Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

**Glesgahibby** · 05-11-2015 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Isn't Rangers' and SDM's defence on this quite simply that at the time they thought they were using a legal loophole for avoiding tax which has subsequntly been proven to not be legit?

The only cloud over that would be the use of side letters to players not disclosed to authorities which would suggest they knew they had something to hide.

Either way Rangers fans should know that SDM is more culpable for their demise than whyte.

Side letters stated money given was a loan.
This was a safety net,in case of prying eyes.
It would appear the weight of those prying eyes has ripped the net apart.
There is now no questioning the facts!
Players earnings registered with the SFA differed from there real earnings!!!
Its worth saying that again.
"PLAYERS EARNINGS REGISTERED WITH THE SFA DIFFERED FROM THERE REAL EARNINGS"

**Ozyhibby** · 05-11-2015 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Glesgahibby

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Side letters stated money given was a loan.
This was a safety net,in case of prying eyes.
It would appear the weight of those prying eyes has ripped the net apart.
There is now no questioning the facts!
Players earnings registered with the SFA differed from there real earnings!!!
Its worth saying that again.
"PLAYERS EARNINGS REGISTERED WITH THE SFA DIFFERED FROM THERE REAL EARNINGS"

That last part is crucial.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**AndyM_1875** · 05-11-2015 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Kato

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I couldn't see the post as it's too lofty up there on it's moral high-ground.

Indeed and when coupled with Hearts blogger Matt Leslie regularly churning out Mental Phil inspired puff pieces venting his moral outrage at Rangers whilst his own club left a trail of burned creditors including the taxman the hypocrisy was all just simply too much for me.

**Glesgahibby** · 05-11-2015 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They couldn't sue OldCo. It's in liquidation. They couldn't even lodge a claim now.

Suing the SFA could have major financial repercussions for the game in general.

Exactly why the SFA have to act.
The can of worms has been opened and the SFA has to protect itself.
They could argue "they were duped"but would still have to be seen as taking some sort of action against the guilty party.

***Brunswickbill*** · 05-11-2015 03:14 PM

When does a "tax avoidance scheme" become tax evasion. Tax evasion is a criminal offence. It seems here that the EBT scheme was evading tax but nobody gets prosecuted because it seems that people didn't know it was illegal. In all other areas, ignorance of the law is no defence. Doesn't seem to apply in financial matters. the people who set up and carried the EBT scheme through are still about and no doubt benefitting from their ill gotten gains.

***CropleyWasGod*** · 05-11-2015 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When does a "tax avoidance scheme" become tax evasion. Tax evasion is a criminal offence. It seems here that the EBT scheme was evading tax but nobody gets prosecuted because it seems that people didn't know it was illegal. In all other areas, ignorance of the law is no defence. Doesn't seem to apply in financial matters. the people who set up and carried the EBT scheme through are still about and no doubt benefitting from their ill gotten gains.

A few points:-

1. in common parlance, avoidance becomes evasion when the line of criminality is crossed.

2. even although there is underpayment of tax, but no criminality, there are still hefty financial penalties on the perps. So there is no "scot-free".

3. as to whether such a scam is criminal, the normal test is whether the perps set out to defraud HMRC. That is very difficult to prove.

4. people (not just you) are talking about "ignorance of the law". The fact is, there was no law against EBT's at the time RFC operated them. They were a means by which many companies reduced their tax liability, a means that has since been closed-off. However, at that time, they were legal. It is only relatively recently that HMRC has challenged the way in which they were operated in certain circumstances, on the grounds that they undermined existing laws.

I would therefore contend, m'lud, that it wasn't necessarily ignorance. It was lack of foresight that HMRC might not like the scheme. That's not a crime IMO.

5. as for the people "benefitting from their ill-gotten gains".....that will be the players. Not sure that anyone else actually benefited. The club went bust, SDM got a £1 for all his "efforts", but it is the players that have "gotten away with it".

***CropleyWasGod*** · 05-11-2015 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Glesgahibby

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Exactly why the SFA have to act.
The can of worms has been opened and the SFA has to protect itself.
They could argue "they were duped"but would still have to be seen as taking some sort of action against the guilty party.

But who can they act against?

The guilty party, as you put it, is no more. The major players have departed the scene. Suing the current owners would get nowhere. Other than a Livi-type action against the current company, there's not a lot they can do.

**Glesgahibby** · 05-11-2015 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But who can they act against?

The guilty party, as you put it, is no more. The major players have departed the scene. Suing the current owners would get nowhere. Other than a Livi-type action against the current company, there's not a lot they can do.

Sorry mate,I'll make my point clearer.
If the SFA lawyers find that the SFA could be liable then they would need to act.
taking action against oldco would pass the buck and so end the issue of liability regarding the SFA.
i know the guilty party is no more

but the SFA can still punish them

***CropleyWasGod*** · 05-11-2015 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Glesgahibby

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry mate,I'll make my point clearer.
If the SFA lawyers find that the SFA could be liable then they would need to act.
taking action against oldco would pass the buck and so end the issue of liability regarding the SFA.
i know the guilty party is no more

but the SFA can still punish them

Okay, I get you.

Not sure they can punish OldCo, as they are in liquidation and can't "accept" any more claims, but I understand that that would be the SFA's way of saying "well, we did what we could".

***Brunswickbill*** · 05-11-2015 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A few points:-

1. in common parlance, avoidance becomes evasion when the line of criminality is crossed.

2. even although there is underpayment of tax, but no criminality, there are still hefty financial penalties on the perps. So there is no "scot-free".

3. as to whether such a scam is criminal, the normal test is whether the perps set out to defraud HMRC. That is very difficult to prove.

4. people (not just you) are talking about "ignorance of the law". The fact is, there was no law against EBT's at the time RFC operated them. They were a means by which many companies reduced their tax liability, a means that has since been closed-off. However, at that time, they were legal. It is only relatively recently that HMRC has challenged the way in which they were operated in certain circumstances, on the grounds that they undermined existing laws.

I would therefore contend, m'lud, that it wasn't necessarily ignorance. It was lack of foresight that HMRC might not like the scheme. That's not a crime IMO.

5. as for the people "benefitting from their ill-gotten gains".....that will be the players. Not sure that anyone else actually benefited. The club went bust, SDM got a £1 for all his "efforts", but it is the players that have "gotten away with it".

I think that you are heading for elevation to the bench.

If the EBTs were set up as loans and they have been shown to be a sham, is there not a possibility of having the loans repaid. Presumably this would go to the old co and creditors and HMRC would be compensated

**Glesgahibby** · 05-11-2015 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Okay, I get you.

Not sure they can punish OldCo, as they are in liquidation and can't "accept" any more claims, but I understand that that would be the SFA's way of saying "well, we did what we could".

Forgot to say liability would end once SFA acted.
without racing to far ahead,if they did punish oldco without involving newco with any correspondence,would this be an admittance of a new football club?

***CropleyWasGod*** · 05-11-2015 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think that you are heading for elevation to the bench.

If the EBTs were set up as loans and they have been shown to be a sham, is there not a possibility of having the loans repaid. Presumably this would go to the old co and creditors and HMRC would be compensated

That's the point about the latest judgement, though. The payments are not loans, they're remuneration. So they aren't repayable.

In any event, the so - called loans weren't from the company. They were made from the individual trusts that RFC paid into.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

***CropleyWasGod*** · 05-11-2015 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Glesgahibby

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Forgot to say liability would end once SFA acted.
without racing to far ahead,if they did punish oldco without involving newco with any correspondence,would this be an admittance of a new football club?

I think it would be admittance of the SFA having no balls :)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

***Radium*** · 05-11-2015 04:56 PM

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...rangers-rebus/

***brog*** · 05-11-2015 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A few points:-

4. people (not just you) are talking about "ignorance of the law". The fact is, there was no law against EBT's at the time RFC operated them. They were a means by which many companies reduced their tax liability, a means that has since been closed-off. However, at that time, they were legal. It is only relatively recently that HMRC has challenged the way in which they were operated in certain circumstances, on the grounds that they undermined existing laws.

I would therefore contend, m'lud, that it wasn't necessarily ignorance. It was lack of foresight that HMRC might not like the scheme. That's not a crime IMO.

5. as for the people "benefitting from their ill-gotten gains".....that will be the players. Not sure that anyone else actually benefited. The club went bust, SDM got a £1 for all his "efforts", but it is the players that have "gotten away with it".

You're correct of course Crops that EBT's were legal but IIRC the intent was that the funds placed in an EBT were only intended to be distributed at a later date, eg on retirement. Again IIRC Oldco did not comply with this requirement but rather were distributing funds about as regularly as Yams were paying wages! If a company does not comply with the requirements of a legal scheme does that then make the application illegal? This is more of a generic question as I realise HMRC objected to EBT's partly because the scheme was so vague.

***Spike Mandela*** · 05-11-2015 05:27 PM

This is dynamite http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/is-t...tball-history/

**Treadstone** · 05-11-2015 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Radium

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...rangers-rebus/

His replies to questions at the end of the blog are more entertaining than the blog itself. Many seem to have little basis in reality. He does the exact same thing he accuses the Scottish media of doing.

**Weststandwanab** · 05-11-2015 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Treadstone

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

His replies to questions at the end of the blog are more entertaining than the blog itself. Many seem to have little basis in reality. He does the exact same thing he accuses the Scottish media of doing.

Do you think this is the sort of person that likes the sound of their own voice ?

**ancient hibee** · 05-11-2015 05:53 PM

I may be wrong -not unusual these days-but I haven't seen it commented on anywhere that Rangers are stating that this year and the next they intend to run the business on the basis that expenditure will not be covered by income-not a huge selling point for a rights issue being underwritten.

Think I read somewhere that there are around 5,000 EBT cases in the UK awaiting some sort of resolution which in most cases will be a deal rather than a prosecution.

**Treadstone** · 05-11-2015 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Weststandwanab

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you think this is the sort of person that likes the sound of their own voice ?

I think he moderates anything challenging.

***grunt*** · 05-11-2015 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Weststandwanab

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you think this is the sort of person that likes the sound of their own voice ?

I don't know about that, but his piece on Rangers accounts was highly amusing. Wrong in so very many ways.

**Stax** · 05-11-2015 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is dynamite http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/is-t...tball-history/

Pretty much sums it up as far as I'm concerned. I don't think I've read this guy before / don't know if he has an agenda but hard to disagree with any of his points.

***PatHead*** · 05-11-2015 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A few points:-

1. in common parlance, avoidance becomes evasion when the line of criminality is crossed.

2. even although there is underpayment of tax, but no criminality, there are still hefty financial penalties on the perps. So there is no "scot-free".

3. as to whether such a scam is criminal, the normal test is whether the perps set out to defraud HMRC. That is very difficult to prove.

4. people (not just you) are talking about "ignorance of the law". The fact is, there was no law against EBT's at the time RFC operated them. They were a means by which many companies reduced their tax liability, a means that has since been closed-off. However, at that time, they were legal. It is only relatively recently that HMRC has challenged the way in which they were operated in certain circumstances, on the grounds that they undermined existing laws.

I would therefore contend, m'lud, that it wasn't necessarily ignorance. It was lack of foresight that HMRC might not like the scheme. That's not a crime IMO.

5. as for the people "benefitting from their ill-gotten gains".....that will be the players. Not sure that anyone else actually benefited. The club went bust, SDM got a £1 for all his "efforts", but it is the players that have "gotten away with it".

and David Murray who got £6m +

***grunt*** · 05-11-2015 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Radium

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...rangers-rebus/

This contains a lot of arguments and even phrases from other blogs and websites. This guy is becoming less impressive every day.

***ano hibby*** · 05-11-2015 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is dynamite http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/is-t...tball-history/

Simultaneously an excellent & depressing read

***lord bunberry*** · 05-11-2015 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Jack

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't really care if it's come from a yam, it's a good point in my opinion and I'd love to see any response to it from the SPFL.

There's no way that Rangers will be deducted points for this as the club that committed the fraud is in liquidation. What IMO would be funny would be the SPFL coming out and telling us why Rangers aren't going to receive a points deduction i.e they're not the same club.

***Devonhibs*** · 05-11-2015 07:44 PM

Probably the best article on the whole saga

***CropleyWasGod*** · 05-11-2015 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by lord bunberry

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There's no way that Rangers will be deducted points for this as the club that committed the fraud is in liquidation. What IMO would be funny would be the SPFL coming out and telling us why Rangers aren't going to receive a points deduction i.e they're not the same club.

It's not the club that's in liquidation, remember. It's the company that owned the club.

Whether or not they get a points deduction may depend on the precise details of the 5 way agreement. Maybe one day we'll get to see that :)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

***lord bunberry*** · 05-11-2015 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not the club that's in liquidation, remember. It's the company that owned the club.

Whether or not they get a points deduction may depend on the precise details of the 5 way agreement. Maybe one day we'll get to see that :)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Would that not suggest that they are the same club? If so why did they have to start again in division 3?