Very obviously you have misunderstood the question. We were discussing the titles that shall be removed from ex-football club Rangers FC and whether the 2010/11 title should be amongst them.
I asked you whether you agreed that this title should be amongst those that will be removed. I provided you with the reason I thought they should be.
What I did not ask was what the scope of the investigation of the tax authorities was.
I can see how you got confused. These things can be very complicated for some people. Never mind. You can answer now. Can't you?
BEELIN' AGAIN![]()
Only ******s care so much about something so trivial![]()
cmon chapper - read the friggin thread will you - thats what my comment was originally about!
dear oh dear
I can't be bothered explaining it, let's just agree that you are a bit thick.
i have to agree.Chapper, I'm not questioning your intelligence, I'm saying you are thick.
... or dodging the pointChapper, I'm not questioning your intelligence, I'm saying you are thick.
i have to agree.
He seems to be of the belief that the tax authorities are responsible for stripping titles from the former football club Rangers FC.
Chapper's a pyoor fanny.
Always beelin' 'cos his team of duffers is nae more, popping on to not606 to type with his fists and scream at his monitor.
Proper spastic.
I warned you a day or two to get a hold of the facts before you pipe up and you obviously never listened.
The third league win (in the 3iar) wasn't part of the ebt investigation (2001-2010)
Mibbees aye.....Mibbees naw.
You have taken a narrow view here. I would suggest that unless every player who received a payment via an EBT signed a new contract with the club in 2010 then it is reasonable to suggest that Rangers still fielded players who had been subject to dual contracts.
It would be a very weak argument to suggest that those players who received non contractual or dual contractual payments would definitely have been at Rangers if they had not been in receipt of these payments. Consideration should be given to the full length of each players contract. Don't you agree?
Every single report and even comments from HMRC have stated 2001-2010, not 2001 to present day.
So what?
Please answer the question.
So what? So I'd be slightly more inclined to believe HMRC or even the press before some bitter helmet on a "fans" forum.
Very obviously you have misunderstood the question. We were discussing the titles that shall be removed from ex-football club Rangers FC and whether the 2010/11 title should be amongst them.
I asked you whether you agreed that this title should be amongst those that will be removed. I provided you with the reason I thought they should be.
What I did not ask was what the scope of the investigation of the tax authorities was.
I can see how you got confused. These things can be very complicated for some people. Never mind. You can answer now. Can't you?
Can you not process words due to the beel? My answer still stands, if HMRC or the press aren't questioning it then I'll go with that over some internet beeler.
Chapper, I'm not questioning your intelligence, I'm saying you are thick.
i have to agree.
This was your statement;
Quite clearly we are talking about the trophies awarded to the former football club Rangers FC and how those trophies shall be stripped.
I then posted the following;
You responded
Remember, we are talking about footballing sanctions for footballing misdeeds . Yet you either completely ignore the point I was making, or you feel that the tax authorities are responsible for the stripping of titles.
So I asked you what relevance you thought this had.
You then responded with this;
So, we are talking about footballing misdeeds and you have introfuced the tax authorities investigation. So after initially giving you the benefit of the doubt I now recognise you to be a bumbling idiot.
Yet I remained polite and further clarified the point I was making in order to illicit a response.
This is extremely clear.
In response to that you posted the following
So despite having me very graciously explaining the point to you, you still go with the answer that the tax authorities are not questioning itâ¦..So obviously you believe that the tax authorities are responsible for removing titles and therefore you are quite clearly monumentally stupid.
If you donât believe that, then perhaps you could do me the courtesy of answering the initial question. If not, we can stick to name calling.
****ing hell you are thick.
Lets take this slowly
The tax authorities are investigating up until 2010.
Yes or no?
I'll help you out a bit.
"Yes Sir RebelBhoy, The tax authorities are investigating up to 2010."
Why thank you Chapstick.
Ok....so we are talking about the removal of the 2011 title.....when did the 2010/11 season begin.
"August 2010"
and what year is that in?
"2010"
So players could have dual/second contracts in 2010/11 season?
"I didn't think of that because I am an idiot"
I know son.....that is ok. Anyway. Lets assume that Rangers used EBT's incorrectly up until may 2010 and didn't use them after that. I think it is reasonable to suggest that the players who signed for Rangers and used EBT's during the period up to may 2010 would not have been there had they not been in receipt of these dual payments up to this point. Don't you agree?
Now over to you.
You are right. I did mistake you for someone who gave a ****.
Perhaps if Rangers had some fans that did give a **** and not ignorant buffoons like you they wouldn't be dead now.
And BTW, Those titles awarded to you while you were cheating will of course be taken away.
Ahh you've changed your tune but the amount of times you use phrases like "reasonable to assume" etc indicates that your whole argument is hollow.
Yeah your right, it's my fault, I should have urged Craig Whyte to pay the taxes etc. didn't even think if that, ****! How am I going to sleep tonight...
ps. you can claim rangers are dead etc all you want but answer this, where will all the trophies from the 1920's be living? That's rights, the trophy room in Ibrox.

How exactly have I changed my tune?
I used reasonable to assume because it is reasonable to assume. Don't you agree?
Correct, the trophies won in the 1920's will stay at Ibrox. The trophies awarded in this millennium shall not![]()
Yes, we will.
Trophies awarded after cheating should of course be stripped. Don't you agree?