Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Ozyhibby]

Do you know this, or are you just assuming? Please say the former.

Which bit? The dates?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Just read it back. I am assuming that it's over and above the £2.5m they need to finish the season but I think that's a fair assumption as they would not have known about these cases when they were compiling the accounts. Besides, they can't even put enough aside to pay their footballers never mind court judgements that go against them. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@alextomo: SFA have passed the Big Tax Case ruling to their legal dept so I would expect to hear something after they are done with it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Just read it back. I am assuming that it's over and above the £2.5m they need to finish the season but I think that's a fair assumption as they would not have known about these cases when they were compiling the accounts. Besides, they can't even put enough aside to pay their footballers never mind court judgements that go against them. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay, I see.

Actually, when they were preparing the accounts (or, more importantly, when they were being audited, ie very recently) those potential costs would have been known about. They might not have been able to be quantified... they still aren't.....but their possibility would have been known. If the auditors have been doing their job properly, they would have wanted to see forecasts with an estimate of those costs in them, as well as legal advice as to the likelihood of their being payable.

So, IMO it comes back to us not actually knowing. My gut is with your assumption, but my head.... is up my arse at the moment.

[grunt]

Just read it back. I am assuming that it's over and above the £2.5m they need to finish the season but I think that's a fair assumption as they would not have known about these cases when they were compiling the accounts. Besides, they can't even put enough aside to pay their footballers never mind court judgements that go against them. [emoji3]
They knew about both of these claims when the accounts were finalised, and they are both mentioned. The Ashley claim is included in
contingent liabilities although no value is mentioned. The Green case is included in the post balance sheet events note.

These costs and expenses, whilst almost impossible to quantify at this time, could run to several hundred thousand pounds. The claim is being defended

[grunt]

So, IMO it comes back to us not actually knowing. My gut is with your assumption, but my head.... is up my arse at the moment.We need to base our conclusions on what has been stated. The accounts include within Note 1 a statement on going concern. The note is fairly detailed, and sets out what the Board's assumptions are. It is silent on these claims, although elsewhere in the accounts they say that both claims are being defended. They don't state whether they believe they will win. Here's the Note on Going Concern.


The Board of Directors (“the Board”) are required to prepare the statutory financial statements on the going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to presume that the Group and Parent Company will continue in business. In satisfaction of this responsibility the Board have considered the Group’s ability to meet its liabilities as they fall due. The Group’s business activities, together with the factors likely to affect its future development and performance are set out in the Strategic Report. The Strategic Report also describes how the Group manages its capital, its liquidity risk and its exposure to credit risk. The Group meets its day to day working capital requirements through existing cash facilities, shareholder loans and finance leases. Management information tools including budgets and cash flow forecasts are used to monitor and manage current and future liquidity. The Board acknowledges that there is a level of uncertainty in the general economic environment which may impact the trading position of its customers and suppliers.

The Board has undertaken a recent and thorough review of the Group’s forecasts and the associated risks. These forecasts extend for a period beyond one year from the date of approval of these financial statements. The extent of this review reflected the current economic environment, the Club’s current and projected trading and position in Scottish football.

The forecasts make key assumptions, based on information available to the Board, around:



Continued progression through the Scottish league structure. The Group’s forecast assumes the Club will achieve promotion to the SPFL Premiership at the conclusion of the 2015/16 season and will consolidate its position in the SPFL Premiership in 2016/17.
Season ticket sales, the timing and amount of which are consistent with the Club’s historic experience. The forecasts include an uplift in season ticket numbers and prices from season 2015/16 to reflect the expected return to the SPFL Premiership (while still remaining below the levels when the Club was previously in the SPL).
Matchday income, which is projected to grow as the Club progresses through the Scottish League structure.
Sponsorship, commercial and other non-matchday income reflecting customer confidence returning and increased hospitality demand.
The exclusion of cash flows from dividends from Rangers Retail Limited, as the Board considers that it has limited visibility as regards the timing of anyof these cash inflows.
Continued overhead cost reduction measures to reflect the Club’s operations returning to a more stable operating environment.
Payroll costs reflecting the current squad size and composition in perspective to its assumptions around league progression. The forecast cash flows assume conservative amounts generated from player sales.
The Group’s ability to secure further debt or equity finance to allow the Group to continue to meet its liabilities as they fall due.


The current and future financial position of the Group, its cash flows and liquidity position have been reviewed by the Board.

The Board recognises that achievement of the forecast is critically dependent on the football performance for the rest of the current season and next season. Consequently, sensitivities have been applied to the forecast based on a variety of football performance factors.

The forecast identifies that the group will require up to £2.5m by way of debt or equity funding by the end of season 2015/2016 in order to meet its liabilities as they fall due. Further funding will be required during the 2016/17 season, the quantum of which is dependent on future football performance and promotion to the SPFL Premiership. The forecast indicates that an initial tranche of funds will be required in December 2015.

The Board of Directors has received undertakings from certain shareholders that they will provide financial support to the Group and have satisfied themselves as to the validity of these undertakings and that the individuals have the means and authority to provide such funding as and when it is required. The Board acknowledge that had these assurances not been secured then a material uncertainty would exist which may cast doubt over the Groups ability to continue as a going concern and therefore it’s ability to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business. The Board is delighted that this uncertainty has been removed and the appropriate assurances obtained.

The financial support to be made available more than covers the projected shortfall for this season and beyond.

As such, after making the enquiries referred to above, the Board of Directors believe that there is a reasonable expectation that the Group will at all times have adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future. Accordingly they continue to adopt the going concern basis in preparing this report and the statutory financial statements.

[grunt]

Reassuring to see a couple of typos in that little section of the accounts. Standards falling in the accounting profession perhaps CWG? :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

@alextomo: SFA have passed the Big Tax Case ruling to their legal dept so I would expect to hear something after they are done with it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Presumably the sound carpet lifting and a lot of sweeping? :rolleyes:

[Ozyhibby]

Presumably the sound carpet lifting and a lot of sweeping? :rolleyes:

I think it the spfl that appointed Nimmo Smith but the Sfa are responsible for the Scottish cup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

They knew about both of these claims when the accounts were finalised, and they are both mentioned. The Ashley claim is included in
contingent liabilities although no value is mentioned. The Green case is included in the post balance sheet events note.

Would the fact that they have said that the costs related to the court cases are 'impossible to quantify' indicate that no sum has yet been allowed for this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Would the fact that they have said that the costs related to the court cases are 'impossible to quantify' indicate that no sum has yet been allowed for this?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkYou'll need to ask CWG this one.

[Weststandwanab]

You'll need to ask CWG this one.

My opinion for what it is worth, would be no.

If they could have quantified it, or reasonably estimated those costs those figures would have been disclosed.

[PatHead]

My opinion for what it is worth, would be no.

If they could have quantified it, or reasonably estimated those costs those figures would have been disclosed.

I'm happy with your opinion>

[Ozyhibby]

I had a look on the Sevco sites for the opinions of those who follow follow the financial side of things and the general view is that no contingency has been allowed for the court cases.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Newry Hibs]

12/13th November is Charlie's days in court over payment of his legal fees. Looks a slam dunk in Charlie's favour but who knows with these things.
9th December is Ashley v King over Kings alleged contempt of court. No idea how it will go but I wouldn't bet against Ashley.
Both of these hearing will cost Sevco money to defend themselves and if the outcomes are unfavourable cost them a lot more.
All this is over and above the £2.5m they say the need till seasons end.
If they try to stop Ashley voting then that will be another trip to court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's this one? I've read 99.9% of posts on here, but must have glazed over here.

[ehf]

Shirley that's badly worded:-

" if he is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a Club, or has any power whatsoever to
influence the management or administration of a Club"

We all know what its meant to mean, but, at face value, wouldn't that include King and the Bears?

The resolution goes on to say: For the purposes of this Article “Club” shall mean any football club in membership of a national association which is in membership with FIFA other than Rangers Football Club.”

As I see it, faced with these kindergarten tactics, Asley has two options:

1. Rename Newcastle United Football Club as "Rangers Football Club".

2. Petition the Court of Session for protection against "unfair prejudice" to a member of a company under Section 994 of the Companies act 2006, and apply for interim interdict against the resolution being moved at the AGM pending the outcome of the petition.

Tempting as option 1 may be, it is a virtual certainty that Ashley will go down the Section 994 petition and interdict route. Which will result in another protracted and hugely expensive court case.

It is wonderful that the deluded Sevco fans are happily investing their hard-earned/benefits/petty crime proceeds in the Scottish legal profession as their club goes down the toilet.

[PatHead]

I can't get my head round these figures.

£ 2.5 m required to see the season out, starting in December. Say 6 monthly tranches of £ 400,000. Are the walk-ups etc. going to make up the balance of £ 1.4 million a month ( assuming an average spend of £ 1.8 million/month )

I also see in note 32 to the accounts RIFC are contesting the SPFL fine of £ 250 K plus £ 150 K costs for their use of EBTs.
Seemingly it went to an SFA tribunal set for 29/30 October.

Never heard anything about that :confused: Still it should be another £ 400,000 for the pledgers to fund.

Take it they require money in December until half seasons go on sale which will then give them breathing space until Feb/March.

BTW Nice to see that we could kill them by denying them promotion though. Their business plan is scuppered then.

Does look a real hand to mouth existence and the accounts state a similar sized squad so don't expect lots (not even 3) signings in January unless players go out.

[jacomo]

Notice of Rangers AGM. According to Twitter, resolution 11 seeks to remove Ashley's voting rights.

https://t.co/hHCyQkbTNT (https://t.co/hHCyQkbTNT)

And yet some people think that Ashley might loan them more money?

With all this animosity, I can't see how Ashley and King can work together now.

[jacomo]

Take it they require money in December until half seasons go on sale which will then give them breathing space until Feb/March.

BTW Nice to see that we could kill them by denying them promotion though. Their business plan is scuppered then.

Does look a real hand to mouth existence and the accounts state a similar sized squad so don't expect lots (not even 3) signings in January unless players go out.

If we can overtake them in the League there might be reduced take up of their half season tickets too. Pleasing.

[Treadstone]

What's this one? I've read 99.9% of posts on here, but must have glazed over here.

New this week. Fat Mike trying to bang up King for Jim White interview in South Africa. Breaks confidentiality clause/gagging order over commercial deals.
Charges against White for journalistic standards are unclear at this time.

[CropleyWasGod]

Would the fact that they have said that the costs related to the court cases are 'impossible to quantify' indicate that no sum has yet been allowed for this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are 2 separate issues here.

1. the accounts, and what has been allowed for in them as debts. We do know that they have allowed for the SPFL fine, as they say that. They also say that the Court case costs are unquantifiable. All of that is fine IMO.

2. the forecasts, which are much more important in establishing whether they are a Going Concern. It's those that we don't have access to, and no clear view as to what is included in the £2.5m. If I were preparing forecasts, I would have a few "what-if" scenarios. Whether RFC have done that, whether the auditors have demanded that they do.... we don't know.

I suspect that the auditors have asked for, and received, written undertakings from the Board saying that they will continue to support the company for the next 12 months (without quantifying that support). That will cover their backs, and allows them to sign the accounts off on the Going Concern basis.

[greenginger]

There are 2 separate issues here.

1. the accounts, and what has been allowed for in them as debts. We do know that they have allowed for the SPFL fine, as they say that. They also say that the Court case costs are unquantifiable. All of that is fine IMO.

2. the forecasts, which are much more important in establishing whether they are a Going Concern. It's those that we don't have access to, and no clear view as to what is included in the £2.5m. If I were preparing forecasts, I would have a few "what-if" scenarios. Whether RFC have done that, whether the auditors have demanded that they do.... we don't know.

I suspect that the auditors have asked for, and received, written undertakings from the Board saying that they will continue to support the company for the next 12 months (without quantifying that support). That will cover their backs, and allows them to sign the accounts off on the Going Concern basis.


Auditors Mmmm !

I seem to recall the Yam Auditors signing off their Accounts in March 2013 without as much as a " Going Concern " warning.

Three months later despite being self-sufficient and being told by the EEN that AllisBarry, they collapsed totally unsustainable debts.

[Ozyhibby]

There are 2 separate issues here.

1. the accounts, and what has been allowed for in them as debts. We do know that they have allowed for the SPFL fine, as they say that. They also say that the Court case costs are unquantifiable. All of that is fine IMO.

2. the forecasts, which are much more important in establishing whether they are a Going Concern. It's those that we don't have access to, and no clear view as to what is included in the £2.5m. If I were preparing forecasts, I would have a few "what-if" scenarios. Whether RFC have done that, whether the auditors have demanded that they do.... we don't know.

I suspect that the auditors have asked for, and received, written undertakings from the Board saying that they will continue to support the company for the next 12 months (without quantifying that support). That will cover their backs, and allows them to sign the accounts off on the Going Concern basis.

I would imagine that auditors receive these assurances from Directors a lot and then watch as the business goes into admin?
Is there anything legally binding on directors who give this sort of commitment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spike Mandela]

I would imagine that auditors receive these assurances from Directors a lot and then watch as the business goes into admin?
Is there anything legally binding on directors who give this sort of commitment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would you accept assurances from Dave King?

[CropleyWasGod]

I would imagine that auditors receive these assurances from Directors a lot and then watch as the business goes into admin?
Is there anything legally binding on directors who give this sort of commitment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Man, you're such a cynic. :greengrin

But you are right.

Not sure there is anything that legally binds the directors. After all, they're giving undertakings to the auditor, that's all. Cav would be the man to answer that, but he's AWOL just now.

However, if the company then goes pop, the liquidator might move for a Disqualification if s/he thought the directors were lying.

[steakbake]

https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/

Any pressure to apply to the club re: redressing titles won during Ranger's cheatmode seasons?

[AndyM_1875]

I think it the spfl that appointed Nimmo Smith but the Sfa are responsible for the Scottish cup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could we see a further fine being added on to the one already hanging over them?

[Ozyhibby]

Man, you're such a cynic. :greengrin

But you are right.

Not sure there is anything that legally binds the directors. After all, they're giving undertakings to the auditor, that's all. Cav would be the man to answer that, but he's AWOL just now.

However, if the company then goes pop, the liquidator might move for a Disqualification if s/he thought the directors were lying.

A good defence for the directors might be that the circumstances of the business changed (i.e. They lost a couple of massive court cases) and the sums involved were no longer within their capabilities?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

A good defence for the directors might be that the circumstances of the business changed (i.e. They lost a couple of massive court cases) and the sums involved were no longer within their capabilities?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Or,

They simply resign from the Board.

[CropleyWasGod]

https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/

Any pressure to apply to the club re: redressing titles won during Ranger's cheatmode seasons?

The thing about that is, once you start pulling on the thread, who knows where it would lead?

We've had this discussion before, probably when they first lost the BTC. Once the SFA and SPFL start stripping titles, other clubs (here and abroad) would have a case for compensation.

And who would they sue? OldCo, NewCo, the SFA?

[Ozyhibby]

A good defence for the directors might be that the circumstances of the business changed (i.e. They lost a couple of massive court cases) and the sums involved were no longer within their capabilities?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are any of the 3 bears even on the board? I don't think they are. I could be wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Are any of the 3 bears even on the board? I don't think they are. I could be wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Directors are:-

David King
Paul Murray
John Gilligan
John Bennett
Graeme Park

[Spike Mandela]

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.

[southsider]

DM should be made to repay all the Tax "stolen" from you and I. It is my opinion he is guilty of fraud and a lie in at the Big L should be his plight. Oh and be made to hand over all his assets leaving him with, as in the old days, "the clathes on his back and the tools o' his trade".

[Moulin Yarns]

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.

Can I ask a question about the EBTs? Apologies if it was explained on page 2.

I keep see that it was a way of them having players they couldn't otherwise afford, and so cheat their way to titles. What I don't understand is this.

Tore Andre Flo for example got something like £2.5m from an EBT, but where did the money for the EBT come from? Rangers? MIM? or where. OK I get that tax wasn't paid so it didn't cost as much as it might have, but then somebody had to pay the mney in the first place, so in effect they could afford these players, maybe not all of them.

Sorry for being thick. :wink:

[greenginger]

Are any of the 3 bears even on the board? I don't think they are. I could be wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The three bears are Douglas Park, George Letham, and George Taylor. Only Douglas Park was on the board, but has since resigned for health reasons and replaced by son Graeme.

I don't think any of the current board members have any significant funds to loan to RIFC.

[Ozyhibby]

Very good point raised by our Yam friends.
http://viewfromgorgie.co.uk/index.php/articles/youngy-s-view/14-strip-tease



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[southsider]

Can I ask a question about the EBTs? Apologies if it was explained on page 2.

I keep see that it was a way of them having players they couldn't otherwise afford, and so cheat their way to titles. What I don't understand is this.

Tore Andre Flo for example got something like £2.5m from an EBT, but where did the money for the EBT come from? Rangers? MIM? or where. OK I get that tax wasn't paid so it didn't cost as much as it might have, but then somebody had to pay the mney in the first place, so in effect they could afford these players, maybe not all of them.

Sorry for being thick. :wink:
Basically we can pay you £50k in an EBT or £30k Net (after tax). If we all done that the UK would grind to a halt. Always been immoral and now illegal.

[Smartie]

Very good point raised by our Yam friends.
http://viewfromgorgie.co.uk/index.php/articles/youngy-s-view/14-strip-tease



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An interesting piece but I still find it hard to accept that anyone from Gorgie can write an article on suitable punishment for financial doping that carries any credibility whatsoever.

[Treadstone]

Very good point raised by our Yam friends.
http://viewfromgorgie.co.uk/index.php/articles/youngy-s-view/14-strip-tease

The irony of a yam talking about the repercussions of tax defaulting. You couldn't mark that brass neck with a blowtorch.

[Ozyhibby]

To be fair to them, they were hit with a points deduction for defaulting on their tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

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?

Ignorance isn't a basis defence in the eyes of the law.


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.

"We didn't know they were illegal, that's why we kept it secret." Wouldn't wash in any court (outside Scotland), it's why so many lawyers are employed in sport - to keep clubs on the right track.

[Kato]

The irony of a yam talking about the repercussions of tax defaulting. You couldn't mark that brass neck with a blowtorch.

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

[s.a.m]

Can I ask a question about the EBTs? Apologies if it was explained on page 2.

I keep see that it was a way of them having players they couldn't otherwise afford, and so cheat their way to titles. What I don't understand is this.

Tore Andre Flo for example got something like £2.5m from an EBT, but where did the money for the EBT come from? Rangers? MIM? or where. OK I get that tax wasn't paid so it didn't cost as much as it might have, but then somebody had to pay the mney in the first place, so in effect they could afford these players, maybe not all of them.

Sorry for being thick. :wink:

Perhaps Tore Andre Flo wouldn't have gone anywhere near Rangers for £2.5 minus tax, whatever that amounts to. Tax takes a chunk out of your wage budget that you might otherwise use to employ players with higher earning potential. More players, as you say, or better ones.
Having more money at your disposal is probably the main way, as a football club, you can improve your lot / gain competitive advantage.

[Ozyhibby]

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/rangers-lose-tax-case-replay/592377


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

Very good point raised by our Yam friends.
http://viewfromgorgie.co.uk/index.php/articles/youngy-s-view/14-strip-tease



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

[Glesgahibby]

The thing about that is, once you start pulling on the thread, who knows where it would lead?

We've had this discussion before, probably when they first lost the BTC. Once the SFA and SPFL start stripping titles, other clubs (here and abroad) would have a case for compensation.

And who would they sue? OldCo, NewCo, the SFA?
other clubs(here and abroad)do have a case for compensation"
As I see it:greengrin
they could sue the SFA,unless they(SFA)abide by there rule book and punish oldco accordingly.
This scenario would pass the buck of compensation to oldco.

[Sergio sledge]

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.

Yup, it is a good point, there is a precedent for punishments for historic non payment of tax. I agree that stripping titles isn't going to happen and, although it would be nice, I'd prefer a points deduction this season to be honest (being totally selfish from a Hibs perspective....)

Was it Greenginger that had been in touch with Neil Doncaster before, perhaps he could get in touch again asking for comment?

[CropleyWasGod]

other clubs(here and abroad)do have a case for compensation"
As I see it:greengrin
they could sue the SFA,unless they(SFA)abide by there rule book and punish oldco accordingly.
This scenario would pass the buck of compensation to oldco.

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.

[Platinum Scotty]

Yup, it is a good point, there is a precedent for punishments for historic non payment of tax. I agree that stripping titles isn't going to happen and, although it would be nice, I'd prefer a points deduction this season to be honest (being totally selfish from a Hibs perspective....)

The idea of a 25 point reduction was working for me, but the thoughts of a 40 point one is just superb.....highly doubtful but it'll make me smile in the boozer later !

[Glesgahibby]

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]

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]

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]

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.
:agree: 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]

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]

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]

:agree: 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]

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:agree: but the SFA can still punish them:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

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:agree: but the SFA can still punish them:greengrin

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/rangers-rebus/

[brog]

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]

This is dynamite http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/is-the-rangers-ebt-saga-the-biggest-scandal-in-scottish-football-history/

[Treadstone]

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/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]

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]

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]

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

I think he moderates anything challenging.

[grunt]

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]

This is dynamite http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/is-the-rangers-ebt-saga-the-biggest-scandal-in-scottish-football-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]

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]

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/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]

This is dynamite http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/is-the-rangers-ebt-saga-the-biggest-scandal-in-scottish-football-history/

Simultaneously an excellent & depressing read

[lord bunberry]

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]

Probably the best article on the whole saga:grr:

[CropleyWasGod]

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]

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?

[CropleyWasGod]

Would that not suggest that they are the same club? If so why did they have to start again in division 3?
Because the other clubs voted that way.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[jgl07]

Because the other clubs voted that way.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Correction:

Because the supporters of the other clubs threatened to walk away if any other decision was taken.

[Malthibby]

This is dynamite http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/is-the-rangers-ebt-saga-the-biggest-scandal-in-scottish-football-history/

Should be on the back page of every paper & in every media outlet in the country for a month.
Looking forward to the abject apologies from the SPFL / SFA / Regan / Doncaster etc etc :rolleyes:
Only wish the other clubs would stand up & demand punishment.

[Hibeesforever]

This is dynamite http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/is-the-rangers-ebt-saga-the-biggest-scandal-in-scottish-football-history/

An excellent summary of the facts. Sir David Murray knighted for services to Business. What a disgraceful recommendation. He should return the title and pay the proper PAYE on the £6.5 million that he loaned himself with borrowed bank money. Scandalous no Scottish MSP wishes to debate this matter and higlight this level of impropriety.

[portycabbage]

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

This whole idea of the company and the club as separate seems to have come about as a convenient excuse to say that "it's the same club" IMO.

When DM bought Rangers through M.I.H, did he buy the club via two holding companies?

RFC (founded 1872) were incorporated and became RFC Ltd (in 1899), who were listed on the stock exchange and became RFC PLC. I'd be interested to see reference to there being, for example, two boards (FC and PLC) pre-2012.

If the "club" bit is just the assets (badge, stadium, "good will" etc - the stuff that "transferred" to Sevco Scotland Ltd), then who is employing the players, liable for tax (ha!), holding league membership etc?

P.S. I'm aware all this may have been done before!:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

This whole idea of the company and the club as separate seems to have come about as a convenient excuse to say that "it's the same club" IMO.

When DM bought Rangers through M.I.H, did he buy the club via two holding companies?

RFC (founded 1872) were incorporated and became RFC Ltd (in 1899), who were listed on the stock exchange and became RFC PLC. I'd be interested to see reference to there being, for example, two boards (FC and PLC) pre-2012.

If the "club" bit is just the assets (badge, stadium, "good will" etc - the stuff that "transferred" to Sevco Scotland Ltd), then who is employing the players, liable for tax (ha!), holding league membership etc?

P.S. I'm aware all this may have been done before!:greengrin
Said it before. The argument over new club/same club will never be properly settled. Not unless there's a cast iron High Court decision.

It's always going to be based on opinion, often driven by one's club loyalties. My opinion , as repeated ad nauseam on here, is that it's the same club. That's neither right or wrong, of course [emoji6]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Jim44]

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

I posit he is a bit of an anus aperture. :-)

[Glesgahibby]

I posit he is a bit of an anus aperture. :-)
I posit your opinion :greengrin

[jacomo]

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

Oldco went bust. Of course the cutural phenomenon known as Rangers is still continuing, supported by the same fans, with the same colours and stadium, and yes, all that accumulated history, but the club went bust.

They were lucky. Hereford and others had to start from the very bottom again.

I know they are the same lot with the same identity and, sadly, the same issues. What I don't get is why they claim they were punished?

They weren't punished. They were given a free pass into the League.

[jacomo]

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

Where did the claim that he is a Rangers fan come from? He clearly isn't.

[monktonharp]

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. I am finding it hard to follow you. you are talking about Rangers, are you? they don't exist. tell any The Rangers fans, that the auld club (Rangers) that they may have supported have been buried. the funeral was in Inverness, 3 years ago and there was some sort of jelly and icecream party.Funerals can be sombre, but I enjoyed watching that one. we are talking the same language mate and I understand your point, and agree that they wont take points aff The Rangers. they may well take money from them though, but, I suspect that it will still take a long time and some will be dragged to the graveside before they give up that money

[portycabbage]

Said it before. The argument over new club/same club will never be properly settled. Not unless there's a cast iron High Court decision.

It's always going to be based on opinion, often driven by one's club loyalties. My opinion , as repeated ad nauseam on here, is that it's the same club. That's neither right or wrong, of course [emoji6]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure there could be such a High Court decision. The question of whether a club (or anything) is new/the same is kind of like Trigger's Broom (or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)! (I'm thinking The Rangers move to new home ala MK Dons and oldco set up as AFC Rangers! - ie which club is Rangers?):greengrin

However, I haven't seen as yet anything to say Rangers were two separate companies pre-admin. Surely in the eyes of the law, a professional football club is essentially a business? Why would the law concern itself with whether "the club" persists outside of that?

[gorgie greens]

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.
Agree 100% with the boys post and feel they questions need asked and they need to be replied to ,like the guy said Livingston admitted it for1 year ,this is mass desception on a large scale and no 5 points deduction or £10.000 fine imo would be suitable

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not sure there could be such a High Court decision. The question of whether a club (or anything) is new/the same is kind of like Trigger's Broom (or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)! (I'm thinking The Rangers move to new home ala MK Dons and oldco set up as AFC Rangers! - ie which club is Rangers?):greengrin

However, I haven't seen as yet anything to say Rangers were two separate companies pre-admin. Surely in the eyes of the law, a professional football club is essentially a business? Why would the law concern itself with whether "the club" persists outside of that?
To settle all the pub and message-board arguments once and for all [emoji6]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Bostonhibby]

Agree 100% with the boys post and feel they questions need asked and they need to be replied to ,like the guy said Livingston admitted it for1 year ,this is mass desception on a large scale and no 5 points deduction or £10.000 fine imo would be suitable

So do I reluctantly but its a very good post, however I can see the point about the moral high ground bearing in mind the many similarities between the two clubs up to the point of the now defunct Glasgow rangers liquidation.

The semantics of the difference between the two clubs going forward is probably pointless for all of those creditors who were bumped out of their money, and I don't think any charities were bumped in the process of cobbling together sevco(?)

[JeMeSouviens]

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

I know we've done this to death but the company *was* the club, it was called "Rangers Football Club plc". The clue was in the name. I know the sfa and our compliant media have done all they can to confuse and muddy the waters but we all know it's rubbish, don't we? (And so do they.)

Anyway, they're far too lazy to maintain the fiction consistently. The terms club and company are used interchangeably all the time in reports, financial reports, official statements by the club (oops!) and governing bodies all the time.

Rangers are dead, death to The Rangers!

[bingo70]

Notice in the papers this morning Mike Ashley has become a director of the retail division.

Why is that a problem and how can he just appoint himself as a director? Surely he'd need to be voted in?

[BoomtownHibees]

@BBCchrismclaug: The board of the SPFL will discuss the latest twist to the Rangers tax case saga today. No plans, as yet, for an EGM.

[CropleyWasGod]

Notice in the papers this morning Mike Ashley has become a director of the retail division.

Why is that a problem and how can he just appoint himself as a director? Surely he'd need to be voted in?

Rangers Retail is a separate company, which is not connected to the football club other than in the name and the fact that MASH have interests in each.

MA won't have appointed himself. He will have been elected by the rest of the Board.

[southern hibby]

Notice in the papers this morning Mike Ashley has become a director of the retail division.

Why is that a problem and how can he just appoint himself as a director? Surely he'd need to be voted in?

Maybe in the small print that allows him too. Also maybe just maybe this is why ( if I understand earlier info correctly) King has tried to get MA banned from voting on any issues. Was he not trying because MA could influence people etc??
GGTTH

[CropleyWasGod]

I know we've done this to death but the company *was* the club, it was called "Rangers Football Club plc". The clue was in the name. I know the sfa and our compliant media have done all they can to confuse and muddy the waters but we all know it's rubbish, don't we? (And so do they.)

Anyway, they're far too lazy to maintain the fiction consistently. The terms club and company are used interchangeably all the time in reports, financial reports, official statements by the club (oops!) and governing bodies all the time.

Rangers are dead, death to The Rangers!

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.

[Jim44]

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. :greengrin

[Bostonhibby]

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. :greengrin

A bit distasteful, but perfectly legal and they do actually hand over tax and NI as distinct from the now defunct Glasgow rangers who didn't fulfil their obligations here but used this ill gotten gain to get an unfair advantage over many seasons - if only they still existed!

[BonnieFitbaTeam]

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. :greengrin

Extremely common practice in the entertainment industry. Also up here in oil & gas where many contractors set themselves up as one-man ltd companies.

They declare earnings via their accounts/tax returns and still have to pony-up tax and NI.

Very, very different.

[Onceinawhile]

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. :greengrin

Essentially actors or presenters who are self employed (depending on circumstances) incorporate and put their trade into a business.

Profits are taxed at 20% (under 300,000)and the individuals are only taxed when they draw money from the company.

It's tax avoidance, but nowhere near illegal.

The majority of the benefits it brings will be eroded from 6/4/16 anyway

[Ozyhibby]

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. :greengrin

The BBC have already been hauled over the coals for this by MP's and have promised to end the practice. Not illegal but very distasteful from an organisation that threatens to jail people who can't afford to pay for their service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

The BBC scheme is actually a NI-avoidance mechanism. Ity saves them Employer's NI, and their "workers" Employee's NI.

As has been said, it's legal. HMRC attempt to minimise the savings by use of what's known as IR35 legislation.

[alfie]

It's also common practice in IT for contract workers. As has been said, there is corporation tax, VAT, NICs to pay from the company, and then you still have personal income tax to pay yourself. Add in accountants fees, the lack of sick pay, holiday pay, company pension or other benefits and it doesnt necessarily mean you get much more money out of it, and with Gideons upcoming tax changes will mean there is little benefit in running your finances in this way.

[martin1875]

http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/rangers-issue-statement-claiming-it-wasnae-us-but-what-about-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??

[AndyM_1875]

http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/rangers-issue-statement-claiming-it-wasnae-us-but-what-about-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??

HMRC appear to be more interested in chasing down bigger fish than Rangers. All this ruling is, is a precedent that allows that course of action. I read that they'll get an estimated 5p in the pound from the liquidators of Oldco.

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.

[Andy Bee]

It's also common practice in IT for contract workers. As has been said, there is corporation tax, VAT, NICs to pay from the company, and then you still have personal income tax to pay yourself. Add in accountants fees, the lack of sick pay, holiday pay, company pension or other benefits and it doesnt necessarily mean you get much more money out of it, and with Gideons upcoming tax changes will mean there is little benefit in running your finances in this way.

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.

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/rangers-issue-statement-claiming-it-wasnae-us-but-what-about-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]

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]

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]

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. :greengrin

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]

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]

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 (http://waitingfortax.com/2015/11/06/on-ebts-and-rangers-fc-part-1/#comments)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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No it doesn't.

[jacomo]

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]

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/football/spfl-lower-divisions/mike-ashley-becomes-director-of-rangers-retail-1-3939310#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. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/mike-ashley-becomes-director-of-rangers-retail-1-3939310#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. :greengrin

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? :confused:

[Andy74]

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? :confused:

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

[Ozyhibby]

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]

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. :greengrin

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? :cb

[Brunswickbill]

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]

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 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? :confused:


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]

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]

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 :greengrin

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 :wink:) 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]

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

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 :wink:) 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..... :greengrin


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

:wink:

[bingo70]

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

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 :wink:) 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]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRVaLs4cBlg&sns=fb&app=desktop

Mr Clough tells oldco the truth

[Just Alf]

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? :dunno:

[grunt]

I've already read a piece from a London QC (http://waitingfortax.com/2015/11/06/on-ebts-and-rangers-fc-part-1/#comments)who specializes in Tax Law criticizing the decision. Well he's pretty pleased with himself.

[CropleyWasGod]

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.

[Jim44]

Despite not coming up with any significant funding, King still seems to be the dog's bollocks with the hordes. If he is pulling the wool over their eyes, he is managing to do so without causing any unease in the ranks. Are they confident that he will come up with the goods when the crunch comes? Maybe he's keeping his powder dry till the eleventh hour, becoming the high profile saviour. If he is and has been all wind and p*ss, I think they'll string him up from a lampost on Edminston Drive if he ever shows his head outside South Africa.

[Dashing Bob S]

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

I believe this to be the case. The only way they would go into admin is if another bunch of chancers were waiting in the wings and it was touted as a 'strategic move'.

[grunt]

This is fun. Don't think it's been here before. http://footballisfixed.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/an-arranged-marriage-between-rangers.html

[Spike Mandela]

I want them to go under again purely to keep this thread going another 3 pr 4 years.:greengrin iI's my goto thread when I want a laugh or something interesting to read. My comfort blanket.:cb

[Bishop Hibee]

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

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 :wink:) 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.

Not sure about 1. but I reluctantly have to agree with 2. What gets me is if they truly have supporters who aren't rabid UJ waving, NI obsessed, racist and bigoted chanting bams i.e. famine song and 'add-ons' for The Sash etc. that was their chance to move the club forward. I conclude they didn't have the bottle or they are in a tiny minority.

[GordonHFC]

It doesn't really matter if Oldco and Newco are the same or not. I hate both Rangers and The Rangers 😊

[Jim44]

I want them to go under again purely to keep this thread going another 3 pr 4 years.:greengrin iI's my goto thread when I want a laugh or something interesting to read. My comfort blanket.:cb

I think you might be a tad disappointed about them going under again but as an alternative, why not settle for this thread continuing till Sevco qualify for the Champions League. The unlikeliness of that happening is greater than the chances of them hitting the skids again.

[greenginger]

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.


And is there any real difference between Rangers and their EBT cheating and our neighbours at Tynecastle and their tax scams.

IIRC the first involved Vlad getting players to sign for Kaunas F C and then loaning them to Hearts. Their wages paid tax free in Lithuania although the players were playing in the UK. Eventually just before a tax tribunal began in 2012 Hearts agreed to pay £ 1.5 million back tax, but of course went bust before they paid anything.

Then there was Vlad's private deal with Rudi Skacel. Half his wages paid and taxed here and the other half sent from Lith to his Czech bank account. All detailed at Edinburgh sheriff Court thanks to his tiff with his agent.

[jacomo]

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.

Stripping any club of past titles is a bit pointless I think. The fans of that club will still believe they won them, and fans of runners up or beaten finalists won't suddenly be celebrating an extra cup.

Punishing them now, however, makes sense. Seeing as they bought all that history.

See Marseille - still listed as European Cup winners in 93, but demoted to Ligue 2 for match fixing.

[AndyM_1875]

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.

That's not what the Court of Session said. EBT's were not illegal at the time. What did breach the tax laws was Rangers cack handed attempt to use them to top up salaries and that's what the judges focused on. Most EBT usage in other corporate environments has used shares rather than cash.

This precedent if not appealed (unlikely) will allow HMRC to go after many of the big English Premiership & former Premiership clubs.

[Deansy]

Not sure about 1. but I reluctantly have to agree with 2. What gets me is if they truly have supporters who aren't rabid UJ waving, NI obsessed, racist and bigoted chanting bams i.e. famine song and 'add-ons' for The Sash etc. that was their chance to move the club forward. I conclude they didn't have the bottle or they are in a tiny minority.

Tiny minority !!. All clubs have a small % of their support who are an embarrassment to their club, cause trouble etc, etc. With the Hun it's a mirror-opposite, with the Hun it's a small % of their fans who AREN'T an embarassment etc, etc. Ffs, even their management are known for causing trouble - 'Stupor Sally' with his infamous 'I want them named' speech which was nothing more than a call to arms or letting the hounds off the leash !!

[pundy man]

:hibeesNo difference between the cheating cousins apart from 45 miles. Tax dodgers and religious bigots and not an ounce of regret of what their clubs did. They will remain shamed for the rest of their history and we should take all opportunities to never let them forget there sorded and disgusting past .

[Onion]

Stripping any club of past titles is a bit pointless I think. The fans of that club will still believe they won them, and fans of runners up or beaten finalists won't suddenly be celebrating an extra cup.

Punishing them now, however, makes sense. Seeing as they bought all that history.

See Marseille - still listed as European Cup winners in 93, but demoted to Ligue 2 for match fixing.

Not sure Ben Johnston would agree with that. Only reason it might not work in Sevco's case is that the media would be doing everything the can to keep it out of the media :cb Rangers financial doping has made fools of everyone.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's not what the Court of Session said. EBT's were not illegal at the time. What did breach the tax laws was Rangers cack handed attempt to use them to top up salaries and that's what the judges focused on. Most EBT usage in other corporate environments has used shares rather than cash.

This precedent if not appealed (unlikely) will allow HMRC to go after many of the big English Premiership & former Premiership clubs.

Spot on. Ironically, David Murray's ad hoc £6M was probably ok under the rules at the time but the players' appearance payments guaranteed by side letter weren't.

[brog]

And is there any real difference between Rangers and their EBT cheating and our neighbours at Tynecastle and their tax scams.

IIRC the first involved Vlad getting players to sign for Kaunas F C and then loaning them to Hearts. Their wages paid tax free in Lithuania although the players were playing in the UK. Eventually just before a tax tribunal began in 2012 Hearts agreed to pay £ 1.5 million back tax, but of course went bust before they paid anything.

Then there was Vlad's private deal with Rudi Skacel. Half his wages paid and taxed here and the other half sent from Lith to his Czech bank account. All detailed at Edinburgh sheriff Court thanks to his tiff with his agent.

I had almost forgotten this GG, thanks for the refresh! One slight amendment, IIRC the £1.5m was a fine for Yams transgressions rather than tax owed, though I'm sure the calculation was based on tax avoided. There was never however IMO any prospect of Yams ever paying that money, especially given at that time Yams were already stiffing most of their suppliers. Lest we forget!

[brog]

I had almost forgotten this GG, thanks for the refresh! One slight amendment, IIRC the £1.5m was a fine for Yams transgressions rather than tax owed, though I'm sure the calculation was based on tax avoided. There was never however IMO any prospect of Yams ever paying that money, especially given at that time Yams were already stiffing most of their suppliers. Lest we forget!

Let me correct myself, it was PAYE that Yams avoided but they settled on £1.5m rather than the £2m or so claimed by HMRC. I'm sure I posted at the time that HMRC were being suckered as Yams were never going to pay. I think if HMRC had played hardball at that time Yams would also have been liquidated.

[portycabbage]

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

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 :wink:) 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.

Cheers for that!

I think the tricky thing about asking "what is a football club?" is that it is a mixture of tangible and intangible things. They're businesses as well as the bits you mention, which (IMO) is why it makes sense to talk of them having employees, tax obligations, accounts, being in financial trouble etc. I don't think it makes sense to say the alternative, that the goodwill,history or standing has signed a striker or that the badge has defaulted on tax!

I think I find the idea of transferring or buying and selling history a strange one too - like when Charles Green was saying sevco bought the cup wins etc (so that's the same ones twice!:greengrin), not long after saying the history would be gone if the CVA failed. Also, if the club were transferred to sevco, and sevco are owned by RIFC there seem to be several separate things which are all "Rangers" in some way.

[Jim44]

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.

This argument about whether to remove or leave titles and cups could go on and on. How about leaving their successes in the records but mark every appropriate one with an asterisk and the footnote that those marked were 'attained with an unfair advantage'. A bit like in athletics where a time is non-counting because of a strong following wind, only in Sevc's case a really damning indictment.

[lucky]

I just had a quick look at the list of recipients of the EBTs to refresh my mind on who the chancers were. Sadly we gave one a testimonial and several are now working in the media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34118126

Surely they should be liable for tax on these payments or at the very least have repay the "loans" which would then go into the pot to pay the creditors?

As for the titles, I could not care one jot. Their over spending and tax avoidance forced all Scottish clubs to over spend and bring in players that they could not afford. Hibs ended up with £15m debt due to excess spending.

[MrSmith]

Spot on. Ironically, David Murray's ad hoc £6M was probably ok under the rules at the time but the players' appearance payments guaranteed by side letter weren't.


This argument about whether to remove or leave titles and cups could go on and on. How about leaving their successes in the records but mark every appropriate one with an asterisk and the footnote that those marked were 'attained with an unfair advantage'. A bit like in athletics where a time is non-counting because of a strong following wind, only in Sevc's case a really damning indictment.

Not a bad idea as I think no club would accept a tainted trophy. Make sure for generations to come that those who cheated were dealt with albeit eventually and marked as cheats.

[MrSmith]

I just had a quick look at the list of recipients of the EBTs to refresh my mine on who the chancers were. Sadly we gave one a testimonial and several are now working in the media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34118126

Surely they should be liable for tax on these payments or at the very least have repay the "loans" which would then go into the pot to pay the creditors?

As for the titles, I could not care one jot. Their over spending and tax avoidance forced all Scottish clubs to over spend and bring in players that they could not afford. Hibs ended up with £15m debt due to excess spending.

for me, that list shows every bit how the filth bought players they most definitely couldn't afford and effectively killing off any competition from other teams.

[jacomo]

Not sure Ben Johnston would agree with that. Only reason it might not work in Sevco's case is that the media would be doing everything the can to keep it out of the media :cb Rangers financial doping has made fools of everyone.

Or Lance Armstrong.

But these are individual athletes using illegal performance-enhancing drugs to gain an advantage. Different scenario.

[Dalianwanda]

Or Lance Armstrong.

But these are individual athletes using illegal performance-enhancing drugs to gain an advantage. Different scenario.

Yeah but Rangers were taking performance enhancing players illegally :-)

[CropleyWasGod]

I just had a quick look at the list of recipients of the EBTs to refresh my mind on who the chancers were. Sadly we gave one a testimonial and several are now working in the media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34118126

Surely they should be liable for tax on these payments or at the very least have repay the "loans" which would then go into the pot to pay the creditors?

As for the titles, I could not care one jot. Their over spending and tax avoidance forced all Scottish clubs to over spend and bring in players that they could not afford. Hibs ended up with £15m debt due to excess spending.

They aren't loans. That's what the judgment is all about.
And the tax on the payments is what was claimed by HMRC in the liquidation.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[AndyM_1875]

Yeah but Rangers were taking performance enhancing players illegally :-)

Performance enhancing is Quite a description for numpties like Bilky Dodds and Alex Rae.

[Kojock]

Or Lance Armstrong.

But these are individual athletes using illegal performance-enhancing drugs to gain an advantage. Different scenario.

Drug doping or financial doping are both cheating in my book.

[weecounty hibby]

Performance enhancing is Quite a description for numpties like Bilky Dodds and Alex Rae.

The thing is though that Hibs, along with every other club outside of Celtic would have been greatly improved by having them in their squads. We couldn't compete financially as der hun was cheating

[Eyrie]

I'd strip them of all trophies won during the period of the illegal payments and simply leave the winner as "void" rather than award it to the runner up. That would highlight for future generations the price of cheating and unlike the asterisks idea would deny their fans any opportunity to claim those titles.

[AndyM_1875]

The thing is though that Hibs, along with every other club outside of Celtic would have been greatly improved by having them in their squads. We couldn't compete financially as der hun was cheating

I'm not convinced these players would ever have come to Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen etc. Their basic salaries even without the top up were way beyond what any of us were paying even during our big spending days.
Without the tax avoidance wheeze it would have been lumped in to the clubs debt.

[Ozyhibby]

I'm not convinced these players would ever have come to Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen etc. Their basic salaries even without the top up were way beyond what any of us were paying even during our big spending days.
Without the tax avoidance wheeze it would have been lumped in to the clubs debt.

Or the players would have signed for clubs in England and Rangers would have had to do with signings of a level Celtic could afford.
Rangers could afford Stefan Klos in goals while Celtic made do with Rab Douglas.
Celtic had a deal agreed with Nacho Novo and Rangers came in at the last minute and out bid them by offering him a tax free package.
Trying to claim this made no difference is ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

Drug doping or financial doping are both cheating in my book.

I don't disagree. What I am saying is the punishment should be meaningful.

No one remembers or cares who legitimately 'won' those races, once the cheaters were stripped if their titles, but Johnson and Armstrong can't now trade on their reputations as champions in retirement. An effective punishment.

The Rangers have no shame so stripping them of past titles will have no effect. It will not discourage their fan base either - except for a tiny minority who value sporting integrity over tribal loyalty. But a fine and points deduction or demotion now would be an effective punishment.

[emerald green]

And is there any real difference between Rangers and their EBT cheating and our neighbours at Tynecastle and their tax scams.

Gaining an unfair advantage is cheating, whichever way you look at it IMHO.


Stripping any club of past titles is a bit pointless I think. The fans of that club will still believe they won them, and fans of runners up or beaten finalists won't suddenly be celebrating an extra cup.

FWIW I don't think the clubs who ended up as runners up, or their fans, would actually want them. What fans want is an even playing field, and for justice to be seen to be done. The record books could be noted that those titles and/or cups were withdrawn, albeit retrospectively.


That's not what the Court of Session said. EBT's were not illegal at the time. What did breach the tax laws was Rangers cack handed attempt to use them to top up salaries and that's what the judges focused on. Most EBT usage in other corporate environments has used shares rather than cash.

This precedent if not appealed (unlikely) will allow HMRC to go after many of the big English Premiership & former Premiership clubs.

My understanding is that The Scottish Premier League (SPL), the SPFL's fore-runner, asked Lord Nimmo-Smith to investigate the use of EBTs by Rangers and whether they breached league rules two years ago.

He ruled the use of "side letters" to players & staff detailing the EBT payments did break league regulations and fined the oldco £250,000 as well as ordering it to pay £150,000 in costs. The Ibrox newco are challenging attempts to force them to pay the fine.

However, at the time of Lord Nimmo-Smith's ruling, EBT payments were not considered to be taxable earnings, a matter which led Nimmo-Smith to rule that Rangers had not received a sporting advantage by making tax-free payments... :rolleyes:

Now that the Court of Session has ruled that the payments should have been taxed, the eight man SPFL board are under pressure to look again at Nimmo-Smith's report.

[AndyM_1875]

Or the players would have signed for clubs in England and Rangers would have had to do with signings of a level Celtic could afford.
Rangers could afford Stefan Klos in goals while Celtic made do with Rab Douglas.
Celtic had a deal agreed with Nacho Novo and Rangers came in at the last minute and out bid them by offering him a tax free package.
Trying to claim this made no difference is ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry but I enjoy being a Devils Advocate and your point is supposition and doesn't prove a thing. It wouldn't stand up in court and I'd expect Rangers lawyers if challenged on this to ram that point home.

[grunt]

Gaining an unfair advantage is cheating, whichever way you look at it IMHO.

FWIW I don't think the clubs who ended up as runners up, or their fans, would actually want them. What fans want is an even playing field, and for justice to be seen to be done. The record books could be noted that those titles and/or cups were withdrawn, albeit retrospectively.

My understanding is that The Scottish Premier League (SPL), the SPFL's fore-runner, asked Lord Nimmo-Smith to investigate the use of EBTs by Rangers and whether they breached league rules two years ago. He ruled the use of "side letters" to players & staff detailing the EBT payments did break league regulations and fined the oldco £250,000 as well as ordering it to pay £150,000 in costs. The Ibrox newco are challenging attempts to force them to pay the fine. However, at the time of Lord Nimmo-Smith's ruling, EBT payments were not considered to be taxable earnings, a matter which led Nimmo-Smith to rule that Rangers had not received a sporting advantage by making tax-free payments... :rolleyes: Now that the Court of Session has ruled that the payments should have been taxed, the eight man SPFL board are under pressure to look again at Nimmo-Smith's report.
Three very clear points, well written.

[emerald green]

Three very clear points, well written.

:aok:

[Ozyhibby]

Sorry but I enjoy being a Devils Advocate and your point is supposition and doesn't prove a thing. It wouldn't stand up in court and I'd expect Rangers lawyers if challenged on this to ram that point home.

So you don't think a 40% boost to your player budget through not paying tax would not help a team perform better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AndyM_1875]

So you don't think a 40% boost to your player budget through not paying tax would not help a team perform better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A figure of 40% assumes the entire player remuneration was in the form of an EBT. It wasn't.
Players received a salary that was taxed and the EBT was a tax avoidance top up.
As I've stated earlier most working EBTs in other businesses operated in the form of shares rather than cash which is one of the reasons Rangers use of them was flawed

[s.a.m]

A figure of 40% assumes the entire player remuneration was in the form of an EBT. It wasn't.
Players received a salary that was taxed and the EBT was a tax avoidance top up.
As I've stated earlier most working EBTs in other businesses operated in the form of shares rather than cash which is one of the reasons Rangers use of them was flawed

Whichever way the wages break down, Rangers saved between 45 and 50 million pounds by not collecting PAYE / NI on wages through the EBT scheme. That's a substantial bonus.
Most 'unfair advantage' strategies will not guarantee success, because there will always be factors you can't control, whether you're using money you shouldn't have or drugs or whatever other form of jiggery-pokery to achieve it. We can't know what the outcome would have been if Rangers had not breached SFA rules about player registration, or spent money on staff that they should have been handing over to Hector - and it doesn't matter. Sports organisations and athletes do it because it improves their chances, and that's why there are rules and sanctions.

[Onion]

I'm not convinced these players would ever have come to Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen etc. Their basic salaries even without the top up were way beyond what any of us were paying even during our big spending days.
Without the tax avoidance wheeze it would have been lumped in to the clubs debt.

You're missing the point. Put it another way, how would you feel if Edinburgh Council paid 40+% of hearts wages for them ?

[stokesmessiah]

We all know that nothing will happen. Right?

[Glesgahibby]

You're missing the point. Put it another way, how would you feel if Edinburgh Council paid 40+% of hearts wages for them ?

Or Lithuanian savers,Herriot watt and so on

[MrSmith]

We all know that nothing will happen. Right?

That's the most disappointing thing! We do all know cos no one will do anything!!

[EdinMike]

We all know that nothing will happen. Right?

*clap clap* Move along, people. Nothing is happening.

[Nakedmanoncrack]

However many trophies they won unfairly doesn't really matter, that club can never win any more honours, so it's not worth getting excited about tbh.

[Bostonhibby]

You're missing the point. Put it another way, how would you feel if Edinburgh Council paid 40+% of hearts wages for them ?

:agree: Or chipped in a couple of hundred thousand subsidy towards their costs by not bothering to pursue council tax and giving them a free car park :wink:

[Cropley10]

HMRC appear to be more interested in chasing down bigger fish than Rangers. All this ruling is, is a precedent that allows that course of action. I read that they'll get an estimated 5p in the pound from the liquidators of Oldco.

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 are in Liquidation aren't they? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30805669

Difficult to see how a liquidated company, never mind there being limited scope for sn appeal anyway, is going to be allowed or able to do this.

What do you base your view on?

[Ozyhibby]

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/07/e831bb40a87defec3fca6f427b746e88.jpg

The words of David Murray


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cropley10]

However many trophies they won unfairly doesn't really matter, that club can never win any more honours, so it's not worth getting excited about tbh.

Except that IF they win the Premiership, then they will add that to the 54 and no-one will correct them!

[CropleyWasGod]

The Murray Group are in Liquidation aren't they? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30805669

Difficult to see how a liquidated company, never mind there being limited scope for sn appeal anyway, is going to be allowed or able to do this.

What do you base your view on?

I can't see that they would. Given that the liquidator is acting on behalf of all creditors, not just the non-HMRC ones, it's difficult to see what they could achieve by appealing. At best, a "win" might get their legal fees repaid into the creditors pot. At worst, they could find themselves down by more.

In a way, it's a shame that the case isn't allowed to go the "whole way" (ie to the Supreme Court, Lords etc), as it's actually very important. That it might not do so, out of a lack of funds, IMO doesn't satisfy natural justice.

[Cropley10]

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/07/e831bb40a87defec3fca6f427b746e88.jpg

The words of David Murray


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Its pretty obtuse to argue that if Rangers could put more net cash in a players banks than another Club, then Rnagers haven't signed better players than they would otherwise have been able to do, no?

[ScottB]

I'd strip them of all trophies won during the period of the illegal payments and simply leave the winner as "void" rather than award it to the runner up. That would highlight for future generations the price of cheating and unlike the asterisks idea would deny their fans any opportunity to claim those titles.

They'd still claim them, case in point, Juventus still claim to have won the titles they were stripped of for match fixing.

Of course that's not a reason not to strip them of things they won while cheating, but you'll never get the club or the fans to sing that tune.

[JeMeSouviens]

Whether they got an advantage or not (they obv did) every result they achieved with ebt side lettered players should have been wiped. They weren't properly registered. If it's good enough to throw wee teams out of cups because their paperwork isn't right then it should apply to all. The Hun saga has been round after round of our authorities bottling it and failing to apply the rules.

The only time they didn't bottle it from the Huns was because they were bottling it from every other teams' fans!

[brog]

And is there any real difference between Rangers and their EBT cheating and our neighbours at Tynecastle and their tax scams.

IIRC the first involved Vlad getting players to sign for Kaunas F C and then loaning them to Hearts. Their wages paid tax free in Lithuania although the players were playing in the UK. Eventually just before a tax tribunal began in 2012 Hearts agreed to pay £ 1.5 million back tax, but of course went bust before they paid anything.

Then there was Vlad's private deal with Rudi Skacel. Half his wages paid and taxed here and the other half sent from Lith to his Czech bank account. All detailed at Edinburgh sheriff Court thanks to his tiff with his agent.

Gavin Berry in DR today actually makes much the same point. He specifically mentions that in 2012 Yams outbid St M for Craig Beattie's services then Beattie scored against St M as well of course as the pen in the semi. 2 cheeks of the same erchie!

[AndyM_1875]

The Murray Group are in Liquidation aren't they? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30805669

Difficult to see how a liquidated company, never mind there being limited scope for sn appeal anyway, is going to be allowed or able to do this.

What do you base your view on?

Some of Murrays companies are in liquidation. Others are doing very nicely indeed.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/business-consumer/former-rangers-owner-sir-david-6630601

[Nakedmanoncrack]

Except that IF they win the Premiership, then they will add that to the 54 and no-one will correct them!

Exactly, and that's the bigger issue which is being ignored under this smokescreen.

[Cropley10]

Some of Murrays companies are in liquidation. Others are doing very nicely indeed.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/business-consumer/former-rangers-owner-sir-david-6630601

So, these Companies, that are not part of the liquidated Murray Group Holdings, can now become involved in an Appeal to the Supreme Court?

Sorry, I'm confused...

[magpie1892]

Except that IF they win the Premiership, then they will add that to the 54 and no-one will correct them!

Other than every single fan of every single club, forever. They'll never shake it off. Whenever they win a major trophy, most people will start counting at one...

[Greenworld]

So, these Companies, that are not part of the liquidated Murray Group Holdings, can now become involved in an Appeal to the Supreme Court?

Sorry, I'm confused...
No murray has countless businesses all seperate entities...they cannot be chased for money

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

Finally, someone at the Daily Record has broken ranks and criticised David Murray.

I never thought I'd see the day.


Although he's arguing against the stripping of titles (which I disagree with) he does actually say...

"Meanwhile ‘Sir’ David - a title which SHOULD be stripped - carries on regardless and remorseless."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/gordon-waddell-taking-titles-away-6789757

[Onion]

Whether they got an advantage or not (they obv did) every result they achieved with ebt side lettered players should have been wiped. They weren't properly registered. If it's good enough to throw wee teams out of cups because their paperwork isn't right then it should apply to all. The Hun saga has been round after round of our authorities bottling it and failing to apply the rules.

The only time they didn't bottle it from the Huns was because they were bottling it from every other teams' fans!

:agree: Can you imagine the situation where Hibs or Dundee (out of nowhere) won a string of trophies including the League, Scottish Cups and League Cups which were subsequently deemed to be illegally funded by tax payers ? Forget about any investigations or debate, those trophies would be written off the record books without a second thought. And rightly so, as they make a mockery of those competitions and devalue the trophies won legitimately by others. It is doping, plain and simple.

The single reason this has not happened is that it is Rangers.

[grunt]

The other issue - which does not seem to be discussed very prominently in the media - is the SFA / SPFL ( I know not which) sanctions which should apply when clubs fail to properly disclose full earnings relating to players. Spartans were thrown out of a cup competition because one of their players didn't have the correct signatures on his registration. Here's Rangers who have blatantly failed to disclose their players' full earnings to the authorities over a period of many years. This is where the sanctions should be easy to identify.

[grunt]

I've already read a piece from a London QC (http://waitingfortax.com/2015/11/06/on-ebts-and-rangers-fc-part-1/#comments)who specializes in Tax Law criticizing the decision. Your man has posted part two of his dissertation. http://waitingfortax.com/2015/11/08/on-ebts-and-rangers-fc-part-2/#comments

[greenginger]

:agree: Can you imagine the situation where Hibs or Dundee (out of nowhere) won a string of trophies including the League, Scottish Cups and League Cups which were subsequently deemed to be illegally funded by tax payers ? Forget about any investigations or debate, those trophies would be written off the record books without a second thought. And rightly so, as they make a mockery of those competitions and devalue the trophies won legitimately by others. It is doping, plain and simple.

The single reason this has not happened is that it is Rangers.


And, what about Heart of Midlothian and their taxpayer funded squads !

[brog]

Your man has posted part two of his dissertation. http://waitingfortax.com/2015/11/08/on-ebts-and-rangers-fc-part-2/#comments

I was initially completely confused by his use of US style dates! I wondered how he knew the case results on the 11th of August but I'm guessing 11/8 is in fact the 8th of November! He also appears to be confused in a number of regards, he starts by comparing someone receiving a bonus in year 3 for work done in year 1 with the Oldco situation. Em, not quite, someone receiving a bonus 2 years late will still pay tax on that bonus, unlike EBT's. Having worked with lawyers in business for many years I was constantly frustrated by their inability to give a specific opinion & they seemed to get a perverse pleasure out of contrasting or comparing the letter of the law to the sense of the law. This guy would have fitted right in!

[Cropley10]

This whole thing could drag on for a few more years yet.
.

What's going to drag on for a few more years, can you elaborate?

[CropleyWasGod]

Your man has posted part two of his dissertation. http://waitingfortax.com/2015/11/08/on-ebts-and-rangers-fc-part-2/#comments
And here's an alternative view.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/11/08/rangers-ebt-why-the-court-of-session-got-it-right/#sthash.OQH65uXK&st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/s7kl8SG1rd

Incidentally, I read a Tweet yesterday that suggested the recipients of the EBT cash are being chased by HMRC. I find it hard to believe, but the guy seems to talk a good game. Anybody else heard that?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

And here's an alternative view.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/11/08/rangers-ebt-why-the-court-of-session-got-it-right/#sthash.OQH65uXK&st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/s7kl8SG1rd

Incidentally, I read a Tweet yesterday that suggested the recipients of the EBT cash are being chased by HMRC. I find it hard to believe, but the guy seems to talk a good game. Anybody else heard that?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Just when I think its calming down you get me all excited again......

[grunt]

Incidentally, I read a Tweet yesterday that suggested the recipients of the EBT cash are being chased by HMRC. I find it hard to believe, but the guy seems to talk a good game. Anybody else heard that?Only place I've seen it discussed is on the venerable John James site https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/the-supreme-court-defence/ where he's getting all excited about Barry Ferguson facing jail time or a tax bill or both. Frankly, if JJ thinks its going to happen, I rather doubt it will.

[Jim44]

Only place I've seen it discussed is on the venerable John James site https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/the-supreme-court-defence/ where he's getting all excited about Barry Ferguson facing jail time or a tax bill or both. Frankly, if JJ thinks its going to happen, I rather doubt it will.

This guy is hardly cutting edge. He's no more than a burr under the saddle, if even that, to Sevco supporters.

[CropleyWasGod]

Only place I've seen it discussed is on the venerable John James site https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/the-supreme-court-defence/ where he's getting all excited about Barry Ferguson facing jail time or a tax bill or both. Frankly, if JJ thinks its going to happen, I rather doubt it will.
Given that the Court of Session have upheld the HMRC assessments, which treated the payments as employment income, ( which puts the liability of the PAYE and NI on RFC ), I would think it unlikely that they would then chase the recipients for payment of the same tax.



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

No idea of course about where he gets his info but here is JJ's latest offering about the possibility of a new SPFL investigation..

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/

[Smartie]

I just cannot believe that this John James chap is a Rangers fan.

Whether he's talking about Dave King, financial doping or in this case Barry Ferguson, his position seems to be diametrically opposite to that of every other Rangers fan I know.

I must admit I quite like his postings but I take them with about a ton of salt.

[grunt]

No idea of course about where he gets his info but here is JJ's latest offering about the possibility of a new SPFL investigation..

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/

Thanks (https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/[/QUOTE]Thanks) for that, interesting if true. So 4 out of the 6 club representatives were unhappy? AFAICT the six club reps on the SPFL Board are, Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen), Eric Riley (Celtic) and Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Eric Drysdale (Raith Rovers) and Mike Mulraney (Alloa Athletic), and Ken Ferguson (Brechin City).

Wonder who the gang of four is?

[Smartie]

Thanks"]https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/

Thanks[/URL] for that, interesting if true. So 4 out of the 6 club representatives were unhappy? AFAICT the six club reps on the SPFL Board are, Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen), Eric Riley (Celtic) and Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Eric Drysdale (Raith Rovers) and Mike Mulraney (Alloa Athletic), and Ken Ferguson (Brechin City).

Wonder who the gang of four is?[/QUOTE]

Well 2 of them (Drysdale and Thompson) have previous when it comes to run-ins with Rangers.

I'd be astonished if representatives from Aberdeen and Celtic weren't at the forefront of trying to have titles annulled.

[HoboHarry]

Thanks[/URL] for that, interesting if true. So 4 out of the 6 club representatives were unhappy? AFAICT the six club reps on the SPFL Board are, Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen), Eric Riley (Celtic) and Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Eric Drysdale (Raith Rovers) and Mike Mulraney (Alloa Athletic), and Ken Ferguson (Brechin City).

Wonder who the gang of four is?

Well 2 of them (Drysdale and Thompson) have previous when it comes to run-ins with Rangers.

I'd be astonished if representatives from Aberdeen and Celtic weren't at the forefront of trying to have titles annulled.[/QUOTE]

I would be more inclined to think that Celtic would stay well clear of that one, especially if there were already enough dissenting voices to make sure there was a new investigation.....

[Sergey]

I just cannot believe that this John James chap is a Rangers fan.

Whether he's talking about Dave King, financial doping or in this case Barry Ferguson, his position seems to be diametrically opposite to that of every other Rangers fan I know.

I must admit I quite like his postings but I take them with about a ton of salt.

He did admit to reading the Daily Record :dunno:

[PatHead]

Exactly, and that's the bigger issue which is being ignored under this smokescreen.

I keep reading on here that King has never made any investment in The Rangers yet I get told by fans of the new club that he has invested £1.5m. The only evidence I can find is the attached BBC news article.

Does anyone know if it was ever made and if King owns New Oasis Asset Limited on his own or if it is the usual hot air from him?

[BIGK]

Or the players would have signed for clubs in England and Rangers would have had to do with signings of a level Celtic could afford.
Rangers could afford Stefan Klos in goals while Celtic made do with Rab Douglas.
Celtic had a deal agreed with Nacho Novo and Rangers came in at the last minute and out bid them by offering him a tax free package.
Trying to claim this made no difference is ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great post . Pretty hard to disagree with your logic, although some would try.

[BIGK]

Sorry but I enjoy being a Devils Advocate and your point is supposition and doesn't prove a thing. It wouldn't stand up in court and I'd expect Rangers lawyers if challenged on this to ram that point home.

I disagre with your point . Oldco broke the rules on player registration and also there then tax return as the law now see's it. Lawyers and advocates can argue all they like but to overturn a law lords decision takes the supreme court as far as I know it.

[Cropley10]

I keep reading on here that King has never made any investment in The Rangers yet I get told by fans of the new club that he has invested £1.5m. The only evidence I can find is the attached BBC news article.

Does anyone know if it was ever made and if King owns New Oasis Asset Limited on his own or if it is the usual hot air from him?

Some doubt that it is his money, but that business is controlled by his family, a daughter I believe.

King is a liar, so if you work on the basis that he doesnt tell the truth then you won't go far wrong!

[AndyM_1875]

I disagre with your point . Oldco broke the rules on player registration and also there then tax return as the law now see's it. Lawyers and advocates can argue all they like but to overturn a law lords decision takes the supreme court as far as I know it.

You're perfectly entitled to disagree with my point. I do however stand by it.
I would not be surprised to see this carry on to the Supreme Court.

[Cropley10]

You're perfectly entitled to disagree with my point. I do however stand by it.
I would not be surprised to see this carry on to the Supreme Court.

Interesting, who would take it to the Supreme Court exactly, and what could they win/gain by doing so?

Murray Group Holdings is being liquidated. Are you saying Sir David Murray will take this up for further appeal then?

[CropleyWasGod]

You're perfectly entitled to disagree with my point. I do however stand by it.
I would not be surprised to see this carry on to the Supreme Court.
In some ways, I would like it to. It's a case with so much riding on it, that it would be a shame if it didn't go to the SC just because there was no money.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Cropley10]

In some ways, I would like it to. It's a case with so much riding on it, that it would be a shame if it didn't go to the SC just because there was no money.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

But is there so much riding on it? What would be gained by a Supreme Court, confirmation that Rangers maanged to run a unique tax avoidance scheme that legally allowed them to pay players more than anyone else could who was paying PAYE, NI etc.

Or, is it - that the Supreme Court would confirm that they were cheating?

[jacomo]

I just cannot believe that this John James chap is a Rangers fan.

Whether he's talking about Dave King, financial doping or in this case Barry Ferguson, his position seems to be diametrically opposite to that of every other Rangers fan I know.

I must admit I quite like his postings but I take them with about a ton of salt.

I think it's pretty clear he's not a Rangers fan.

[CropleyWasGod]

But is there so much riding on it? What would be gained by a Supreme Court, confirmation that Rangers maanged to run a unique tax avoidance scheme that legally allowed them to pay players more than anyone else could who was paying PAYE, NI etc.

Or, is it - that the Supreme Court would confirm that they were cheating?
As has been said before on here, it's not about Rangers. It's a test case for the many (hundreds?) other similar cases that HMRC has open on EBTs. If this goes their way, they will have authority to press on with them.




Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[brog]

You're perfectly entitled to disagree with my point. I do however stand by it.
I would not be surprised to see this carry on to the Supreme Court.

Why would SDM want this to go to the Supreme Court? All it does is give him more unfavourable publicity with no possible financial advantage. AS CWG said it would be fun if it did but I would be amazed to see this case go on to the SC.

[Spike Mandela]

As has been said before on here, it's not about Rangers. It's a test case for the many (hundreds?) other similar cases that HMRC has open on EBTs. If this goes their way, they will have authority to press on with them.




Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I wonder if there are many wealthy football EBT users who would be willing to financially back Murray in an appeal to try and overturn this case and avoid a precedant being set.

[Cropley10]

As has been said before on here, it's not about Rangers. It's a test case for the many (hundreds?) other similar cases that HMRC has open on EBTs. If this goes their way, they will have authority to press on with them.




Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

But, actually it is in one sense about Rangers, as a test case, and as a final verdict on EBT's.

[CropleyWasGod]

But, actually it is in one sense about Rangers, as a test case, and as a final verdict on EBT's.
Rangers, and the tax at issue, are almost irrelevant in this. It's about clarifying the law, which is why some would like to see it heard by the SC.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[MrSmith]

two points I suspect:

1) no mileage in rangers appealing to SC as they have been caught!

however and I hope ...

2) some idiot does (insert idiot name here) as I suspect the SC will uphold the decision and absolutely and completely nail Rangers to the mast!

I do do want A.N Idiot to appeal as this would take out all the criminals running Scottish Football in a single blow! Oh how I wish:aok:

[CropleyWasGod]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

I wonder if there are many wealthy football EBT users who would be willing to financially back Murray in an appeal to try and overturn this case and avoid a precedant being set.
Dunno, TBH. I suppose it's a possibility.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[ballengeich]

I wonder if there are many wealthy football EBT users who would be willing to financially back Murray in an appeal to try and overturn this case and avoid a precedant being set.

They might be better to wait for a case where the employers had the sense not to issue side letters.

[CropleyWasGod]

two points I suspect:

1) no mileage in rangers appealing to SC as they have been caught!

however and I hope ...

2) some idiot does (insert idiot name here) as I suspect the SC will uphold the decision and absolutely and completely nail Rangers to the mast!

I do do want A.N Idiot to appeal as this would take out all the criminals running Scottish Football in a single blow! Oh how I wish:aok:
How would that happen?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[MrSmith]

How would that happen?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Which bit?

[CropleyWasGod]

Which bit?
Taking out all the criminals etc etc...

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[MrSmith]

Taking out all the criminals etc etc...

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Personally and IMO, once the ruling kicks in, there is no hiding place for those who run Scottish football (sorry for the drama but I call them criminals) because Rangers will hit out everywhere and at everyone meaning the hidden bodies will start appearing fairly soon. Watch out for a few quiet resignations or mutual parting of ways before the tsunami hits ...

[high bee]

Personally and IMO, once the ruling kicks in, there is no hiding place for those who run Scottish football (sorry for the drama but I call them criminals) because Rangers will hit out everywhere and at everyone meaning the hidden bodies will start appearing fairly soon. Watch out for a few quiet resignations or mutual parting of ways before the tsunami hits ...

Nice balanced views on Sportscene from Steven Thompson and Stuart McCall. They both say rangers didn't cheat because the trophies were won on the park!? What does that even mean? Maybe they should take their heads out their backsides and realise the players on the park could only be afforded through EBTs.

They were quoting ex Celtic people like Martin O'Neill with the trophies were won on the park and apparently many across football agree. No mention of the majority of fans, players etc who think it was as clear a case of cheating as you can get.

Unfortunately I feel this is the type of bluff that the football authorities will hide behind and try to make out that their is no appetite for justice or that some who used to be at Celtic says it's ok so it must be.

[livi hibs 1875]

Nice balanced views on Sportscene from Steven Thompson and Stuart McCall. They both say rangers didn't cheat because the trophies were won on the park!? What does that even mean? Maybe they should take their heads out their backsides and realise the players on the park could only be afforded through EBTs.

They were quoting ex Celtic people like Martin O'Neill with the trophies were won on the park and apparently many across football agree. No mention of the majority of fans, players etc who think it was as clear a case of cheating as you can get.

Unfortunately I feel this is the type of bluff that the football authorities will hide behind and try to make out that their is no appetite for justice or that some who used to be at Celtic says it's ok so it must be.



Take the football authorities out of it to start with, is there anyway fans can have there say again same way they said no to them being accepted into the top flight after they became the mighty sevco , I'm pretty sure if there was a poll done in each football fans websites in Scotland you could easily ask the question quite simply , should they or should they not be stripped of these titles and cups , then theses could be given to the authorities and show them how the fans really feel , just a thought could this be done all over the club's in Scotland or is that just stupid lol

[Ozyhibby]

http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/null-and-void


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

Nice balanced views on Sportscene from Steven Thompson and Stuart McCall. They both say rangers didn't cheat because the trophies were won on the park!? What does that even mean? Maybe they should take their heads out their backsides and realise the players on the park could only be afforded through EBTs.

They were quoting ex Celtic people like Martin O'Neill with the trophies were won on the park and apparently many across football agree. No mention of the majority of fans, players etc who think it was as clear a case of cheating as you can get.

Unfortunately I feel this is the type of bluff that the football authorities will hide behind and try to make out that their is no appetite for justice or that some who used to be at Celtic says it's ok so it must be.

Well Thompson would he had an EBT for 475k when at Rangers.

[BH Hibs]

http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/null-and-void


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Two faced cheating Hearts **** . Can't believe the hypocrisy with these knobs

[Smartie]

http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/null-and-void


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I remember a spell of a few years where Hibs and Hearts went head to head for a number of players. Unfortunately the turd-coloured pound tended to win the day and we saw a number of players choose them over us.

Many derbies were lost and we were left shrugging our shoulders about how we could possibly compete with the insane spending power of a similar-sized club to ourselves.

The irony of his entire piece is that he had a picture of "that" cup final at the top of his page. A cup run that saw them unable to meet contractual commitments wth their players one month and beating several clubs to the signing of Craig Beattie the next.

If you want to play the victim and moan about how much money the bad huns diddled you out of then you'd be best doing it without having a photo of the most tainted trophy win in Scottish football history at the top of the page. Even if it is your club's proudest moment.

Or maybe I'm just a bitter hobo.

[Treadstone]

http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/null-and-void


Predictable guff. The notion that the yams missed out on Champions League while they themselves carried unsustainable debt and most probably dodgy tax arrangements is hilarious.

[Hibrandenburg]

Take the football authorities out of it to start with, is there anyway fans can have there say again same way they said no to them being accepted into the top flight after they became the mighty sevco , I'm pretty sure if there was a poll done in each football fans websites in Scotland you could easily ask the question quite simply , should they or should they not be stripped of these titles and cups , then theses could be given to the authorities and show them how the fans really feel , just a thought could this be done all over the club's in Scotland or is that just stupid lol

The only way fans can have their say would be if they stayed away but that's never gonna happen. As long as rangers and celtic are the meal ticket for Scottish football then things will always be adapted to accommodate their needs.

[Jim44]

http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/null-and-void


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a joke. Black,pot,kettle, calling .......

[brog]

http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/null-and-void


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


He actually, IMO, makes many good points but unfortunately much of it is undone by the guff in bold below. Maxing out the overdraft & credit card doesn't really account for stiffing creditors to the tune of £30m, including more than £2million to UK taxpayers. Strange also there's no mention of contracts & payments being funneled through Lithuania to allow Yams to avoid tax & buy players they could not otherwise afford! Now why does that sound familiar & is it sheer coincidence that Campbell (Teflon) Ogilvie was heavily involved with both Yams & Sevco at the time both clubs were flouting the rules & leaving a trail of debts?

Hearts, like many others, did (on a larger scale admittedly - and they shouldn't have) maxed out both overdraft and credit card.

They paid for it. They went into administration, took the massive points deduction that went with it, accepted their culpability and managed to appeal to the good grace of their creditors to negotiate a CVA that allowed them to get something back.

Far from ideal, and you would be hard-pressed to find a Hearts fan who is proud of what happened.

[brog]

I wonder if there are many wealthy football EBT users who would be willing to financially back Murray in an appeal to try and overturn this case and avoid a precedant being set.

Is it not actually BDO, on behalf of the creditors, who would be the only ones likely to appeal? If there's no appeal HMRC will swallow up most of the pot leaving very little for anyone else. However if there's not a significant & influential creditor who stands to lose heavily I doubt BDO will have the inclination to appeal though morally perhaps they should.

[Geo_1875]

He actually, IMO, makes many good points but unfortunately much of it is undone by the guff in bold below. Maxing out the overdraft & credit card doesn't really account for stiffing creditors to the tune of £30m, including more than £2million to UK taxpayers. Strange also there's no mention of contracts & payments being funneled through Lithuania to allow Yams to avoid tax & buy players they could not otherwise afford! Now why does that sound familiar & is it sheer coincidence that Campbell (Teflon) Ogilvie was heavily involved with both Yams & Sevco at the time both clubs were flouting the rules & leaving a trail of debts?

Hearts, like many others, did (on a larger scale admittedly - and they shouldn't have) maxed out both overdraft and credit card.

They paid for it. They went into administration, took the massive points deduction that went with it, accepted their culpability and managed to appeal to the good grace of their creditors to negotiate a CVA that allowed them to get something back.

Far from ideal, and you would be hard-pressed to find a Hearts fan who is proud of what happened.

Sorry, maxing the overdraft and credit card isn't criminal. Doing so with no intention of paying them off is. Maxing the cards and overdraft, then ripping off your friends and neighbours by running a fraudulent Christmas club scheme is. Trying to downplay their clubs criminality and their own culpability doesn't wash with me.