Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[grunt]

Why not? It's a very fair argument.You've got two different jurisdictions in play here. The creditors, the liquidation were all under UK law. The fine in question has nothing to do with UK law, but is a fine levied by the SPFL for breaching their rules.

[grunt]

Evading tax is not a football debt. Try telling the taxman that one!Jeezo. The fine doesn't have anything to do with evading tax.

[doddsy]

The 5 way agreement laid down the conditions for RFC being granted an SFA licence. One of those was that all football debts would be honoured, including any sanction that the SFA/SPFL might impose for EBT use.

The new Rangers regime, under Charles Green, accepted that. IIRC, they also accepted the findings of the tribunal that set the fine (I may have my timings out on that one). It was Dave King that refused to pay the fine, and appealed it. IMO, the judgement yesterday was the only one they could come to, since Green et al had signed that agreement.

Paying football debts to ensure continuing football licences is an anomaly, as you say, but it is one that has never been challenged by any liquidator. Why would they? Reducing the amount of creditors by the amount of football debts actually increases the remaining creditors' share of the pot. It's therefore not in a liquidator's interests to challenge it.

It was Oldco who that used EBT's not Newco and it's not a football debt. But I do have respect for your well made argument CWG.

[Brunswickbill]

I'm guessing it's a football debt because it's a fine levied by the football authorities for a football related misdemeanour (LNS "inquiry") and not for something under UK law.

Aye if it's payable to a club/player/SPFL. Don't know how far it applies Eg if it applies to other employees of club. Its the football business looking after its own.

[doddsy]

Jeezo. The fine doesn't have anything to do with evading tax.

The fine was issued for Oldco's EBT tax avoidance grunt. Why would Newco have to pay that?

[CropleyWasGod]

It was Oldco who that used EBT's not Newco and it's not a football debt. But I do have respect for your well made argument CWG.

Whether or not it's a "football debt" is actually irrelevant. Newco agreed to the sanction, and that's what matters.

[CropleyWasGod]

The fine was issued for Oldco's EBT tax avoidance grunt. Why would Newco have to pay that?

Because they agreed that they would.

[grunt]

The fine was issued for Oldco's EBT tax avoidance grunt. Why would Newco have to pay that?You just accepted CWG's explanation but you wont accept mine even though it's the same? I give up.

[doddsy]

You just accepted CWG's explanation but you wont accept mine even though it's the same? I give up.

I did'nt say I accepted CWG's explanation. I gave CWG respect for making his argument thoughtfully as he always does. Not saying you don't of course.

:aok:

[grunt]

I did'nt say I accepted CWG's explanation. I gave CWG respect for making his argument thoughtfully as he always does. Not saying you don't of course.

:aok:Fairy nuff. I realised after I'd posted that you said you'd respected his argument rather than accepted it.

[doddsy]

Because they agreed that they would.

Therein lies my argument. in so much as if I was a stiffed creditor and Newco is seen paying readies for Oldco's actions I would be wanting answers.

[doddsy]

Fairy nuff. I realised after I'd posted that you said you'd respected his argument rather than accepted it.


:thumbsup:

[CropleyWasGod]

Therein lies my argument. in so much as if I was a stiffed creditor and Newco is seen paying readies for Oldco's actions I would be wanting answers.

You didn't read the rest of my post.

If Oldco had taken the fine, that would have reduced the amount available to the other creditors. They're better off by Newco paying it.

[doddsy]

You didn't read the rest of my post.

If Oldco had taken the fine, that would have reduced the amount available to the other creditors. They're better off by Newco paying it.

That's an argument CWG. I am still of the opinion that as Newco are paying off a debt caused by Oldco and I was a creditor I would argue the linkage existence and file a writ. It may be an argument
without merit from the Courts but it would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons. I would also have the written testimony from D King and Bomber Brown stating they are not a new club.

[CropleyWasGod]

That's an argument CWG. I am still of the opinion that as Newco are paying off a debt caused by Oldco and I was a creditor I would argue the linkage existence and file a writ. It would be an argument without merit from the Courts but it would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons. I would also have the written testimony from D King an Bomber Brown stating they are not a new club.

It's more than an argument, it's fact :greengrin

You would get nowhere with your writ. It's illegal to sue a company in liquidation. To sue a company not in liquidation, to get past first base you would need to show an invoice (to Newco) for the debt. None of Oldco's creditors have that.

[doddsy]

You would get nowhere. It's illegal to sue a company in liquidation. To sue a company not in liquidation, to get past first base you would need to show an invoice (to Newco) for the debt. None of Oldco's creditors have that.

Yes I understand that CWG. But therein lies the legal anomaly with the five way agreement. Newco is not liable for Oldco's usage of tax evation/avoidance of EBT's despite them initially agreeing to pay them. You did agree there was a legal anomaly. It's not a football debt.

It is a highly dubious and frankly shocking state of affairs. I'm not saying I'm against RIFC paying out a not insubstantial amount of readies however it stinks to high heaven.

[O'Rourke3]

At which point will DK claim that this was an enforced bribe to the SFPL to clear the way to Sevco's registration?

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes I understand that CWG. But therein lies the legal anomaly with the five way agreement. Newco is not liable for Oldco's usage of tax evation/avoidance of EBT's despite them initially agreeing to pay them. You did agree there was a legal anomaly. It's not a football debt.

It is a highly dubious and frankly shocking state of affairs. I'm not saying I'm against RIFC paying out a not insubstantial amount of readies however it stinks to high heaven.

You're not getting this..... a contract was signed that was legally binding on all parties. Therefore it's payable.... and that is what the Courts have just decided. Whether or not the fine is a football debt is irrelevant.

I agreed that the "football debt" was an anomaly in insolvency terms. Once again, it's one that suits the remaining creditors.

[doddsy]

At which point will DK claim that this was an enforced bribe to the SFPL to clear the way to Sevco's registration?

Good point. Love the badge O'Rourke, used to have one with the two fingers.

I'm aff to enjoy the rest of ma voddy bottle. See you soon peeps. Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

Doddsy

:gwa:

[CropleyWasGod]

At which point will DK claim that this was an enforced bribe to the SFPL to clear the way to Sevco's registration?

Presumably, he offered that argument to the Court.

However, he would be wrong in saying so. At the time the 5 Way Agreement was signed, there was no fine.

[Just Alf]

I'm a bit confused (again!) .... while related to the EBT's I thought the "fine" was.in relation to they way oldco had registered the players involved rather than the actual use.of the EBT.... ie if they registered the EBT payment element with the SFA at the time then there would have been no case to answer, in footballing terms at least??


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[ballengeich]

I'm a bit confused (again!) .... while related to the EBT's I thought the "fine" was.in relation to they way oldco had registered the players involved rather than the actual use.of the EBT.... ie if they registered the EBT payment element with the SFA at the time then there would have been no case to answer, in footballing terms at least??


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

That's my understanding too. Some time ago Billy Dodds talked on Radio Scotland about his EBT. He said that the only payment he got was a severance payment of the balance of his contract. While he'd been playing, his payments had come throught the company's PAYE scheme. He got the net amount he was expecting as a one-off so as the amount he received had been declared in his registered contract I'd say the club hadn't commited a football offence in this case.

However, I hope the Supreme Court will decide there should be tax paid on this type of transaction.

[doddsy]

I'm a bit confused (again!) .... while related to the EBT's I thought the "fine" was.in relation to they way oldco had registered the players involved rather than the actual use.of the EBT.... ie if they registered the EBT payment element with the SFA at the time then there would have been no case to answer, in footballing terms at least??


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

The fine was for the usage of the EBT side letters setting out readies loaned and not part of the player's/staff/everybody at Ibrox official contracts which were of course liable for tax while the EBT's were not at that time. Just another tax avoidance scheme used to fool the taxman. Thankfully said taxman is tightening up these greedy barstewards duplicitous schemes.

[doddsy]

Anyone else agree that the timing of the fine being paid is suspicious. If it had been ordered be paid several months ago RIFC might not have had the money to add one Billy King who would not then have scored the last minute goal he did just prior to us going on our poor run of form. Might have changed events slightly.

[grunt]

Anyone else agree that the timing of the fine being paid is suspicious.Hasn't been paid yet ....

[doddsy]

Hasn't been paid yet ....

Yes you are 100% correct grunt. It seems it will be sliced off winning the league money instead. If it had been ordered earlier it may have changed events, mibbes aye mibbes naw.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes you are 100% correct grunt. It seems it will be sliced off winning the league money instead. If it had been ordered earlier it may have changed events, mibbes aye mibbes naw.
Would still have been deducted from whatever money the SPFL were due them.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[doddsy]

Would still have been deducted from whatever money the SPFL were due them.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I take your point CWG but it still seems unfair they were allowed to add players like Billy King who gained points on the board for them while they were owed this money to the SPFL no?

[CropleyWasGod]

I take your point CWG but it still seems unfair they were allowed to add players like Billy King who gained points on the board for them while they were owed this money to the SPFL no?
They weren't due it when he signed, though.

Even if they had been, the money would have been found for his wages. That's been the nature of the recent history; they have been able to muddle on with loans from here and there.



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[doddsy]

They weren't due it when he signed, though.

Even if they had been, the money would have been found for his wages. That's been the nature of the recent history; they have been able to muddle on with loans from here and there.



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I was under the impression they have been due this fine since the five way agreement. The time delay has been caused by the SPFL failure to insist on payment surely CWG. It is why I surmise it to be suspicious the Law Lords have only now ruled on it whence the title is all but sewn up.

[CropleyWasGod]

I was under the impression they have been due this fine since the five way agreement. The time delay has been caused by the SPFL failure to insist on payment surely CWG. It is why I surmise it to be suspicious the Law Lords have only now ruled on it whence the title is all but sewn up.

That's not correct.

The LNS enquiry imposed the fine in February 2013. The 5 way agreement was set the previous summer.

As for the delay, initially CG's regime put the bill in a drawer and didn't (wouldn't? couldn't?) pay it. The SPFL then wanted to deduct the fine from what was due to RFC. Dave King's regime didn't accept that it was due, and appealed to the Courts; at that point the SPFL weren't allowed to deduct it as it was subject to legal process.

[doddsy]

That's not correct.

The LNS enquiry imposed the fine in February 2013. The 5 way agreement was set the previous summer.

As for the delay, initially CG's regime put the bill in a drawer and didn't (couldn't?) pay it. The SPFL then wanted to deduct the fine from what was due to RFC. Dave King's regime didn't accept that it was due, and appealed to the Courts; at that point the SPFL weren't allowed to deduct it as it was subject to legal process.

Thank you for clearing up the finer details CWG. Co-incidental then that the Law Lords decision fell just a few weeks prior to RIFC winning the league. If their decision had fallen a few months ago it would have meant RIFC being due readies with the Billy King addition being highly controversial, it is why I said it looked at first glance to be suspicious. Mere co-incidence.

[Brunswickbill]

Extract from RIFC Annual Report 2015

EBT Fine
In 2012, the SPL raised proceedings against The Rangers Football Club plc (Oldco) in relation to the use of EBTs and
following a hearing in February 2013 a fine of £250,000 and costs of £150,000 were levied against Oldco. As part
the agreement to allow Rangers to participate in Scottish Football, there was a clause inserted where it was agreed
that Rangers would become liable and responsible for the imposition of any sanctions by the SPL for any breach of
SPL Rules and or articles by Oldco/Rangers FC (i.e. the £250,000 fine). The Club believes that the SPFL has, through
documents and actions, waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause, thereby
holding the Club harmless in relation to the sanctions. This is disputed by the SPFL.

Within the current SPFL rules there is a provision (known as the offset rule) whereby if any amounts are due to
the SPFL, the Board of the SPFL are entitled to withhold amounts due to the Club up to the value of the amount
outstanding. The Board of the SPFL have determined that it shall use the offset rule to recover the £250,000 fine
from the Club.

As a result of this decision, the Club has invoked Article 99 of the SFA Articles seeking a determination by an Arbitral
Tribunal appointed by the SFA that the sum is not due to the SPFL. The matter will proceed to full hearing on 29th
and 30th October.

Whilst the Board of Directors based on legal advice are confident that the case will be settled in its favour, should the
Club lose the case, then the Club will be liable for the £250,000 fine plus interest and associated costs.

The above extract gives an outline of what has gone on from RIFC point of view. It would be most interesting to get details of RIFC’s case in support of their statement that “the SPFL has, through documents and actions, waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause, thereby holding the Club harmless in relation to the sanctions.” I wonder who /what was done by the SPFL to give RIFC grounds to support this argument. Or was it just a glib and shamless falsehood? No doubt the SMSM will be beavering away to uncover what went on.:hmmm:

[doddsy]

Extract from RIFC Annual Report 2015

EBT Fine
In 2012, the SPL raised proceedings against The Rangers Football Club plc (Oldco) in relation to the use of EBTs and
following a hearing in February 2013 a fine of £250,000 and costs of £150,000 were levied against Oldco. As part
the agreement to allow Rangers to participate in Scottish Football, there was a clause inserted where it was agreed
that Rangers would become liable and responsible for the imposition of any sanctions by the SPL for any breach of
SPL Rules and or articles by Oldco/Rangers FC (i.e. the £250,000 fine). The Club believes that the SPFL has, through
documents and actions, waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause, thereby
holding the Club harmless in relation to the sanctions. This is disputed by the SPFL.

Within the current SPFL rules there is a provision (known as the offset rule) whereby if any amounts are due to
the SPFL, the Board of the SPFL are entitled to withhold amounts due to the Club up to the value of the amount
outstanding. The Board of the SPFL have determined that it shall use the offset rule to recover the £250,000 fine
from the Club.

As a result of this decision, the Club has invoked Article 99 of the SFA Articles seeking a determination by an Arbitral
Tribunal appointed by the SFA that the sum is not due to the SPFL. The matter will proceed to full hearing on 29th
and 30th October.

Whilst the Board of Directors based on legal advice are confident that the case will be settled in its favour, should the
Club lose the case, then the Club will be liable for the £250,000 fine plus interest and associated costs.

The above extract gives an outline of what has gone on from RIFC point of view. It would be most interesting to get details of RIFC’s case in support of their statement that “the SPFL has, through documents and actions, waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause, thereby holding the Club harmless in relation to the sanctions.” I wonder who /what was done by the SPFL to give RIFC grounds to support this argument. Or was it just a glib and shamless falsehood? No doubt the SMSM will be beavering away to uncover what went on.:hmmm:

Think it was the transition from SPL to SPFL that RIFC were purporting anomalies which nullified the liability. I could be wrong.

[doddsy]

In any case the biggest anomaly was the fine imposed on Newco for Oldco's actions. No legal foundation whatsoever.

[CropleyWasGod]

In any case the biggest anomaly was the fine imposed on Newco for Oldco's actions. No legal foundation whatsoever.

... .. the Courts have just disagreed with you, however. Are they wrong?

[Spike Mandela]

In any case the biggest anomaly was the fine imposed on Newco for Oldco's actions. No legal foundation whatsoever.

The biggest anomaly was Lord Nimmo Smith's assertion that no sporting advantage was gained by the use of EBT's...........Que??????

[CropleyWasGod]

The biggest anomaly was Lord Nimmoo Smith's assertion that no sporting advantage was gained by the use of EBT's...........Que??????

Agreed :agree:

[Ozyhibby]

The biggest anomaly was Lord Nimmo Smith's assertion that no sporting advantage was gained by the use of EBT's...........Que??????

That's when you knew we were playing a rigged game. Our football authorities (incl our own R. Petrie) are only concerned with one thing, a successful Rangers back in the top flight. Shameful.

[doddsy]

... .. the Courts have just disagreed with you, however. Are they wrong?

I don't think the Law Lords ruled on whether or not Newco is liable for Oldco's debts/actions/liabilities. They ruled on the fact Newco had agreed to shoulder the fine imposed by the then SPL in relation to Oldco's usage of sideletters. It was the agreement issue they ruled on not whether or not the bigger question of should Newco have agreed in the first place to be liable for an Oldco action.

It is one of the many legal anomalies that lie therein which will never be investigated.

It is however unenforcable under the bankruptcy/liquadation rules for a Newco to be held liable for any actions/liabilities by Oldco. Usage of EBT side letters were Oldco actions. If Newco were insistent and appealed it would be found Newco are not liable for Oldco's actions.

It is a red herring issue.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't think the Law Lords ruled on whether or not Newco is liable for Oldco's debts/actions/liabilities. They ruled on the fact Newco had agreed to shoulder the fine imposed by the then SPL in relation to Oldco's usage of sideletters. It was the agreement issue they ruled on not whether or not the bigger question of should Newco have agreed in the first place to be liable for an Oldco action.

.

... which is what i have been trying to tell you for the last day or so :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

In any case the biggest anomaly was the fine imposed on Newco for Oldco's actions. No legal foundation whatsoever.

The fine wasn't imposed on Newco, it was imposed on Oldco.

Newco agreed to take on Oldco's liabilities in respect of football debts in exchange for the transfer of SFA membership from Old to New, ie. they get to pretend to be the same club.

[doddsy]

The fine wasn't imposed on Newco, it was imposed on Oldco.

Newco agreed to take on Oldco's liabilities in respect of football debts in exchange for the transfer of SFA membership from Old to New, ie. they get to pretend to be the same club.

Agreed is the key word. They were not liable for any of Oldco's actions/debts/liabllities. Is'nt it nice Newco were able to choose to pay SPL fines whilst stiffing all others.

It is a legal anomaly.

[doddsy]

... which is what i have been trying to tell you for the last day or so :greengrin

:thumbsup:

[CropleyWasGod]

Agreed is the key word. They were not liable for any of Oldco's actions/debts/liabllities. Is'nt it nice Newco were able to choose to pay SPL fines whilst stiffing all others.

It is a legal anomaly.

It's not a legal anomaly when one signs a contract, undertaking to pay certain money. A contract which has just been upheld by the Court.

And they didn't "choose" to pay it. They were forced to agree to pay any possible sanction to get their SFA licence.

[Brunswickbill]

It's not a legal anomaly when one signs a contract, undertaking to pay certain money. A contract which has just been upheld by the Court.

And they didn't "choose" to pay it. They were forced to agree to pay any possible sanction to get their SFA licence.

Exactly. They were forced to accept it and then chose to contest it.

[Seveno]

I hope the costs that they are due to pay are well into six figures.

[CropleyWasGod]

I hope the costs that they are due to pay are well into six figures.

IIRC, the costs of the original hearing were £150k.

However, that will double (or even triple) with the latest hearing.

It's the only bit of this that might cause them some angst. Whilst I expect that they will defer payment for a month or so until ST sales kick in, one can only hope that an anxious lawyer (keen to put the deposit down on that villa in Tuscany for the summer) might slap them with a writ. (Preferably before the end of March, please.)

[Brunswickbill]

SPFL Rule I40

The Board may require interest to be paid to the Company and/or to such other Club by such a Club in default on such a sum or sums so due and the balance or balances from time to time outstanding until paid in full, at the rate of 2% above the base lending rate of the Bank of England as same may vary from time to time compounded on the first day of each calendar month and the Board shall be entitled to apply any sums which, under these Rules, would otherwise be payable to the defaulting Club by the Company in discharge of any interest so payable by such Club in default to the Company and/or such other Club in such manner as the Board shall determine.

I'm sure that one of our accountancy experts can give us a quick estimate of interest charges to be levied on top of costs. £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

[CropleyWasGod]

SPFL Rule I40

The Board may require interest to be paid to the Company and/or to such other Club by such a Club in default on such a sum or sums so due and the balance or balances from time to time outstanding until paid in full, at the rate of 2% above the base lending rate of the Bank of England as same may vary from time to time compounded on the first day of each calendar month and the Board shall be entitled to apply any sums which, under these Rules, would otherwise be payable to the defaulting Club by the Company in discharge of any interest so payable by such Club in default to the Company and/or such other Club in such manner as the Board shall determine.

I'm sure that one of our accountancy experts can give us a quick estimate of interest charges to be levied on top of costs. £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

Good spot.

Just over £20k I reckon.

At Budge-rates, it would have been about £55k :cb

[doddsy]

It's not a legal anomaly when one signs a contract, undertaking to pay certain money. A contract which has just been upheld by the Court.

And they didn't "choose" to pay it. They were forced to agree to pay any possible sanction to get their SFA licence.

The legal anomaly is of course the overriding factor that Newco agreed to pay Oldco's fine. The anomaly being if Newco is held accountable for one of Oldco's debts/sanctions regardless of it being a 'football' debt is laughable. Why would a Court of Law differentiate between a so called 'football debt' or any other debt.

The legal anamoly remains the same in that Newco is not liable for Oldco. The rest of the argument is a lawyer would put it 'irrelevant'.

[CropleyWasGod]

The legal anomaly is of course the overriding factor that Newco agreed to pay Oldco's fine. The anomaly being if Newco is held accountable for one of Oldco's debts/sanctions regardless of it being a 'football' debt is laughable. Why would a Court of Law differentiate between a so called 'football debt' or any other debt.

The legal anamoly remains the same in that Newco is not liable for Oldco. The rest of the argument is a lawyer would put it 'irrelevant'.

As ever, in situations like this, I revert to what the law says:-

"A contract is an agreement between two or more parties which creates or intends to create legally binding obligations between the parties to it."


That's what happened in this case. And that contract was upheld by the Courts.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'll leave it at that. However, if you have an alternative opinion to the Law of Contract, and the learned m'luds.... Dave King might want to hear from you. :greengrin

[ballengeich]

The legal anomaly is of course the overriding factor that Newco agreed to pay Oldco's fine. The anomaly being if Newco is held accountable for one of Oldco's debts/sanctions regardless of it being a 'football' debt is laughable. Why would a Court of Law differentiate between a so called 'football debt' or any other debt.

The legal anamoly remains the same in that Newco is not liable for Oldco. The rest of the argument is a lawyer would put it 'irrelevant'.

Can I point out that the decision that Newco has to pay the Oldco fine was not made in a court of law. It was the decision of an SFA tribunal which happens to consist of three judges. That doesn't affect the main point however.

The tribunal did not rule that Newco is legally liable for any or all of Oldco's debts. It ruled that Newco had voluntarily signed a contract to pay for Oldco's football debts and had to honour that contract. There's no legal anomaly in requiring someone to stick to the details of a contract they've agreed to. The only legal anomaly that could be introduced would occur if a company could weasel out of a contract at a later date because a company official didn't like terms agreed to by his predecessor.

Do you think that Rangers supporters repaying some of Oldco's debts to small creditors was also an anomaly? That looks to me like one of the few honourable actions by anyone involved in the saga.

[lapsedhibee]

Do you think that Rangers supporters repaying some of Oldco's debts to small creditors was also an anomaly?
Hardly an anomaly - Hearts fans did exactly the same thing, didn't they?

[doddsy]

Can I point out that the decision that Newco has to pay the Oldco fine was not made in a court of law. It was the decision of an SFA tribunal which happens to consist of three judges. That doesn't affect the main point however.

The tribunal did not rule that Newco is legally liable for any or all of Oldco's debts. It ruled that Newco had voluntarily signed a contract to pay for Oldco's football debts and had to honour that contract. There's no legal anomaly in requiring someone to stick to the details of a contract they've agreed to. The only legal anomaly that could be introduced would occur if a company could weasel out of a contract at a later date because a company official didn't like terms agreed to by his predecessor.

Do you think that Rangers supporters repaying some of Oldco's debts to small creditors was also an anomaly? That looks to me like one of the few honourable actions by anyone involved in the saga.

Is it fair to the stiffed creditors of Oldco that Newco can sign a contract arranging to pay debts attached to Oldco whether football related debt or not?

Any footballing or any debt for that matter owed by Oldco should of course be nothing whatsoever to do with Newco. It is a definite anomaly created by the SPL/SPFL and Newco to be seen paying off specific debt owed by Oldco. I think we can all agree it is an anomaly created by the footballing authorities in order to suggest a linkage of Old/New Club.

[doddsy]

Hardly an anomaly - Hearts fans did exactly the same thing, didn't they?

Surely credit is due to supporters of these clubs who were unhappy at the financial mess who tried to alleviate some of the creditors suffering caused by greedy barstewards like Romanov and David Murray.:aok:

[CropleyWasGod]

Is it fair to the stiffed creditors of Oldco that Newco can sign a contract arranging to pay debts attached to Oldco whether football related debt or not?

Any footballing or any debt for that matter owed by Oldco should of course be nothing whatsoever to do with Newco. It is a definite anomaly created by the SPL/SPFL and Newco to be seen paying off specific debt owed by Oldco. I think we can all agree it is an anomaly created by the footballing authorities in order to suggest a linkage of Old/New Club.

As I have already said, it's in the interests of the "stiffed creditors" to have the football debts paid by someone else.

As for the "anomaly created by the SPL/SPFL and Newco", that's not correct. The FA and Premier League in England have had the "football creditors" provisions in place for 15 or so years. HMRC have tried to challenge them, but the Courts in England have rejected their case. The SFA and Insolvency Practitioners in Scotland have merely followed the FA's lead..... in this case, and that of Hearts too.

[ballengeich]

Is it fair to the stiffed creditors of Oldco that Newco can sign a contract arranging to pay debts attached to Oldco whether football related debt or not?

It was extremely favourable to football debtors who got money they wouldn't otherwise have received. Other creditors didn't lose out as a result so no - it's not unfair.

Any footballing or any debt for that matter owed by Oldco should of course be nothing whatsoever to do with Newco. It is a definite anomaly created by the SPL/SPFL and Newco to be seen paying off specific debt owed by Oldco. I think we can all agree it is an anomaly created by the footballing authorities in order to suggest a linkage of Old/New Club.

Here I agree with you. The suits at the SFA and SPFL believe that their only valuable marketing asset is the Old Firm. Their principal motivation was fear of the consequences for commercial deals (and their own salaries). The transfer of Rangers membership to the new company shouldn't have happened as it is only supposed to be allowed in the event of a solvent reconstruction of the business.

The old/new club debate has gone on for so long because club has different meanings in different contexts. For football authorities it's the same club because the membership number still exists. (That introduces the notion that the current Airdrieonians is the same club as Clydebank, which neither set of supporters would accept).

At the recent hearing on Green's claim for defence expenses it was made quite clear by the law lords that the law only concerns itself with companies. The concept of a club which exists separately and somehow continues has no legal foundation - it's a metaphysical idea. In fact, companies which operate football businesses aren't clubs at all as a club is an unincorporated group of individuals.

For fans the metaphysical idea is the emotionally important one. I don't support Hibs as a company and don't care about the SFA membership number. Quite what the identity is that I can get so happy or upset about I can't actually define. Unfortunately, the only member of Edinburgh Uni's philosophy department whom I know isn't a football fan.

[doddsy]

As I have already said, it's in the interests of the "stiffed creditors" to have the football debts paid by someone else. As for the "anomaly created by the SPL/SPFL and Newco", that's not correct. The FA and Premier League in England have had the "football creditors" provisions in place for 15 or so years. HMRC have tried to challenge them, but the Courts in England have rejected their case. The SFA and Insolvency Practitioners in Scotland have merely followed the FA's lead.

It would be helpful to have sight of the argument the FA and Premier League presented as to how Football Creditors should be treated differently from ordinary creditors. Seems a certain anomaly.

[CropleyWasGod]

It would be helpful to have sight of the argument the FA and Premier League presented as to how Football Creditors should be treated differently from ordinary creditors. Seems a certain anomaly.

I'm sure you could find it online. There's certainly been plenty written about it.

IIRC, the Exeter City case was the one where HMRC challenged it.

From memory, it was accepted by the Courts that, without the FC Rule, clubs would fail as a result of other clubs being unable to pay them. A domino-effect would result, leaving the game in disarray. However, don't take my word of it.... the Court transcript will be out there.

[doddsy]

I'm sure you could find it online.

IIRC, the Exeter City case was the one where HMRC challenged it.

From memory, it was accepted by the Courts that, without the FC Rule, clubs would fail as a result of other clubs being unable to pay them. A domino-effect would result, leaving the game in disarray. However, don't take my word of it.... the Court transcript will be out there.

Cheers. :aok:

[jgl07]

It would be helpful to have sight of the argument the FA and Premier League presented as to how Football Creditors should be treated differently from ordinary creditors. Seems a certain anomaly.
They were not treated any differently in the insolvency event, it was afterwards.

There is nothing to stop a third party covering the losses of some parties after an insolvency event. Some been for reimbursed the cash that Hearts stole from the poppy people.

The SFA insisted on The Rangers paying oldco's football debts as a condition of them taking the vacant place in the SFL. The Rangers agreed to do this. This is a valid contract.

[doddsy]

They were not treated any differently in the insolvency event, it was afterwards.

There is nothing to stop a third party covering the losses of some parties after an insolvency event. Some been for reimbursed the cash that Hearts stole from the poppy people.

The SFA insisted on The Rangers paying oldco's football debts as a condition of them taking the vacant place in the SFL. The Rangers agreed to do this. This is a valid contract.

The SFA knew for a fact Newco were not liable for any of Oldco's debts, football one's or otherwise. Ballengeich explains it very well in that it was merely the SFA seeking linkage of Old Club and New Club. It is simply that.

[CropleyWasGod]

The SFA knew for a fact Newco were not liable for any of Oldco's debts, football one's or otherwise. Ballengeich explains it very well in that it was merely the SFA seeking linkage of Old Club and New Club. It is simply that.
Think you have misunderstood his post. Also don't think that you have researched the football creditors rules,as I suggested.

The SFA applied those rules in the Rangers case, as they did with Hearts, Dundee and Livi.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Weststandwanab]

Think you have misunderstood his post. Also don't think that you have researched the football creditors rules,as I suggested.

The SFA applied those rules in the Rangers case, as they did with Hearts, Dundee and Livi.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

As they say back of the net !

[doddsy]

Think you have misunderstood his post. Also don't think that you have researched the football creditors rules,as I suggested.

The SFA applied those rules in the Rangers case, as they did with Hearts, Dundee and Livi.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

The key word is 'liability'.

It is a fact of law that Newco is not, never will be, never was, 'liable', for any of Oldco's debts/fines/actions.

The contract agreed with Charles Green and the SPL would'nt stand up on appeal if DK had been serious in challenging it.

It is a spurious contract as it was as you say a 'Voluntary' one not a 'Liability'.

[CropleyWasGod]

The key word is 'liability'.

It is a fact of law that Newco is not, never will be, never was, 'liable', for any of Oldco's debts/fines/actions.

The contract agreed with Charles Green and the SPL would'nt stand up on appeal if DK had been serious in challenging it.

It is a spurious contract as it was as you say a 'Voluntary' one not a 'Liability'.
A fact of law? Which law? The one that was established by the case that HMRC raised against the FA, and lost? Or another one?

And...DK did appeal against the tribunal decision. He lost.

I don't think that you want to take me on on the meaning of the word "liability ".[emoji6]
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[doddsy]

A fact of law? Which law? The one that was established by the case that HMRC raised against the FA, and lost? Or another one?

And...DK did appeal against the tribunal decision. He lost.

I don't think that you want to take me on on the meaning of the word "liability ".[emoji6]
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Newco is not, never will be, never was, 'liable', for a single debt/fine/action by Oldco. That is a fact of 'Company Law'.

Just for the record, I am not 'taking anyone on' CWG,

[CropleyWasGod]

Newco is not, never will be, never was, 'liable', for a single debt/fine/action by Oldco. That is a fact of 'Company Law'.

Just for the record, I am not 'taking anyone on' CWG,
What part of Company Law?



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[The Falcon]

Surely credit is due to supporters of these clubs who were unhappy at the financial mess who tried to alleviate some of the creditors suffering caused by greedy barstewards like Romanov and David Murray.:aok:

I would be more inclined to offer credit if I suspected that honour and dignity were the reasons that some debts were paid. Sadly I remain convinced that it is more total and utter embarrassment that was the driving force for invoices like the one from the poppy fund to be settled.

[Brunswickbill]

I’m with CWG.

SPFL Rule I38 states

“If any Club defaults in making payment of any sum or sums due to the Company and/or to another Club the Board shall be entitled to apply any sums which, including in terms of Rules and/ or the Articles, would otherwise be payable to the defaulting Club by the Company in discharge of any debt due by such Club in default to the Company and/or such other Club in such manner as the Board shall determine.”

This has been applied to clubs that went into administration but remained as the same entity, Hearts, Dundee, Dunfermline for example. It seems to me perfectly reasonable for the SPFL to have said to SEVCO that, if they wanted to be readmitted as RIFC, then they would have to accept that this rule would apply to them. They agreed to this condition in the 5 way agreement. If they hadn’t agreed to the terms of the 5 Way Agreement they might not exist as a football club in the SPFL. They have contested it through the appeal process of the SPFL and have been found to be liable for payment of the fine.

However they still have the option of appealing to The Court of Arbitration for Sport so if RIFC think that they have a case they can take it further let’s wait and see. FIFA likes to keep fitba business out of the national courts (I wonder why) but in the final event GASL could take it even further, he clearly has experience of such legal institutions.

Don’t see the point of Hibs netters falling out over this.

[doddsy]

I’m with CWG.

SPFL Rule I38 states

“If any Club defaults in making payment of any sum or sums due to the Company and/or to another Club the Board shall be entitled to apply any sums which, including in terms of Rules and/ or the Articles, would otherwise be payable to the defaulting Club by the Company in discharge of any debt due by such Club in default to the Company and/or such other Club in such manner as the Board shall determine.”

This has been applied to clubs that went into administration but remained as the same entity, Hearts, Dundee, Dunfermline for example. It seems to me perfectly reasonable for the SPFL to have said to SEVCO that, if they wanted to be readmitted as RIFC, then they would have to accept that this rule would apply to them. They agreed to this condition in the 5 way agreement. If they hadn’t agreed to the terms of the 5 Way Agreement they might not exist as a football club in the SPFL. They have contested it through the appeal process of the SPFL and have been found to be liable for payment of the fine.

However they still have the option of appealing to The Court of Arbitration for Sport so if RIFC think that they have a case they can take it further let’s wait and see. FIFA likes to keep fitba business out of the national courts (I wonder why) but in the final event GASL could take it even further, he clearly has experience of such legal institutions.

Don’t see the point of Hibs netters falling out over this.

I'm not falling out with fellow Hibs netters Brunswickbill. I still think I am entirely correct to say if it did appear before a Court of Law it would be dismissed as Newco is not liable for Oldco. However this particular opinion seems to be particularly controversial so I am going to leave it at that for now. It is still my opinion and it is not going to be changed so I hope others will respect that position.

:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not falling out with fellow Hibs netters Brunswickbill. I still think I am entirely correct to say if it did appear before a Court of Law it would be dismissed as Newco is not liable for Oldco. However this particular opinion seems to be particularly controversial so I am going to leave it at that for now. It is still my opinion and it is not going to be changed so I hope others will respect that position.

:greengrin
I respect your opinion.

However :-

The English legal system
The Scottish legal system
The FA
The SFA
The administrators and liquidators of every insolvent Scottish and English club over the last 15 or so years.

..all have the opposite opinion to you.

I'm not a lawyer, but I know what would be more persuasive to me.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[doddsy]

I respect your opinion.

However :-

The English legal system
The Scottish legal system
The FA
The SFA
The administrators and liquidators of every insolvent Scottish and English club over the last 15 or so years.

..all have the opposite opinion to you.

I'm not a lawyer, but I know what would be more persuasive to me.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Thank you CWG for respecting my position.

On the basis that the oldco company is in liquidation how is the newco company in any way responsible for the oldco companies debts/actions?

It would be nice to be enlightened please.

[Jack]

Newco is not, never will be, never was, 'liable', for a single debt/fine/action by Oldco. That is a fact of 'Company Law'.

Just for the record, I am not 'taking anyone on' CWG,

The SFA and SPFL are membership clubs, like a golf club.

If you want to be a member you abide by the rules.

I you want to be a member of the SFA and SPFL then you agree to be bound by, amongst others, the football debts rule.

No other rules or laws currently contradict this.

Not everyone agrees with this, as stated HMRC being one, but at present that's the way things are.

[CropleyWasGod]

Thank you CWG for respecting my position.

On the basis that the oldco company is in liquidation how is the newco company in any way responsible for the oldco companies debts/actions?

It would be nice to be enlightened please.
It's responsible for the football debts, which has been established by case law (the HMRC case in the Exeter administration that I mentioned earlier).

Those have been paid AFAIK.

It's also responsible for the fine on Oldco. It's not clear to me whether that falls under the description of football debt. (The SFA doesn't define them. The FA does, but they're not clear). However, Newco did undertake to pay that fine. That undertaking has been found to be legal, and the fine payable, by the Court.

Other than those debts, Newco has no responsibility for the debts of Oldco.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[doddsy]

It's responsible for the football debts, which has been established by case law (the HMRC case in the Exeter administration that I mentioned earlier).

Those have been paid AFAIK.

It's also responsible for the fine on Oldco. It's not clear to me whether that falls under the description of football debt. (The SFA doesn't define them. The FA does, but they're not clear). However, Newco did undertake to pay that fine. That undertaking has been found to be legal, and the fine payable, by the Court.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Administration is not liquidation.

They may have agreed to pay it in order to satisfy the SPL however Newco was not initially liable.

Just pointing out some contentious points CWG.

[CropleyWasGod]

Administration is not liquidation.

They may have agreed to pay it in order to satisfy the SPL however Newco was not initially liable.

Just pointing out some contentious points CWG.
It's irrelevant that it was administration. The case was pursued by HMRC to establish the legality of football debts. They lost.

The principle of football debt was therefore enshrined in case law. That will continue until such times as someone else puts up a better case and has that overturned.

As a result of that case law, Newco's football debt is due by Oldco.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[doddsy]

The SFA and SPFL are membership clubs, like a golf club.

If you want to be a member you abide by the rules.

I you want to be a member of the SFA and SPFL then you agree to be bound by, amongst others, the football debts rule.

No other rules or laws currently contradict this.

Not everyone agrees with this, as stated HMRC being one, but at present that's the way things are.

Fair enough, however the footall debts rules may be incompatible with bankruptcy/liquidation company law and are there to be challenged in a court of law if DK had been serious as to challenging them.

[CropleyWasGod]

Fair enough, however the footall debts rules may be incompatible with bankruptcy/liquidation company law and are there to be challenged in a court of law if DK had been serious as to challenging them.
He did.

He lost.

Just as HMRC did.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[doddsy]

He did.

He lost.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Fair enough, unfortunately I seem to have found myself defending DK's position on trying to get out of forking out readies. It is not something I am proud of so I will leave it now.

:flag:

[doddsy]

It's irrelevant that it was administration. The case was pursued by HMRC to establish the legality of football debts. They lost.

The principle of football debt was therefore enshrined in case law. That will continue until such times as someone else puts up a better case and has that overturned.

As a result of that case law, Newco's football debt is due by Oldco.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I will over the next week or two when I have the time of course look over the aspects of the case you refer to CWG. Not with the aim of proving anyone wrong or I'm right or any bs. Just simply to have a look at the basis of this interesting matter.

Cheers Doddsy.:thumbsup:

[Brunswickbill]

Interesting as the discussion on legality may be, I think that it would be interesting to see a record of the appeal. What "documents and actions" from the SPFL would lead RIFC to claim "that the SPFL has waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause, thereby
holding the Club harmless in relation to the sanctions. This is disputed by the SPFL." If you are looking for a conspiracy then it seems to me that you have the makings of one here.

[CropleyWasGod]

Interesting as the discussion on legality may be, I think that it would be interesting to see a record of the appeal. What "documents and actions" from the SPFL would lead RIFC to claim "that the SPFL has waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause, thereby
holding the Club harmless in relation to the sanctions. This is disputed by the SPFL." If you are looking for a conspiracy then it seems to me that you have the makings of one here.
I'm sure there will be a Court transcript out there somewhere.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Brunswickbill]

I'm sure there will be a Court transcript out there somewhere.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Isn't it an SFA Tribunal albeit comprising 3 High Court judges. So I doubt if the proceedings will be public. Hope I'm mistaken.

[CropleyWasGod]

Isn't it an SFA Tribunal albeit comprising 3 High Court judges. So I doubt if the proceedings will be public. Hope I'm mistaken.

Yeah, you're right. So many cases etc etc :greengrin

One would have hoped, though, in the interests of transparency....:rolleyes:

[Hibby70]

This is the worst John Grisham novel ever (and that's saying something).

[malcolm]

I will over the next week or two when I have the time of course look over the aspects of the case you refer to CWG. Not with the aim of proving anyone wrong or I'm right or any bs. Just simply to have a look at the basis of this interesting matter.

Cheers Doddsy.:thumbsup:

Really enjoyed this exchange but you're not like a dog with a bone rather like a dog that thinks it has a bone :greengrin

Conflating two things to give the King and Sevco an undeserved 'blow' job :wink:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Really enjoyed this exchange but you're not like a dog with a bone rather like a dog that thinks it has a bone :greengrin

Conflating two things to give the King and Sevco an undeserved 'blow' job :wink:

Sums up the last few pages rather well.

[greenginger]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-rangers-stars-face-ruin-7659540#4BDjPcQmC1RZXrdG.97


According to the Weegie rag, Hector is going after tax on the EBT money.

I won't hold my breath for any results.

[Peevemor]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-rangers-stars-face-ruin-7659540#4BDjPcQmC1RZXrdG.97


According to the Weegie rag, Hector is going after tax on the EBT money.

I won't hold my breath for any results.

It's the only logical thing to do. There was never any intention of repayment so these sums aren't loans but lump sum payments and are therefore taxable.

[Ozyhibby]

If HMRC go after the players and the players have a letter from the club promising to cover any liability and Rangers don't then is that not a football debt and a remuneration default?
The players deal is with the club?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

My take on the latest headline.

When an employer is in default of PAYE regulations, it's the employer's responsibility to cough up the tax etc. That holds, even where the employee has gained. In RFC's case, the current position (albeit, to be challenged once more) is that they are liable for everything.

That said, if HMRC can prove that there was collusion between employer and employee, then the recipients have a problem.

IMO, though, the stuff about new regulations coming in is irrelevant. That can only apply to new cases, and not ones that existed previously.

[greenginger]

If some of the EBT benefitting players are landed with a tax bill and they have a letter from the Club ( Oldco Rangers ) promising to cover their liabilities then , because of the football creditors rule and the 5-way agreement promising that Newco Rangers would cover the Oldco football creditors , it could just be that some bills arrive at the door of Rangers 2012 formerly known as Sevco Ltd.

We can but hope ! :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

If some of the EBT benefitting players are landed with a tax bill and they have a letter from the Club ( Oldco Rangers ) promising to cover their liabilities then , because of the football creditors rule and the 5-way agreement promising that Newco Rangers would cover the Oldco football creditors , it could just be that some bills arrive at the door of Rangers 2012 formerly known as Sevco Ltd.

We can but hope ! :agree:

There's so many "if's" in that scenario....:greengrin... it would take years to sort out, probably through the Courts. Again.

[Bostonhibby]

If HMRC go after the players and the players have a letter from the club promising to cover any liability and Rangers don't then is that not a football debt and a remuneration default?
The players deal is with the club?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Be interesting to see all the leg ends of the now defunct Glasgow rangers running to the new team to get them to indemnify them and the new team to say we can't because we're not that team any more. [emoji1]

[greenginger]

There's so many "if's" in that scenario....:greengrin... it would take years to sort out, probably through the Courts. Again.


Maybe, but could cause problems for the new entity in a shorter time scale.

Player gets notice of tax due from HMRC.

Player digs out letter of indemnity from Oldco and informs SFA/SPFL he considers himself a football creditor to be reimbursed by Newco Rangers.

Accountants have to put a note of contingent liability and Going Concern warning on end of year accounts.

This could result in refusal of UEFA License. Result, much nashing of teeth and burning of effigies of former heroes down Govan way.

[CropleyWasGod]

Maybe, but could cause problems for the new entity in a shorter time scale.

Player gets notice of tax due from HMRC.

Player digs out letter of indemnity from Oldco and informs SFA/SPFL he considers himself a football creditor to be reimbursed by Newco Rangers.

Accountants have to put a note of contingent liability and Going Concern warning on end of year accounts.

This could result in refusal of UEFA License. Result, much nashing of teeth and burning of effigies of former heroes down Govan way.

Brilliant :greengrin

Someone mentioned John Grisham earlier. I think this saga is more Dostoevsky. Crime and (some) Punishment.

[Ozyhibby]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160331/c1d661896c9d50be9847495a3660201b.jpg

Does indeed say that the club will indemnify the player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spike Mandela]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160331/c1d661896c9d50be9847495a3660201b.jpg

Does indeed say that the club will indemnify the player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow, is that one of the sneaky side letters?

Cheating barstewards.:cb

[grunt]

Here's £2.8m. Oh and by the way, this is not an inducement to sign a contract.
Right.

[Ozyhibby]

Seems a bit sneaky of George Osborne to turn all this money into football debts that have to be paid. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160331/c1d661896c9d50be9847495a3660201b.jpg

Does indeed say that the club will indemnify the player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ooer.

Where'd you get that from, Oz?

Reason I ask is that I've seen a few instances of fake documents being spread about on Twitter etc.

[Smartie]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160331/c1d661896c9d50be9847495a3660201b.jpg

Does indeed say that the club will indemnify the player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bloody hell, the "hordes" are going to love Flo, aren't they?

How much did he rinse them for in terms of transfer fee, wages etc when he "played" for them?

Now he's providing the written evidence that could bring the whole house down?

Ouch. I guess that's what they refer to as an "enemy of Rangers".

[CropleyWasGod]

Seems a bit sneaky of George Osborne to turn all this money into football debts that have to be paid. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

£1.9m for Flo alone.

And that's just the tax. Penalties and interest would be added on top.

However, we should calm our jets. I'm still not sure that the guy in the Record has it right.

[Ozyhibby]

Ooer.

Where'd you get that from, Oz?

Reason I ask is that I've seen a few instances of fake documents being spread about on Twitter etc.

It was released by Charlotte Fakes which have now been passed as admissible in court, so good chance it's genuine.
Trying to find link for it now.

[JeMeSouviens]

The "Club" indemnifies, not the "company that owns the club". :wink:

Hoist them with their own petard. :cb

(Sometimes it's a pity it's all just made up rubbish. :rolleyes:)

[lapsedhibee]

Shirley they can just get LNS back in to make it all go away, no?

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/rulings/IPSOrulings-detail.html?id=320

10. Rangers had benefited in terms of player recruitment from the adoption of a scheme designed to minimise the payment of tax. The Court of Session had subsequently found the club was not entitled to operate this scheme lawfully without paying the higher rate of tax due. The Committee noted the arguments put forward by the complainant, including the opinion of a QC specialising in tax law. However, the article in question was a broad-ranging opinion piece on Scottish football, not a technical legal analysis of the Court of Session’s decision. The article did not say that the activities of Rangers were criminal or fraudulent in nature; it said that the club had gained an advantage from the use of Employee Benefit Trusts which was described variously as “illegal” and “unlawful”. In that sense, the term “illegal” was not inaccurate; there was no breach of Clause 1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/the-never-ending-story/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

£1.9m for Flo alone.

And that's just the tax. Penalties and interest would be added on top.

However, we should calm our jets. I'm still not sure that the guy in the Record has it right.

Penalties as high as 100% and 4% interest per annum being quoted?

[CropleyWasGod]

Penalties as high as 100% and 4% interest per annum being quoted?

3% is the official HMRC interest rate.

Penalties can be 100%, yeah :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Had some more thoughts about this.

Not sure that it's quite the killer that we thought it might be.

If RFC Oldco lose the BTC, they will be held liable for all the tax and NI that should have been deducted from the recipients. It's irrelevant that HMRC can't be paid all of it; they will just join the queue of creditors.

Turning to the recipients.... they will then be assessed to tax for all of the income that they should have declared in each of the years affected. That will include "normal" salaries, private income and the EBT's. Their tax bill will be calculated on that basis, BUT they will receive credit for the tax that RFC Oldco should have deducted. In some cases, the recipient will have additional tax to pay (plus interest and penalties, as mentioned), but in others there may be nothing further to pay as everything has already been dealt with by way of PAYE and/or RFC's share of the EBT tax.

And, if RFC win the BTC.... they're in the clear, and I think the recipients would be also.

[grunt]

https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/the-never-ending-story/


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI've always enjoyed his blog posts. That one is a classic. It should be reproduced by every SPFL club in match programmes until the issue is dealt with by the authorities. And until the authorities themselves are dealt with. IMO.

[Ozyhibby]

I've always enjoyed his blog posts. That one is a classic. It should be reproduced by every SPFL club in match programmes until the issue is dealt with by the authorities. And until the authorities themselves are dealt with. IMO.

It's the clubs that are blocking the truth.

[CropleyWasGod]

I've always enjoyed his blog posts. That one is a classic. It should be reproduced by every SPFL club in match programmes until the issue is dealt with by the authorities. And until the authorities themselves are dealt with. IMO.

Love this line:-

In the spleen venting and venom spitting that accompanied Rangers’ collapse, anger and rage has been sprayed in every direction except where it properly belongs.

[grunt]

It's the clubs that are blocking the truth.Indeed. Confusing, isn't it?

[Ozyhibby]

3% is the official HMRC interest rate.

Penalties can be 100%, yeah :greengrin

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160331/b79fcc94201cfe822f8aa1b31a370da1.jpg

[CropleyWasGod]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160331/b79fcc94201cfe822f8aa1b31a370da1.jpg

Yep, I'd mark you correct for that. :greengrin

[Hibs Class]

Still no contrition, just the opposite in fact. A timely reminder that new rangers are just as horrible as oldco.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36025815

[Iain G]

Still no contrition, just the opposite in fact. A timely reminder that new rangers are just as horrible as oldco.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36025815

They just can't accept what happened can they?

[AndyM_1875]

They just can't accept what happened can they?

They see themselves as victims. Their fans are already speaking of "payback" and "settling scores".

Horrific club.

[JeMeSouviens]

They just can't accept what happened can they?

Funny, because old Walter used to speak the truth before he realised the SFA fudge factory was getting cranked up to full. :rolleyes:

"We wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune." - Walter Smith, 2012

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18503656

[greenginger]

Dear Walter, and all Sevconians,

Read what happen to Airdrie after their liquidation.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrieonians_F.C.


Refused entry into bottom tier, no mention of same club, etc

Opps, try this link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrieonians_F.C.

[BH Hibs]

They've always been bitter bigoted *******s anyway

[BH Hibs]

Dear Walter, and all Sevconians,

Read what happen to Airdrie after their liquidation.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrieonians_F.C.


Refused entry into bottom tier, no mention of same club, etc

Opps, try this link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrieonians_F.C.

And the ironic thing is it was Minty Moonbeams who called in a debt to put them out the game.

[NadeAteMyLunch!]

Still no contrition, just the opposite in fact. A timely reminder that new rangers are just as horrible as oldco.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36025815

Just seen his bitter puss on the lunchtime news saying all that. What a clown. 'No necessity' for them to be demoted? Apart from the fact they were liquidated and no longer existed Walter?

[itslegaltender]

Re writing of history continues on BBC. Last week, the Hun apologist Stuart McCall was saying Rangers were "punished" by being placed in the third division, whilst Souness yesterday said they were demoted down to 3rd division.

[greenpaper55]

Just read that article and it is unbelievable that Smith can come out with statements like that, a walloper of the highest order.

[MKHIBEE]

He is right in one respect, there was no necessity for them to be demoted. Liquidiation took care of that little scenario.

[Monts]

It is unbelievable that nobody has come out and clarified the situation, and Sevco have been allowed to perpetuate the myth that they were punished.

[Hibs Class]

It is unbelievable that nobody has come out and clarified the situation, and Sevco have been allowed to perpetuate the myth that they were punished.

:agree: Scottish football bent over backwards to accommodate them ahead of much more deserving cases (e.g. Spartans) but even now they refuse to show any gratitude. They should have just been left dead.

[James70]

He states that some clubs have been/will be relegated because of the absence of Sevco from the top league. What utter tosh.

[Smartie]

He states that some clubs have been/will be relegated because of the absence of Sevco from the top league. What utter tosh.

I took that as a dig at us.

It sounded (to me) like he was suggesting that some teams who rejoiced at Rangers' "relegation" found themselves relegated or soon to be relegated.

I took that as a dig at the roles Petrie and Thomson played in the affair.

Rangers seem to have taken particular umbrage to us and to Dundee United although I'm not sure what we've done more than any other Scottish club.

[muzzando]

He states that some clubs have been/will be relegated because of the absence of Sevco from the top league. What utter tosh.

I noticed that too, sly dig at us and at Dundee Utd?:


Scottish football has been worse off and a lot of the teams who were happy to see Rangers go down have suffered and found themselves relegated or in the process of being relegated

[CallumLaidlaw]

I took that as a dig at us.

It sounded (to me) like he was suggesting that some teams who rejoiced at Rangers' "relegation" found themselves relegated or soon to be relegated.

I took that as a dig at the roles Petrie and Thomson played in the affair.

Rangers seem to have taken particular umbrage to us and to Dundee United although I'm not sure what we've done more than any other Scottish club.

The thing is tho, the position ourselves and Du.Utd find ourselves in has diddly squat to do with how the Rangers situation was handled.

And I think they are all hot air. They said they would stay away from ER, but unfortunately they still turned up in their droves the last 2 seasons.

[Smartie]

The thing is tho, the position ourselves and Du.Utd find ourselves in has diddly squat to do with how the Rangers situation was handled.

And I think they are all hot air. They said they would stay away from ER, but unfortunately they still turned up in their droves the last 2 seasons.

I agree.

Our problems have been entirely of our own doing and the same seems to be true of United. I was speaking to my United supporting mate earlier in the wake of the Gunning stuff and he made the point that Saturday's game isn't really about who wins the contest between the 2 teams but which individual team manages to win the battle with itself.

Our fans (and the fans of United) have been tough on our clubs and the way the way we have been managed. If Rangers fans had taken their own club to task for their wrongdoings then nobody would ever have heard of "Sevco" and the idea of Rangers being liquidated and playing anywhere other than the top league would have been pure fantasy. Walter Smith and all his cronies are entirely culpable and this rhetoric is a smokescreen that intends to steer the hordes away from the true cause of the whole fiasco. They don't intend to learn a lesson.

And like Hearts I think they still have tough times ahead. Their finances are far from healthy and a few spankings from Celtic could see their big support evaporate again (not outwith the realms of possibility). It will be interesting to see how they cope then, but you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be to cut their cloth accordingly.

[lapsedhibee]

Rangers seem to have taken particular umbrage to us and to Dundee United although I'm not sure what we've done more than any other Scottish club.

Rangers-minded legend makes populist speech to The Rangers fans including digs at Dundee Hibernian and Edinburgh Hibernian. :hmmm:

[Kato]

Rangers-minded legend makes populist speech to The Rangers fans including digs at Dundee Hibernian and Edinburgh Hibernian. :hmmm:

Remember Walts was a victim in all this, he had an EBT afterall. #shameforhim

[Thecat23]

This really pisses me off. Folk are peeved because they cheated to win games/trophies. I'm sure if any other club done the same and dominated like they did by cheating many clubs would be seriously annoyed.

I hated them then, I hate them now and I still believe they will go belly up once more.

[sh00byd00]

Someone somewhere must remember how Scottish football flourished when the mighty Rangers were in the SPL? No? Thought not.

No idea why anyone other than that shower would think otherwise. Their overly inflated sense of self importance is always a joy to behold and rather cringe-worthy if truth be told. Other than themselves, I doubt losing Rangers in any form would have been a massive blow to football in general, yet they seem to think the Italians, Germans etc give their ****ty club a second thought when catching up on global football events.

[Eyrie]

Looks like Souness has let the cat out of the bag over EBTs.

If I'm reading this (http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/graeme-souness-my-rangers-ebt-was-for-scouting-players-1-4096795) correctly, it wasn't a loan but a fee for doing work for Huns RIP. Doesn't that make it taxable?

[Bostonhibby]

Remember Walts was a victim in all this, he had an EBT afterall. #shameforhim
If I recall correctly, he did walking away from the now defunct Glasgow rangers boardroom when he could have stayed if he cared that much.

They're all coming out the woodwork now the rewriting of history is beginning.

[killie-hibby]

The sycophantic Scottish MSM will never challenge Sevconian bigots at press conferences, so its left to the "keyboard idiots" to ask for transparency. Yes Walter is 100% correct in saying clubs were relegated. How on earth can he say Sevcos absence was a factor in any clubs relegation. Any decent media person at that press conference should have asked him if he had any regrets for the teams who played against his club and lost points, then relegated solely because Smiths club and players were living beyond their means.

[Kavinho]

I think next season might well see unprecedented level of vitriolic, poisonous atmospheres in games up and down the country in the top flight.

The anger is palpable.. the hoards will be in greater numbers and emboldened by their numbers and by incendiary pieces like this. Smith should know better.

That we (Scots football/generic punter/taxpayers) have no definitive outcome 4 years on just fuels the fires and fans the flames
It encourages tit for tat activities.




Doncaster is accountable...

[DUX]

If The Rangers 2012 were to win the SPL league sometime soon would the Media announce it as their first ever SPL trophy?

Well it would be after all would'nt it?

[CropleyWasGod]

If The Rangers 2012 were to win the SPL league sometime soon would the Media announce it as their first ever SPL trophy?

Well it would be after all would'nt it?
Done to death already [emoji6]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

BBC Sport seem quite happy to refer to the re-incarnation of Parma F C. as a new club.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36072514

[GreenLake]

If The Rangers 2012 were to win the SPL league sometime soon would the Media announce it as their first ever SPL trophy?

Well it would be after all would'nt it?

They should because the act as though they ARE the Media.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Will they have the gall to start spending money in the summer, after walking away (from the club that doesn't do walking away) from £44 million of debt? They are shameless enough to give such a slap in the face to their creditors.

[JimBHibees]

They should because the act as though they ARE the Media.

That's because they basically are either succulent lambs or petrified to offend. When you look at the comparison between how BBC treat us to them even though they have been banned from their ground is incredible. Never changes.

[Hibs Class]

BBC Sport seem quite happy to refer to the re-incarnation of Parma F C. as a new club.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36072514

Probably because whoever wrote the story felt quite safe and confident that reporting the truth would not lead to death threats and having his windows put in. Reporting a similar truth about newhuns on the other hand......

[DUX]

That's because they basically are either succulent lambs or petrified to offend. When you look at the comparison between how BBC treat us to them even though they have been banned from their ground is incredible. Never changes.

There certainly has been a conspiracy from the BBC and many others in the media along with the SFA to try to make us forget the Newco/Oldco events. It will soon be sacrilege to even utter it happened.

[Radium]

http://www.scottishfans.org/supporters-direct-scotland-expresses-concern-at-crest-ruling/?utm_content=buffer5d122&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffe (http://www.scottishfans.org/supporters-direct-scotland-expresses-concern-at-crest-ruling/?utm_content=buffer5d122&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)r

Rangers amongst the teams that may fall foul of the Court of the Lord Lyon

[CropleyWasGod]

There certainly has been a conspiracy from the BBC and many others in the media along with the SFA to try to make us forget the Newco/Oldco events. It will soon be sacrilege to even utter it happened.

Do you actually think that?

The most there has been, IMO, is an unwillingness to enter into the debate about the old club/new club thing. The reason for that, I reckon, is so as not to antagonise either side of the Old Firm.

[KeithTheHibby]

Will they have the gall to start spending money in the summer, after walking away (from the club that doesn't do walking away) from £44 million of debt? They are shameless enough to give such a slap in the face to their creditors.

I doubt it. What financial constitution would give them credit in the first place?

[DUX]

Do you actually think that?

The most there has been, IMO, is an unwillingness to enter into the debate about the old club/new club thing. The reason for that, I reckon, is so as not to antagonise either side of the Old Firm.

It's not really what I think that matters.

the fact is that the medial have on the whole conspired to hush up the fact the rangers are technically a new club.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's not really what I think that matters.

the fact is that the medial have on the whole conspired to hush up the fact the rangers are technically a new club.

Your opinion.

As has been discussed at tedious length on this thread, it's not a fact. It's an opinion, shared by many, not shared by some, but ultimately one that has yet to be upheld or rejected by anyone with authority.

[RabMohr]

Your opinion.

As has been discussed at tedious length on this thread, it's not a fact. It's an opinion, shared by many, not shared by some, but ultimately one that has yet to be upheld or rejected by anyone with authority.

His opinion mirrors an awful lot of football fans (not just hibs fans) and I agree with it.

If they were the same club why have they been out the top league for so long? I know your answer and I do respect your opinion but in a lot of peoples opinion it is the old fans supporting a new club.

[CropleyWasGod]

His opinion mirrors an awful lot of football fans (not just hibs fans) and I agree with it.

If they were the same club why have they been out the top league for so long? I know your answer and I do respect your opinion but in a lot of peoples opinion it is the old fans supporting a new club.

..which is my point.

It's an opinion, with merit. However, that's all it can be until the question is settled.

[DUX]

..which is my point.

It's an opinion, with merit. However, that's all it can be until the question is settled.

I don't know what your point is?

There is no question it's technically a new club.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't know what your point is?

There is no question it's technically a new club.
Read through this thread and you'll see the debate. I'm not going to p off the regular contributors by rehashing the arguments. :greengrin


Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[DUX]

Read through this thread and you'll see the debate. I'm not going to p off the regular contributors by rehashing the arguments.


Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

There is not really any debate, everyone knows The Rangers are technically a new club albeit with the old assets. Thats just a fact of life.

[Hibrandenburg]

Read through this thread and you'll see the debate. I'm not going to p off the regular contributors by rehashing the arguments. :greengrin


Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

.

[CropleyWasGod]

There is not really any debate, everyone knows The Rangers are technically a new club albeit with the old assets. Thats just a fact of life.

There is a debate. Read through the hundreds of pages of this thread to see it. On both sides, it's reasoned, respectful and well-informed.

[number9dream]

..which is my point.

It's an opinion, with merit. However, that's all it can be until the question is settled.

It's never going to be "settled" so the rancour continues.
There have been several rulings; Nimmo-Smith, FIFA, BBC Trust for example, all saying same club, but most fans don't accept those.

[greenginger]

It's never going to be "settled" so the rancour continues.
There have been several rulings; Nimmo-Smith, FIFA, BBC Trust for example, all saying same club, but most fans don't accept those.


FIFA ? what did FIFA have to say about Sevco ?

[CropleyWasGod]

FIFA ? what did FIFA have to say about Sevco ?
That they're no good enough to get in their game [emoji48]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[DUX]

[QUOTE=CropleyWasGod;4656695]There is a debate. Read through the hundreds of pages of this thread to see it. On both sides, it's reasoned, respectful and well-informed.[/QUO

I think you miss the point.

There's no-one debating the fact Rangers were not put into administration then liquidated. Rangers 2012 are technically a new club. The only debate has been mostly whether to show some empathy to the new company Rangers and let them believe they are still in essence the 'same club'.

That seems to be about the essence of it or are you saying something different? Please don't give us the Lord Nimmo guff.

[The Falcon]

[QUOTE=CropleyWasGod;4656695]There is a debate. Read through the hundreds of pages of this thread to see it. On both sides, it's reasoned, respectful and well-informed.[/QUO

I think you miss the point.

There's no-one debating the fact Rangers were not put into administration then liquidated. Rangers 2012 are technically a new club. The only debate has been mostly whether to show some empathy to the new company Rangers and let them believe they are still in essence the 'same club'.

That seems to be about the essence of it or are you saying something different? Please don't give us the Lord Nimmo guff.

You really need to read through the debate that's been had on here. There are legal issues in play as in it was the parent company that was liquidated and not the football club, that sort of thing.

I happen to think they are a new club but nonetheless there is decent argument on both sides. It would help you if you at least attempt to read through the arguments that have been put forth already.

[DUX]

[QUOTE=DUX;4657174]

You really need to read through the debate that's been had on here. There are legal issues in play as in it was the parent company that was liquidated and not the football club, that sort of thing.

I happen to think they are a new club but nonetheless there is decent argument on both sides. It would help you if you at least attempt to read through the arguments that have been put forth already.

There's no doubt Rangers the football club went into admin then liquidated, how can anyone argue against that?

The assets were bought by C Green and club and company were renamed Sevco 5088.

Where's the debate?

[CropleyWasGod]

[QUOTE=The Falcon;4657192]

There's no doubt Rangers the football club went into admin then liquidated, how can anyone argue against that?

The assets were bought by C Green and club and company were renamed Sevco 5088.

Where's the debate?
In the hundreds of pages on here. Again, you should read it.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[The Falcon]

[QUOTE=The Falcon;4657192]

There's no doubt Rangers the football club went into admin then liquidated, how can anyone argue against that?

The assets were bought by C Green and club and company were renamed Sevco 5088.

Where's the debate?

Were Rangers Football Club an assett of the parent company and therefore continue to exist as they were before? Are a football Club a legal entitity in their own right? That appears to be the crux of the debate.

As I said I agree with you but again I would advise that you read the previous pages, including the apple analogy, to avoid revisiting old arguments.

[DUX]

[QUOTE=DUX;4657193]

Were Rangers Football Club an assett of the parent company and therefore continue to exist as they were before? Are a football Club a legal entitity in their own right? That appears to be the crux of the debate.

As I said I agree with you but again I would advise that you read the previous pages, including the apple analogy, to avoid revisiting old arguments.

Cheers bud. You're right I don't want to stir things up and everyone's entitled to their point of view whether right or wrong.

[Ozyhibby]

James Doleman

On train to Edinburgh for supposed judicial review of SFA decision to grant RFC chairman Dave King "fit and proper" status.

1/2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Rumour is that Mike Ashley will be dropping case, but we will find out at 10am

2/2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

JJ now commenting that the case is being dropped.

Great pity, even if Ashley lost, it would have been great to have all the Sevco/SFA dirty washing aired in Court.

[DaveSo]

James Doleman tweeting Counsel comments from Court so it must be going ahead.

[Ozyhibby]

James Doleman tweeting Counsel comments from Court so it must be going ahead.

It's not, they are just arguing over costs.

[CropleyWasGod]

Take a look at @STVGrant's Tweet: https://twitter.com/STVGrant/status/725794647302348800?s=09

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Radium]

Would love it if someone would just extend the FOI legislation to cover organisations like the SFA who have inbuilt monopolies


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Take a look at @STVGrant's Tweet: https://twitter.com/STVGrant/status/725794647302348800?s=09

Sent from my GT-I9505 using TapatalkWhat do you take from that?

[HoboHarry]

What do you take from that?

It sounds to me like a load of cobblers. My reading of that is that MASH have seen documents which rendered a court case a waste of their time and money, but it almost appears to me that they had to agree to some kind of confidentiality agreement before they could view them. They are suggesting that the SFA should publish documents which would apparently harm them - why in the world would they do that? It seems to me that despite the bluster of the Ashley camp that the glib and shameless liar has wiped the floor with them.

[CropleyWasGod]

The SFA's response.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-brand-mike-ashley-delusional-7856855#U7X0p737ivEWKl17.97

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[CentreLine]

Is it possible to reproduce the article CWG? Personally I find the daily ****** such an odious rag I have no desire to benefit them by clicking on their site.

[lapsedhibee]

Is it possible to reproduce the article CWG? Personally I find the daily ****** such an odious rag I have no desire to benefit them by clicking on their site.


SFA brand Mike Ashley ‘delusional’ after Sports Direct tycoon ends legal bid over Dave King's role at Rangers

06:00, 29 Apr 2016
By Keith Jackson


GOVERNING body hits out after Ashley releases bizarre statement to Record Sport hinting of impropriety and collusion between them and King’s regime.


THE SFA last night dismissed Mike Ashley as ‘delusional’ after the Newcastle owner was forced to drop legal action against them at the Court of Session - only to claim afterwards that he was in fact the winner.

Record Sport revealed yesterday how the Sports Direct tycoon was facing a humiliation in court with his lawyers set to abandon at the eleventh hour a judicial review of the SFA’s decision to pass Rangers chairman Dave King as ‘fit and proper’.

And, after they did officially pull the plug on their own petition yesterday morning, judge Lord Bannatyne left Ashley sweating on whether he will be forced to cover the legal costs incurred by both the Hampden beaks and King. A bill which could run into hundreds of thousands.

But while the game’s governing body was celebrating the collapse of Ashley’s case, the bullish billionaire was busy issuing a bizarre statement to Record Sport in which he claimed the defeat was, in actual fact, a victory - and hinting of impropriety and collusion between the SFA and King’s regime.

A spokesman for Ashley’s business empire MASH Holdings said: “We are delighted that the wall of secrecy surrounding the SFA’s decision declare Dave King a “fit and proper person” is finally crumbing.

“As a result of legal action concluded today, the SFA has been forced to divulge documents in private to us that reveal the true reasons behind this controversial decision.

“This represents a significant victory for MASH and we believe there is a strong public interest in this information now also being made available by the SFA to all football fans. We therefore urge the SFA to come clean with the public about all its dealings in relation to Dave King.”

One high level SFA insider responded to Ashley’s release by branding the controversial businessman as ‘delusional’. It’s understood the reaction to Ashley’s comments on Hampden’s sixth floor was scathing.

And later last night the SFA released the following statement to the Daily Record.

It read: ““Ordinarily, we would be loath to respond to such a disingenuous statement but in the interests of transparency and accuracy, it should be made abundantly clear it was MASH who today chose to abandon their ill-founded litigation.

“We have been consistent all along that the process of determining Mr Dave King’s Fit and Proper request, submitted via an amendment to Rangers FC’s Official Return, was conducted in the correct and appropriate manner.

“Indeed, at the time, we outlined the unprecedented scale of the due diligence undertaken, befitting the complexities of the consideration placed before our Board. This was released to the media and stated that this diligence involved communication with the relevant authorities in South Africa and the United Kingdom.

“As part of the recent litigation process we elected - with the consent of Mr King - to provide certain confidential information expanding on our statement. There was never any obligation for us to do so and we were certainly never “forced” to do so. This is a matter of fact and legal record.

“It is regrettable that we found ourselves in an unnecessary Judicial Review process in the first place: one that serves only to absorb Scottish football’s time, money and human resource which could otherwise have been utilised for the good of the game. The same applies to responding to these unedifying comments.”

The information at the heart of the dispute is understood to have been a letter from the South African tax authorities clearing King’s name despite a long running legal dispute over unpaid tax.

Ashley’s camp had argued that King’s long running legal battle with the taxman - which ended in 41 convictions and a cash settlement of almost £44m - made a mockery of the decision to pass him as a fit and proper person.

But they were forced to U-turn on that stance earlier this week when, under the procedure laid down for the judicial review, the SFA’s legal team provided them with a copy of King’s ‘certificate of good standing’ from SARS.

It was after discovering that the South African taxman had vouched for King’s credentials that Ashley’s lawyers were left with no option but to back down.

They then argued that Ashley should not be forced to cover the legal costs of all parties - a bill which will run into several hundred thousand pounds.

But Lord Bannatyne will now decide on this matter before giving his verdict in writing.

In the most bewildering part of the statement from MASH, King’s position at the head of the club’s PLC board - not the club’s football board - is also questioned.

It continues: “MASH notes that the SFA did not approve Dave King to be a director of the football club (The Rangers Football Club Limited, the body which has membership of the SFA), but instead only approved him as a director of the club’s holding company (Rangers International Football Club plc).

“We find it astonishing that Mr King talks and acts as if he runs Rangers, whilst at the same time his lawyers claim he is not a de facto director of The Rangers Football Club Limited.”

Although King declined to comment Rangers insider said: “The football board is answerable to the PLC board. In fact, previously, Ashley’s old ally Sandy Easdale could only have a seat on the football board as opposed to the PLC board precisely because he would not have been cleared as fit and proper.

“To suggest anything other than that is ludicrous.”

[EH6 Hibby]

Nice balanced and objective article.

[Bostonhibby]

Nice balanced and objective article.
As we all know, in most walks of life in British society today a string of convictions for tax fraud makes you fit and proper to run a facsimile of a business that was liquidated having failed to pay its tax liabilities.

The joint delight of the football authorities and the rangers hasn't been lost on the rest of us.

It's just a pity there isn't a real investigative journalist in Scotland so we are stuck with them hiding behind a nice letter from south Africa telling us that despite them pursuing and convicting him they are happy to say he's fine to run a business in Scotland.

[CropleyWasGod]

As we all know, in most walks of life in British society today a string of convictions for tax fraud makes you fit and proper to run a facsimile of a business that was liquidated having failed to pay its tax liabilities.

The joint delight of the football authorities and the rangers hasn't been lost on the rest of us.

It's just a pity there isn't a real investigative journalist in Scotland so we are stuck with them hiding behind a nice letter from south Africa telling us that despite them pursuing and convicting him they are happy to say he's fine to run a business in Scotland.

Whilst it's common practice to rely on third-party evidence, it would be helpful (to us noseys) to see what SARS actually said.

[marinello59]

No matter what I think of Sevco it is pretty pleasing to see Ashley get a kicking in court again. I hope he gets hammered for costs.

[GreenLake]

We need a Mike Ashley chant for the cup final.

[Ozyhibby]

No matter what I think of Sevco it is pretty pleasing to see Ashley get a kicking in court again. I hope he gets hammered for costs.

It would be like losing 50p down the back of the sofa for him.

[Ozyhibby]

We need a Mike Ashley chant for the cup final.

I think not. There are no good guys in this.

[grunt]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/domestic-violence-reports-soar-on-day-of-celtic-v-rangers-1-4114478

Domestic violence reports soar on day of Celtic v Rangers

THE number of domestic abuse calls to police almost doubled on the day of a Celtic v Rangers Scottish Cup match earlier this month.
Police Scotland reported a 43 per cent rise in domestic violence on 17 April, the day of the game at Hampden Park.
There were a total of 210 reported incidents throughout Scotland, compared to 146 on an average Sunday.


Most of the alleged crimes took place in and around the Glasgow area, police confirmed.


Chief Superintendent Barry McEwan, head of Police Scotland’s licensing and violence reduction division, said: “Following the recent Scottish Cup semi-final between Rangers and Celtic at Hampden it is disappointing to see an increase in reported incidents of domestic abuse.

“Dealing with this remains a priority for Police Scotland, one which we pro-actively addressed prior to this match taking place.

“Our officers have detected around 60 per cent of the domestic crimes committed that day and will continue to pursue the outstanding crimes and target those offenders that cause harm to their victims.

He added: “Our priority is always to protect victims from potential harm and we have been directly engaging with known offenders to remind them of the consequences of their actions should they offend.”

Ch Supt McEwan said excess drinking was behind most incidents. He added: “Although we can’t attribute all of these incidents of domestic abuse directly to the Rangers and Celtic match, these figures underline that this event often leads to individuals having too much alcohol to drink which unfortunately lead to anti-social behaviour, violence and domestic abuse.

“There was a clear proactive strategy ahead of last week’s fixtures, which included working with partners to address violence and disorder, domestic abuse and licensing issues.”

Meanwhile, a futher 18 arrests were made in and around Hampden and in Glasgow on the day of the semi-final, which Rangers won 5-4 on penalties. They were charged with offences including sectarian, threatening or abusive behaviour, assault and running on to the pitch.

[Deansy]

The SFA's response.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-brand-mike-ashley-delusional-7856855#U7X0p737ivEWKl17.97

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

'Lord Bannatyne left Ashley sweating on whether he will be forced to cover the legal costs incurred'

Yeah, Ashley is really sweating over THAT - the article reads more a 'R*tard Editors View' than an genuine article reporting the facts !!

Once again, Scottish Football is the loser as the power still lies with the religiously-bigoted, crooked and the immoral people in our game !!

[GreenLake]

I think not. There are no good guys in this.


I don't like him but I think it would cause apoplectic fits in the hoard of unwashed.

[Monts]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/domestic-violence-reports-soar-on-day-of-celtic-v-rangers-1-4114478

Domestic violence reports soar on day of Celtic v Rangers

THE number of domestic abuse calls to police almost doubled on the day of a Celtic v Rangers Scottish Cup match earlier this month.
Police Scotland reported a 43 per cent rise in domestic violence on 17 April, the day of the game at Hampden Park.
There were a total of 210 reported incidents throughout Scotland, compared to 146 on an average Sunday.

Obviously this is a serious issue, but it just goes to show the sensationalist tactics of newspapers. 43% rise = almost doubled.

[marinello59]

We need a Mike Ashley chant for the cup final.

He's just as odious as anybody at Rangers.

[snooky]

Obviously this is a serious issue, but it just goes to show the sensationalist tactics of newspapers. 43% rise = almost doubled.

Be interesting to know if this statistic parallels with general violence reports in locales where these pair happen to be playing. :hmmm:

[lapsedhibee]

Obviously this is a serious issue, but it just goes to show the sensationalist tactics of newspapers. 43% rise = almost doubled.
It's Boris Johnson math:
Before, rounding down to the nearest fifty, 100
After, rounding down to the nearest fifty, 200
Exactly doubled!

[JeMeSouviens]

He's just as odious as anybody at Rangers.

Hmmm, not a bad effort, what's the tune?

[Bostonhibby]

Whilst it's common practice to rely on third-party evidence, it would be helpful (to us noseys) to see what SARS actually said.

Something along the lines of -

You are welcome to him, we really need him to operate somewhere other than here so please just have the SFA draft a letter that's suits their purpose and we will sign it.

Here, the SFA operate with a similar institutional mentality as say the South Yorkshire Police did throughout the Hillsborough enquiry. The institution decides what it wants then sets about establishing the evidence to support what it wants. Obviously a different scale here but the culture is the same.

Its only when they are dragged kicking and screaming to disclose what they actually have that you get a chance to truly assess what's involved and what was done and what was hidden.

The fact that they have managed to get the magic letter to point to doesn't wipe out the reality that we have a multiple convicted tax fraudster meeting the Scottish football authorities "fit and proper" person test for running a club that in a previous guise stiffed the taxman amongst many others. If the SPFL/SFA were a country they would be a banana republic.

[Waxy]

Wave 1 Uber fan/Paid up in the club- Have a ticket and here's another for your Granny.
Wave 2 Serial non attenders- You'll get a ticket if your lucky and it'll be a crap seat but we dont care.
Wave 3 lol.

[Ozyhibby]

Wave 1 Uber fan/Paid up in the club- Have a ticket and here's another for your Granny.
Wave 2 Serial non attenders- You'll get a ticket if your lucky and it'll be a crap seat but we dont care.
Wave 3 lol.

Where'd you find that? On Phil Macghoillabhain's site?[emoji3]

[Geo_1875]

Whilst it's common practice to rely on third-party evidence, it would be helpful (to us noseys) to see what SARS actually said.

It would also be interesting to know what they were asked.

Was it "Are there any outstanding issues between Mr King and SARS?" or "Does Mr King have a history of tax-dodging?"

I doubt the SFA would ask any question that would give them the wrong answer.

[GreenLake]

Hmmm, not a bad effort, what's the tune?
:faf:

[Scott Allan Key]

Something along the lines of -

You are welcome to him, we really need him to operate somewhere other than here so please just have the SFA draft a letter that's suits their purpose and we will sign it.

Here, the SFA operate with a similar institutional mentality as say the South Yorkshire Police did throughout the Hillsborough enquiry. The institution decides what it wants then sets about establishing the evidence to support what it wants. Obviously a different scale here but the culture is the same.

Its only when they are dragged kicking and screaming to disclose what they actually have that you get a chance to truly assess what's involved and what was done and what was hidden.

The fact that they have managed to get the magic letter to point to doesn't wipe out the reality that we have a multiple convicted tax fraudster meeting the Scottish football authorities "fit and proper" person test for running a club that in a previous guise stiffed the taxman amongst many others. If the SPFL/SFA were a country they would be a banana republic.

Why do down the banana republics? They must base their corruption and hypocrisy on those who perfected it first.

[Bostonhibby]

Why do down the banana republics? They must base their corruption and hypocrisy on those who perfected it first.
Indeed

[greenginger]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/crumbling-transparency/


PhilMac. posting a piece suggesting Dave King's clean bill of health from S.A authorities might be dodgy.

I know Philmac tends to take shots in the dark, but it would not surprise me for King to give the SFA any piece of paper knowing full well it would never be checked.

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/crumbling-transparency/


PhilMac. posting a piece suggesting Dave King's clean bill of health from S.A authorities might be dodgy.

I know Philmac tends to take shots in the dark, but it would not surprise me for King to give the SFA any piece of paper knowing full well it would never be checked.

Even if it is dodgy, I'm not sure what Ashley can do, given that he dropped his case.

[GreenLake]

Even if it is dodgy, I'm not sure what Ashley can do, given that he dropped his case.

Perjury would be a different case would it not?

[Col2]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/crumbling-transparency/


PhilMac. posting a piece suggesting Dave King's clean bill of health from S.A authorities might be dodgy.

I know Philmac tends to take shots in the dark, but it would not surprise me for King to give the SFA any piece of paper knowing full well it would never be checked.

Just strikes me as total defensive drivel. I have no doubt King has a history that is questionable to say the least but Ashley dropping the case makes it clear he can't or won't fight it anymore.

I hate to say it but this thread might be close to being one for the archives?

[CropleyWasGod]

Perjury would be a different case would it not?

It would, of course. But did this case actually reach Court? (genuine question.. there have been so many :greengrin)

[greenginger]

Even if it is dodgy, I'm not sure what Ashley can do, given that he dropped his case.


Tell the SFA they've been duped and the SFA will run Dave King out of town , would'nt they ! :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Just strikes me as total defensive drivel. I have no doubt King has a history that is questionable to say the least but Ashley dropping the case makes it clear he can't or won't fight it anymore.

I hate to say it but this thread might be close to being one for the archives?

Please, let's at least keep it open for the Green and Whyte trial :cb

[Ozyhibby]

http://www.theoffshoregame.net/475-2/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Damning letter to Campbell Ogilvie from the Tax Justice Network.

http://www.theoffshoregame.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Doing-SFA-Annexes.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

http://linkis.com/com/o1K7j


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

Ozyhibby, what do the stories in the links in the past few posts actually mean?

Is the "TJN" referred to in the last post actually a respectable body with a valid, independent standing or is it a self-appointed bunch of Celtic fans hell-bent on seeing Rangers stripped of titles?

(Apologies - I find a lot of this stuff tricky to read and work out exactly what is being alleged. I also think that much of what has been written - P McG, John James etc has ultimately boiled down to being deluded, optimistic rantings of people with a twisted agenda).

Is it basically suggesting that Campbell Ogilvie was less than honest with the LNS enquiry and therefore is requesting a full enquiry?

Is this likely to happen/ do they have the clout to get this to happen?

[Ozyhibby]

They appear to be a big deal.
http://www.taxjustice.net/about/who-we-are/
I doubt they are Celtic fans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Ozyhibby, what do the stories in the links in the past few posts actually mean?

Is the "TJN" referred to in the last post actually a respectable body with a valid, independent standing or is it a self-appointed bunch of Celtic fans hell-bent on seeing Rangers stripped of titles?

(Apologies - I find a lot of this stuff tricky to read and work out exactly what is being alleged. I also think that much of what has been written - P McG, John James etc has ultimately boiled down to being deluded, optimistic rantings of people with a twisted agenda).

Is it basically suggesting that Campbell Ogilvie was less than honest with the LNS enquiry and therefore is requesting a full enquiry?

Is this likely to happen/ do they have the clout to get this to happen?

The report does indeed show and presents evidence that Ogilvie mislead the LNS enquiry.
What is needed now is for the media to pick up the story.

[Mr White]

The report does indeed show and presents evidence that Ogilvie mislead the LNS enquiry.
What is needed now is for the media to pick up the story.

:tumble:

[Jack]

They appear to be a big deal.
http://www.taxjustice.net/about/who-we-are/
I doubt they are Celtic fans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really like that you post all these links and I appreciate the time and effort you make.

My take on this is there's little to disagree with. I just wish it was more than an uncredited blog post so we really have no idea where it came from.

[Ozyhibby]

I really like that you post all these links and I appreciate the time and effort you make.

My take on this is there's little to disagree with. I just wish it was more than an uncredited blog post so we really have no idea where it came from.

It's not uncredited?

[Jack]

It's not uncredited?

Sorry, wrong post!

[silverhibee]

Fury erupts as former Rangers owner Sir David Murray given go-ahead for £1bn housing estate on green belt land
18:12, 17 MAY 2016 UPDATED 18:57, 17 MAY 2016
BY JOHN FERGUSON
EDINBURGH councillors told to “hang their heads in shame” after overruling their own experts to grant planning permission for the construction of the Garden District

COUNCILLORS who overruled experts to grant Sir David Murray planning permission for a huge housing scheme on green belt land have been told to “hang their heads in shame”.

Experts at Edinburgh City Council said the former Rangers owner should not be given the go-ahead for thousands of homes on green belt land until a local plan was fully developed.

But in a bizarre move councillors berated them and gave Murray the green light anyway.

The first phase of Murray’s Garden District will see 1320 homes and a primary school built between the City Bypass and Gogar Station Road in west Edinburgh.

Read More: Edinburgh Council planners reject Sir David Murray's £1bn Garden District proposal

Developer Murray Estates eventually plan to construct a £1billion development of 6000 homes as well as a 60-acre “national garden”.

But the Greens condemned the proposals. The Party's planning spokesman, Councillor Nigel Bagshaw,said: “Edinburgh needs more housing in compact and well-serviced neighbourhoods, making use of existing brownfield sites.

“Sticking the adjective ‘garden’ in front of a development neither makes it green nor in the city’s best interest.

“Edinburgh needs more housing – affordable housing in compact and well-serviced neighbourhoods, making use of existing brownfield sites.

“It absolutely does not need developments like this – suburban sprawl, greenbelt-wrecking and with poor links to transport, walking and cycling.

Read More: Fall of the house of David Murray: Documents show ex-Ibrox chief's business is now officially dead

“The planning committee members who backed this scheme should hang their heads in shame.”

Alison Johnstone, Scottish Green MSP for Lothian, added: “I would urge the full council to see sense and overturn the planning committee’s decision, which smacks of desperation.

“The city council’s energies should be going into transforming existing brownfield sites that have good infrastructure connections and bringing empty properties back into use.”


After the latest decision, phase one will go before the full council next month to be ratified, then will be *referred to the Scottish Government for final approval.

Murray Estates, said: “We believe this will be a world class extension to the capital and will become one of the city’s most successful developments.”

[greenginger]

The route cause of Edinburgh's housing shortage was the failure of Pieman Ltd's spectacular plans for a new Gorgieville to be realised.

Flats, glorious flats ! :singing::singing:

[Bostonhibby]

Fury erupts as former Rangers owner Sir David Murray given go-ahead for £1bn housing estate on green belt land
18:12, 17 MAY 2016 UPDATED 18:57, 17 MAY 2016
BY JOHN FERGUSON
EDINBURGH councillors told to “hang their heads in shame” after overruling their own experts to grant planning permission for the construction of the Garden District

COUNCILLORS who overruled experts to grant Sir David Murray planning permission for a huge housing scheme on green belt land have been told to “hang their heads in shame”.

Experts at Edinburgh City Council said the former Rangers owner should not be given the go-ahead for thousands of homes on green belt land until a local plan was fully developed.

But in a bizarre move councillors berated them and gave Murray the green light anyway.

The first phase of Murray’s Garden District will see 1320 homes and a primary school built between the City Bypass and Gogar Station Road in west Edinburgh.

Read More: Edinburgh Council planners reject Sir David Murray's £1bn Garden District proposal

Developer Murray Estates eventually plan to construct a £1billion development of 6000 homes as well as a 60-acre “national garden”.

But the Greens condemned the proposals. The Party's planning spokesman, Councillor Nigel Bagshaw,said: “Edinburgh needs more housing in compact and well-serviced neighbourhoods, making use of existing brownfield sites.

“Sticking the adjective ‘garden’ in front of a development neither makes it green nor in the city’s best interest.

“Edinburgh needs more housing – affordable housing in compact and well-serviced neighbourhoods, making use of existing brownfield sites.

“It absolutely does not need developments like this – suburban sprawl, greenbelt-wrecking and with poor links to transport, walking and cycling.

Read More: Fall of the house of David Murray: Documents show ex-Ibrox chief's business is now officially dead

“The planning committee members who backed this scheme should hang their heads in shame.”

Alison Johnstone, Scottish Green MSP for Lothian, added: “I would urge the full council to see sense and overturn the planning committee’s decision, which smacks of desperation.

“The city council’s energies should be going into transforming existing brownfield sites that have good infrastructure connections and bringing empty properties back into use.”


After the latest decision, phase one will go before the full council next month to be ratified, then will be *referred to the Scottish Government for final approval.

Murray Estates, said: “We believe this will be a world class extension to the capital and will become one of the city’s most successful developments.”
What are the council getting for the yam out of this? That's what I want to know[emoji6]

[MrSmith]

What are the council getting for the yam out of this? That's what I want to know[emoji6]

Funny that, as this was my first thought too! Hmm something in that methinks!!

[Ozyhibby]

What are the council getting for the yam out of this? That's what I want to know[emoji6]

I think this will be the councillors being looked after personally on this occasion. A last hurrah for a labour council that knows it's on the way out at the next election. Might as well cash in first.

[ian omand]

What are the council getting for the yam out of this? That's what I want to know[emoji6]

Could he be one of the mysterious backers of the new stand in return for....

[Waxy]

Where they getting the steel for the stand?

[JimBHibees]

The sort of decision which should be immediately forwarded to Scottish Government for review IMO.

[Ozyhibby]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-57/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrSmith]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-57/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is interesting. I thought they had a 7 year notice period to complete re Sports Direct? It might just be another spin.

[Ozyhibby]

That is interesting. I thought they had a 7 year notice period on complete re Sports Direct? It might just be another spin.

They do but given King's winning streak against Ashley in the courts I wouldn't bet against him winning.

[Joe6-2]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-57/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel dirty, opening that!!

[Hibs Class]

I feel dirty, opening that!!

:agree: Also amusing is their side banner #goingfor55 - obviously still in denial

[JC94]

Good move by them, if Mike Ashley challenges that termination then it shows he has got commercial influence which the Football League in England doesnt allow. Could mean he will be forced to sell his shares in them.

[Ozyhibby]

Good move by them, if Mike Ashley challenges that termination then it shows he has got commercial influence which the Football League in England doesnt allow. Could mean he will be forced to sell his shares in them.

Sports direct have lots of retail deals with lots of clubs.

[JC94]

Sports direct have lots of retail deals with lots of clubs.

Retail deals yes. Holding 50% ownership of the retail company no.

[Slim Shady]

Must be serious when they are using the correct name.

"THE Rangers Football Club Limited"

Acceptance of a new club, old one died.

[greenginger]

Sevco picking another fight,

https://johnjamessite.com/2016/05/23/an-unquenchable-thirst-for-litigation/#comments


Suing Mike Ashley, Charles Green etc for Rangers Retail deal.

[Ozyhibby]

http://www.theoffshoregame.net/uefa-rangers-unpaid-tax-bills/

Update from the offshore game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Another update from the offshore game.
http://www.theoffshoregame.net/enter-uefa/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Breaking news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-36445747

[Jack Hackett]

Breaking news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-36445747

So.... Whytewash it is then

[Deansy]

Fury erupts as former Rangers owner Sir David Murray given go-ahead for £1bn housing estate on green belt land
18:12, 17 MAY 2016 UPDATED 18:57, 17 MAY 2016
BY JOHN FERGUSON
EDINBURGH councillors told to “hang their heads in shame” after overruling their own experts to grant planning permission for the construction of the Garden District

COUNCILLORS who overruled experts to grant Sir David Murray planning permission for a huge housing scheme on green belt land have been told to “hang their heads in shame”.

Experts at Edinburgh City Council said the former Rangers owner should not be given the go-ahead for thousands of homes on green belt land until a local plan was fully developed.

But in a bizarre move councillors berated them and gave Murray the green light anyway.

The first phase of Murray’s Garden District will see 1320 homes and a primary school built between the City Bypass and Gogar Station Road in west Edinburgh.

Read More: Edinburgh Council planners reject Sir David Murray's £1bn Garden District proposal

Developer Murray Estates eventually plan to construct a £1billion development of 6000 homes as well as a 60-acre “national garden”.

But the Greens condemned the proposals. The Party's planning spokesman, Councillor Nigel Bagshaw,said: “Edinburgh needs more housing in compact and well-serviced neighbourhoods, making use of existing brownfield sites.

“Sticking the adjective ‘garden’ in front of a development neither makes it green nor in the city’s best interest.

“Edinburgh needs more housing – affordable housing in compact and well-serviced neighbourhoods, making use of existing brownfield sites.

“It absolutely does not need developments like this – suburban sprawl, greenbelt-wrecking and with poor links to transport, walking and cycling.

Read More: Fall of the house of David Murray: Documents show ex-Ibrox chief's business is now officially dead

“The planning committee members who backed this scheme should hang their heads in shame.”

Alison Johnstone, Scottish Green MSP for Lothian, added: “I would urge the full council to see sense and overturn the planning committee’s decision, which smacks of desperation.

“The city council’s energies should be going into transforming existing brownfield sites that have good infrastructure connections and bringing empty properties back into use.”


After the latest decision, phase one will go before the full council next month to be ratified, then will be *referred to the Scottish Government for final approval.

Murray Estates, said: “We believe this will be a world class extension to the capital and will become one of the city’s most successful developments.”

Bumps his ex-employees pension fund, old companies being wound up at a loss AND 'involved' in what will, no doubt, eventually turn out to be the biggest financial fraud in World Football - but that doesn't matter for our City Council ??. Surely there'll be an investigation into this ??

[jacomo]

Bumps his ex-employees pension fund, old companies being wound up at a loss AND 'involved' in what will, no doubt, eventually turn out to be the biggest financial fraud in World Football - but that doesn't matter for our City Council ??. Surely there'll be an investigation into this ??

The system is a fix. If you have no scruples you can keep on making money.

What is the point of employing expert advisors and developing planning guidelines if you then ignore the advice and break the rules? There is a strange and subtle kind of corruption that permeates at all levels in the UK.

If only we had politicians brave enough to change the system.

[jgl07]

I found this gem on Skyscraper City:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=566204