoid tax won’t be regained by a legal decision that they succeeded in that attempt. And nor will it be lost afresh by a decision that they failed. Put shortly, the conduct of Rangers’ directors won’t be bad if the liquidators decide not to appeal. And good if the Supreme Court overturns the decision of the Court of Session. It is what is, either way. *** I have campaigned against tax avoidance at some professional cost to myself: you can read about that here. And I have taken steps to expose the dishonesty of a small number of my colleagues at the tax bar. You can read about that here. But I have also recognised that a climate in which tax avoidance goes unchecked – and the use of EBTs was then commonplace – can encourage avoidance amongst those who would not otherwise contemplate it. And that there are circumstances in which even the best informed can find it impossible to ascertain the likely attitude of HMRC to a transaction they are contemplating. You’ll all have your views on which side of the moral line the conduct of the directors of Rangers falls. It’s not for me to try and change your minds. Enough for me to identify the right question. Which has got nothing to do with tax law. Note: I discussed, on Sportsound, last night many of the issues raised by this post. You can listen to the podcast, for a period of time, here. http://waitingfortax.com/2015/11/11/on-ebts-and-rangers-part-3/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,666 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p037q48q 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,614 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Not exactly sure what he says here, if he says anything definite at all. 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.