History Retained.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
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.
BEELIN' AGAIN <laugh> <laugh>

Only ******s care so much about something so trivial <laugh>

True story...

cmon chapper - read the friggin thread will you - thats what my comment was originally about!

dear oh dear


I know, it just dawned on me that they had achieved very little since the 60's, would that be rangers/Murray/ebt's to blame? Would certainly go to explain the bitterness around here and the desperation to see rangers out of the picture and a few titles passed over.
I can't be bothered explaining it, let's just agree that you are a bit thick.

Yeah that's it, question someone elses intelligence in a bid to deflect from the point in hand
 
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.
 
Chapper, I'm not questioning your intelligence, I'm saying you are thick.
... or dodging the point
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.

Where have I said that? You're a fud

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.

Haha, away and lick Harry's arse, you baggy anus'd clown
 
This was your statement;

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)

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;

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?

You responded
Every single report and even comments from HMRC have stated 2001-2010, not 2001 to present day.

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.

So what?

Please answer the question.

You then responded with this;
So what? So I'd be slightly more inclined to believe HMRC or even the press before some bitter helmet on a "fans" forum.


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.

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?

This is extremely clear.

In response to that you posted the following
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.

So despite having me very graciously explaining the point to you, you still go with the answer that the tax authorities are not questioning it&#8230;..So obviously you believe that the tax authorities are responsible for removing titles and therefore you are quite clearly monumentally stupid.

If you don&#8217;t believe that, then perhaps you could do me the courtesy of answering the initial question. If not, we can stick to name calling.
 
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 it…..So obviously you believe that the tax authorities are responsible for removing titles and therefore you are quite clearly monumentally stupid.

If you don’t believe that, then perhaps you could do me the courtesy of answering the initial question. If not, we can stick to name calling.

**** me this one is obsessed. What's your problem?

What part of "the tax authorities are investigating from 2001-2010 therefor that suggests they only have evidence or suspect they were doing wrong from these dates.

At no point did I say or even imply the tax authorities had any say or influence on "title stripping" which by the way, won't happen!

Now move on you petty little helmet and be a wee rebel elsewhere.
 
****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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

How exactly have I changed my tune?

I used reasonable to assume because it is reasonable to assume. Don't you agree?

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.

Correct, the trophies won in the 1920's will stay at Ibrox. The trophies awarded in this millennium shall not<ok>
 
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<ok>

We'll see...
 
Yes, we will.

Trophies awarded after cheating should of course be stripped. Don't you agree?

I don't think they should be stripped no.

If they are found guilty of tax dodging, that punishment doesn't fit the crime. Had they been match fixing like marseille or whatever juventus were upto then yes, that's as bad as you can go.

And I don't care what anyone of you say, if it were the other way round you would not accept that.