Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[CropleyWasGod]

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

http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/rang...t-king-murray/

An amusing point at the end of this article (may have been discussed somewhere on the thread earlier)

If these EBT payments were loans repayable at some point in the future, if HMRC hit oldco with a tax bill, will the "loans" be called in? Will the recipients still be describing them as repayable loans then??

They're not loans, though. That's the point of the judgement.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[ballengeich]

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

A word of advice would be not to jump the gun as many, including our wee fat chum at Scotzine, have done and assume that this is all final. There may well be a further appeal to a higher court from the Murray Group.

The Murray Group probably can't afford a further appeal. Is it possible that some of the other companies which are potentially affected would put up the money for the legal fees necessary to take the case higher?

I agree with you about not jumping the gun. I think the SPFL group looking at the decision should defer action until everything's final. I hope that they'll eventually be able to overrule the Nimmo-Smith verdict on the grounds of different starting premises, but it musn't be done in haste. Nimmo-Smith's assumption that the EBT scheme was valid was in any case incorrect at the time, as the FTTT had found against Rangers for payments to five players.

[southsider]

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

It's also becoming very common for SE drivers, start a company, pay yourself a token amount and pay the lower rate NI, enroll in the flat rate VAT scheme which is 12% for transport IIRC but charge the normal 20% to your customers and then pay yourself in dividends.

All these points are, INHO, irrelevant as far as the rangers case goes. The bottom line is are the SFA going to uphold "sporting integrity" or not ? The sound of crashing bottles is louder than last night's fireworks.

[Bishop Hibee]

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

In a seething thread about BBC reporter Chris McLaughlin on FF, someone has posted information about a tax avoidance scheme used by the BBC with thousands of it's employees, including many on-screen, big name celebrities. Apparently the individuals are paid as companies, paying tax at 21% instead of at the higher rate. Now, I've no idea if this is accepted common practice and if it's legal, but you can imagine how it's going down with the Hun hordes.

Common practice for contractors in the financial sector too. Nothing illegal about it and I'd imagine many fans of The Rangers use such a device.

[jacomo]

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

Common practice for contractors in the financial sector too. Nothing illegal about it and I'd imagine many fans of The Rangers use such a device.

Old Firm fans are certainly keen users of whataboutery - and this is a prime example.

Silly turnips.

[AndyM_1875]

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

The Murray Group probably can't afford a further appeal. Is it possible that some of the other companies which are potentially affected would put up the money for the legal fees necessary to take the case higher?

I agree with you about not jumping the gun. I think the SPFL group looking at the decision should defer action until everything's final. I hope that they'll eventually be able to overrule the Nimmo-Smith verdict on the grounds of different starting premises, but it musn't be done in haste. Nimmo-Smith's assumption that the EBT scheme was valid was in any case incorrect at the time, as the FTTT had found against Rangers for payments to five players.

Not quite. Nimmo-Smith had a much more specific task than making general decision on the EBTs. His remit was more concerned with whether RFC had breached SPL rules by non disclosure to the League body (they had) and whether any players were ineligible (they were not). LNS considered the EBTs to be payments anyway. I've already read a piece from a London QC who specializes in Tax Law criticizing the decision. This whole thing could drag on for a few more years yet.

Personally I don't think there is either the strength of will (or the finances for a legal battle) from the SFA/SPFL to go re-raking over this again and being totally honest I really don't blame them. So much simplistic garbage is being spouted by the Sellik minded bloggers who are still desperate to thrash more mileage out of this that they are in real danger of getting in way over their heads.

[GordonHFC]

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

Common practice for contractors in the financial sector too. Nothing illegal about it and I'd imagine many fans of The Rangers use such a device.

I used to get my giro in cash.

[Andy Bee]

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

They're not loans, though. That's the point of the judgement.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

If they're now proven not to be loans what's the chances of HMRC chasing the recipients for tax due?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

If they're now proven not to be loans what's the chances of HMRC chasing the recipients for tax due?

Very little, I would have thought.

If an employer is found to have operated PAYE wrongly, it's they who have to stump up, even if the employees have not paid the correct tax.

For example, if you get paid £20k, and your employer deducts no PAYE or NI from that, you are treated as having received £20k Net. That is then grossed-up, and your employer has to pay all the resultant PAYE & NI.

The only exception I can think of is if the employee and the employer were in on it together, ie it was a joint effort to defraud HMRC.

[Ozyhibby]

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

Very little, I would have thought.

If an employer is found to have operated PAYE wrongly, it's they who have to stump up, even if the employees have not paid the correct tax.

For example, if you get paid £20k, and your employer deducts no PAYE or NI from that, you are treated as having received £20k Net. That is then grossed-up, and your employer has to pay all the resultant PAYE & NI.

The only exception I can think of is if the employee and the employer were in on it together, ie it was a joint effort to defraud HMRC.

In this case it appears that both were in it together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onceinawhile]

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

In this case it appears that both were in it together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No it doesn't.

[jacomo]

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

No it doesn't.

Why not?

This is not a case of a young lad being offered cash in hand on a casual contract, and taking it 'no questions asked' because money is tight.

All the players paid through the EBT would have had agents and financial advisors, and were being asked to accept a sizeable part of their contract through a side letter via the Channel Isles?

I thought HMRC does not allow ignorance of the rules as a reasonable excuse for not paying tax?

Seeing as we are now having 'common sense' judgements, is it not common sense that these players were complicit in tax avoidance?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Why not?

This is not a case of a young lad being offered cash in hand on a casual contract, and taking it 'no questions asked' because money is tight.

All the players paid through the EBT would have had agents and financial advisors, and were being asked to accept a sizeable part of their contract through a side letter via the Channel Isles?

I thought HMRC does not allow ignorance of the rules as a reasonable excuse for not paying tax?

Seeing as we are now having 'common sense' judgements, is it not common sense that these players were complicit in tax avoidance?

See my earlier post for the normal HMRC response.

In assessing RFC's liability, they did exactly what I suggested they normally do. They treated the payments as "net", and grossed them up accordingly. That is why the HMRC debt was so big. Having done that, they probably won't go after the recipients for any tax.

If they do go after them, it will be for fraud, which is a different matter.

[greenginger]

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...#axzz3qjL1tZBn


I think this one got lost in all the EBT stuff.

Next board meeting, " Mr King, would you like to take your seat next to Mr Ashley "


I think big Mike wants to be in the room when King gets emptied from Rangers Retail, I don't think King will attend, may be otherwise indisposed.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...#axzz3qjL1tZBn


I think this one got lost in all the EBT stuff.

Next board meeting, " Mr King, would you like to take your seat next to Mr Ashley "


I think big Mike wants to be in the room when King gets emptied from Rangers Retail, I don't think King will attend, may be otherwise indisposed.

This did come up earlier.

I posted that RR and RIFC were different companies, but I got a bit wrong. I didn't realise, until I just Googled it, that DK and Paul Murray are on the Board of RR already.

That now begs the question that was asked earlier, which I answered wrongly. There were 3 directors before this, so how did MA get elected?

[Andy74]

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

This did come up earlier.

I posted that RR and RIFC were different companies, but I got a bit wrong. I didn't realise, until I just Googled it, that DK and Paul Murray are on the Board of RR already.

That now begs the question that was asked earlier, which I answered wrongly. There were 3 directors before this, so how did MA get elected?

Appointed by the shareholders I presume. Which is largely him isn't it?

[Ozyhibby]

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

Appointed by the shareholders I presume. Which is largely him isn't it?

Would Sports Direct not have the right to appoint so many directors as they have 75% shareholding?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Appointed by the shareholders I presume. Which is largely him isn't it?

Presumably, they must have had a General Meeting then, cos the Board sure as **** wouldn't have appointed him.

Taking that further, I wonder why only him. There are 4 Board members now, 2 of who are Gers-minded. Would have made more sense to appoint another and make it 3-2.

Or else he could (maybe is about to) fire DK and PM?

[Brunswickbill]

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

The Murray Group probably can't afford a further appeal. Is it possible that some of the other companies which are potentially affected would put up the money for the legal fees necessary to take the case higher?

I agree with you about not jumping the gun. I think the SPFL group looking at the decision should defer action until everything's final. I hope that they'll eventually be able to overrule the Nimmo-Smith verdict on the grounds of different starting premises, but it musn't be done in haste. Nimmo-Smith's assumption that the EBT scheme was valid was in any case incorrect at the time, as the FTTT had found against Rangers for payments to five players.

I wonder if the Murray Group liability for EBTs disappeared with the companies that SDM binned earlier in the year.

[portycabbage]

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

And I disagree.

Which kind of makes my point. There are valid arguments on both sides, and it will almost certainly never be completely settled.

I respect that you disagree, but I don't see how that fact makes your point. Surely any valid argument to support your view would have to point towards some kind of evidence that anyone thought of Rangers as two entities prior to admin? The evidence the other way is that RFC were incorporated and then went out of business many years later. There may be two companies now (club and plc), but where is the evidence to say that was the case before admin? If the club is just the assets which were transferred, then does the club then have 2 boards which aren't actually part of the club? Not having a go, just interested in how you come to your opinion.

[greenginger]

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

This did come up earlier.

I posted that RR and RIFC were different companies, but I got a bit wrong. I didn't realise, until I just Googled it, that DK and Paul Murray are on the Board of RR already.

That now begs the question that was asked earlier, which I answered wrongly. There were 3 directors before this, so how did MA get elected?

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08142409

It says in note 14 that Mike Ashley is now the ultimate controller of Rangers retail.

[AndyM_1875]

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

I wonder if the Murray Group liability for EBTs disappeared with the companies that SDM binned earlier in the year.

You'd have to ask Sir David Murray.

He still owns a network of businesses BTW and he is worth over £180m if the Sunday Times is to be believed.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I respect that you disagree, but I don't see how that fact makes your point. Surely any valid argument to support your view would have to point towards some kind of evidence that anyone thought of Rangers as two entities prior to admin? The evidence the other way is that RFC were incorporated and then went out of business many years later. There may be two companies now (club and plc), but where is the evidence to say that was the case before admin? If the club is just the assets which were transferred, then does the club then have 2 boards which aren't actually part of the club? Not having a go, just interested in how you come to your opinion.

Okay, I have posted this many times before, so I suppose once more won't make a difference

I have 2 reasons for thinking it's the same club:-

1. when the assets of RFC were sold to Sevco, the price included £5 for the name, the brand, the badge etc. In business terms, the goodwill, which is another name for a company's history and standing. (overpriced, IMO ) So, legally, the football club (which is what Rangers' goodwill is based on) was transferred to Sevco.

2. notwithstanding that, a club is more than its assets. It's an intangible, emotional thing, that is often impossible to define. The team kept the name, kept the same colours, played at the same stadium in front of the same supporters who sang the same songs and waved the same flags. Emotionally, IMO, they are the same. I've often asked the question.... had that happened to us, and it very nearly did, would we have seen ourselves as the same club? I'm pretty sure most of us would.

[Keith_M]

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

Okay, I have posted this many times before, so I suppose once more won't make a difference

I have 2 reasons for thinking it's the same club:-

1. when the assets of RFC were sold to Sevco, the price included £5 for the name, the brand, the badge etc. In business terms, the goodwill, which is another name for a company's history and standing. (overpriced, IMO ) So, legally, the football club (which is what Rangers' goodwill is based on) was transferred to Sevco.

2. notwithstanding that, a club is more than its assets. It's an intangible, emotional thing, that is often impossible to define. The team kept the name, kept the same colours, played at the same stadium in front of the same supporters who sang the same songs and waved the same flags. Emotionally, IMO, they are the same. I've often asked the question.... had that happened to us, and it very nearly did, would we have seen ourselves as the same club? I'm pretty sure most of us would.

I've posted this many times.....


In 2012, representatives of the club currently playing at Ibrox went to a meeting of the 12 SPL Clubs to request direct admission to the SPL. One of the 12 members voting on the matter was Rangers.

If Rangers were sitting on one side of the table, then logically Rangers could not also be on the other side.


The Prosecution rests, M'lud

[bingo70]

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

Okay, I have posted this many times before, so I suppose once more won't make a difference

I have 2 reasons for thinking it's the same club:-

1. when the assets of RFC were sold to Sevco, the price included £5 for the name, the brand, the badge etc. In business terms, the goodwill, which is another name for a company's history and standing. (overpriced, IMO ) So, legally, the football club (which is what Rangers' goodwill is based on) was transferred to Sevco.

2. notwithstanding that, a club is more than its assets. It's an intangible, emotional thing, that is often impossible to define. The team kept the name, kept the same colours, played at the same stadium in front of the same supporters who sang the same songs and waved the same flags. Emotionally, IMO, they are the same. I've often asked the question.... had that happened to us, and it very nearly did, would we have seen ourselves as the same club? I'm pretty sure most of us would.

Sorry CWG, I'm sure you've already answered this throughout the thread but what's your gut feeling here? Do you think they'll go into admin again or do you think they'll find the finance from somewhere?

[Kojock]

Mr Clough tells oldco the truth

[Just Alf]

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

Sorry CWG, I'm sure you've already answered this throughout the thread but what's your gut feeling here? Do you think they'll go into admin again or do you think they'll find the finance from somewhere?

They'll get something to keep going a bit longer, by hook or crook..... I notice they've started pushing their half seasons today..... Enough to get to the end of the season though?

[grunt]

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

I've already read a piece from a London QC who specializes in Tax Law criticizing the decision.

Well he's pretty pleased with himself.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Sorry CWG, I'm sure you've already answered this throughout the thread but what's your gut feeling here? Do you think they'll go into admin again or do you think they'll find the finance from somewhere?

My head has no clue what will happen, as I'm not close enough to the action.

My gut feeling is that there are too many influential players with a stake in their future to let them go under. That said, most of us probably thought that in 2012 :)

The Court case about Green's legal costs will be a major hurdle. If they fall at that, they have a big problem.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[emerald green]

Apologies if this has been debated already. I've not read back through this thread.

Anyway, my point is this:

The Court of Session's recent verdict made it quite clear that EBTs were illegal and gave oldco Rangers an unfair sporting advantage over all the other clubs. Having held this unfair advantage in every match for a decade it's hard to see how anyone, even the SPFL, could argue that titles & cups gained in this unfair way should be retained.

I won't be holding my breath though waiting for them to be stripped of those titles & cup wins.