Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[TornadoHibby]

Your comments are insulting to the many people who are enjoying the comments, speculation, analysis, opinion, humour and old fashioned banter on this thread.

If you don't like it, can I respectfully suggest that you refrain from reading it.

Thanks for your thoughts and proposal for how I should behave in future regarding this thread! :rolleyes:

I hope people that enjoy participating in the speculation continue to do so and that, equally, they appreciate and respect the considered comments that I made based upon how I see things relative to speculation about the facts which have not yet been made known outwith the close circle of professionals and participants involved in the Administration and relative to the RFC finances! :agree:

I fully understand people getting excited about the possible demise of RFC and that views expressed here which are speculative based upon speculation in the main are serving to hype that position in a potentially artificial way! :agree:

As I've said on an earlier post, speculation about speculation is suited to, and only serves the purpose of a few rather than the population involved generally! :rolleyes:

[Seveno]

Thanks for your thoughts and proposal for how I should behave in future regarding this thread! :rolleyes:

I hope people that enjoy participating in the speculation continue to do so and that, equally, they appreciate and respect the considered comments that I made based upon how I see things relative to speculation about the facts which have not yet been made known outwith the close circle of professionals and participants involved in the Administration and relative to the RFC finances! :agree:

I fully understand people getting excited about the possible demise of RFC and that views expressed here which are speculative based upon speculation in the main are serving to hype that position in a potentially artificial way! :agree:

As I've said on an earlier post, speculation about speculation is suited to, and only serves the purpose of a few rather than the population involved generally! :rolleyes:


:yawn:

[Keith_M]

What was the Rangers score today?


:dunno:

[CentreLine]

Thanks for your thoughts and proposal for how I should behave in future regarding this thread! :rolleyes:

I hope people that enjoy participating in the speculation continue to do so and that, equally, they appreciate and respect the considered comments that I made based upon how I see things relative to speculation about the facts which have not yet been made known outwith the close circle of professionals and participants involved in the Administration and relative to the RFC finances! :agree:

I fully understand people getting excited about the possible demise of RFC and that views expressed here which are speculative based upon speculation in the main are serving to hype that position in a potentially artificial way! :agree:

As I've said on an earlier post, speculation about speculation is suited to, and only serves the purpose of a few rather than the population involved generally! :rolleyes:

Really sorry Tornado but I don't understand your point at all. What is this reference to the "population involved"? I am obviously far too stupid to get the point and really need it explained more clearly. Conversely, I actually do understand most of CWG's entries and I have always viewed them as informed opinion rather than speculation.

[greenlex]

What was the Rangers score today?


:dunno:

Rangers £250'000 - Players £0

I think. :greengrin

[TornadoHibby]

Really sorry Tornado but I don't understand your point at all. What is this reference to the "population involved"? I am obviously far too stupid to get the point and really need it explained more clearly. Conversely, I actually do understand most of CWG's entries and I have always viewed them as informed opinion rather than speculation.

I thought it was quite straightforward in that my point was about users of this mb, the few who speculate about the speculation (not known information or facts) and the 'population' statistically meaning the entire group using the mb and this thread in particular! :wink:

Was there anything else I have said that wasn't clear to you? :dunno:

PS Did you understand the point (not mine!) about the "missing debit" by any chance that CWG liked? :wink: :greengrin If you did could you explain that one to me please? :rolleyes:

[ancient hibee]

Just in case I've missed something could we have a summary of the thread so far please.
:greengrin

Has anyone explained how new owners at Rangers will meet the funding gap of a million quid a month?

[jgl07]

Just in case I've missed something could we have a summary of the thread so far please.
:greengrin

Has anyone explained how new owners at Rangers will meet the funding gap of a million quid a month?

Rangers are *******!

[Twa Cairpets]

I thought it was quite straightforward in that my point was about users of this mb, the few who speculate about the speculation (not known information or facts) and the 'population' statistically meaning the entire group using the mb and this thread in particular! :wink:

Was there anything else I have said that wasn't clear to you? :dunno:

PS Did you understand the point (not mine!) about the "missing debit" by any chance that CWG liked? :wink: :greengrin If you did could you explain that one to me please? :rolleyes:

It's not speculation on speculation. It's dissection, analysis and explanation of the speculation that is being provided and discussed. Very different, and very interesting.

[Kaiser1962]

I thought it was quite straightforward in that my point was about users of this mb, the few who speculate about the speculation (not known information or facts) and the 'population' statistically meaning the entire group using the mb and this thread in particular! :wink:

Was there anything else I have said that wasn't clear to you? :dunno:

PS Did you understand the point (not mine!) about the "missing debit" by any chance that CWG liked? :wink: :greengrin If you did could you explain that one to me please? :rolleyes:


I know what you are saying but if you apply literally what you are saying then everything that hasnt happened yet is speculation. You would not book a holiday because you might not live that long, and therefore it would be a waste of money. Why would you buy a ticket for the semi for the same reason?

This is a football message board and as such it exists, and thrives, on people speculating about such things as to what the team next week will be or who we might sign in the summer.

The posts of some of the financial guys, not just CWG, on the situation at Rangers are informative and educational for those that have no knowledge of the administration processes and the nuances of the law surrounding them. Because these guys work in that sector, then those that dont seek their opinions and best guesses on the days events and they are just that, opinions,based on professional experience but opinions nonetheless.

[TornadoHibby]

It's not speculation on speculation. It's dissection, analysis and explanation of the speculation that is being provided and discussed. Very different, and very interesting.

This is a bit like asking ten property surveyors to value the same property and getting ten different values!

The only difference is that they have facts to consider in arriving at said values and still largely don't agree necessarily!

What we have here (regarding RFC and it's finances and the Administration et al) is information which is uncertain (factually) to those 'dissecting and analysing' that uncertain information (speculation) which makes the potential for error in the 'dissection and analysis' much greater! However, as I've said in an earlier post, if that's what 'blows your hair back' then that's absolutely fine! My point is simply that it doesn't do it for me for all of the reasons I've already posted on this thread! :wink:

Allow me to re-ignite the frenzy to be the one to 'guess' the likely outcome' of the RFC/Administration/BTC/LTC/CW/SDM 'situation' by retiring to the background on this thread once more
to avoid any further in-necessary distraction from that goal by me!

I was trying to introduce some perspective regarding the base level of information available out with the RFC, RFCG, Administrators 'inner circle' but it is now clear that no perspective or certainty or clarity is required to be able to 'dissect and analyse' !

That is all! :rolleyes:

[PaulSmith]

'big news tomorrow' according to Tom English.
For that read speculation and more hacks believing pr guff from all and sundry without a thought to question it.

[CropleyWasGod]

[QUOTE=TornadoHibby;3142061]


I'm only suggesting that one becomes intimately acquainted with the actual facts before becoming a font of all knowledge! Anything else is irresponsible IMO and a professional advisor's parent governing body would be particularly interested in it's members that did not as would the PII insurers of such members! :agree:


/QUOTE]

As one who has commented long and often about speculation and suppositions, you'll admit that it's pure supposition on your part to assume that I have a "parent governing body". If you can find one, though, of which I am a member ... go ahead and tell them. It would be the first complaint I have had, of any nature, in over 32 years.

I do, however, admit to being a fully paid-up member of the Pedants' Society. It should be "its members".

[CropleyWasGod]

'big news tomorrow' according to Tom English.
For that read speculation and more hacks believing pr guff from all and sundry without a thought to question it.

... and plenty more for us inbred amateurs to salivate over and speculate on!!! Bring it on :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

SFA clearly lay the blame fairly and squarely on the people who were desperate to get any buyer they could find.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/sfa-chief-responsibility-for-owner-test-lay-with-rangers-1-2165105

It's late, and it's been a long day.... but I'm not getting the bit about Dave King not being allowed on the RFC Board post-administration.

Does that extend to all directors who were on the Board when they went into admin?

[Eyrie]

Probably just King, unless any of the others have 300+ charges levelled against them by the South African authorities.

[CropleyWasGod]

Probably just King, unless any of the others have 300+ charges levelled against them by the South African authorities.

I have just been reading the Wordpress blog that was posted earlier today. According to that, there were only 2 (possibly 3) directors when RFC went into admin.

[TornadoHibby]

I'm only suggesting that one becomes intimately acquainted with the actual facts before becoming a font of all knowledge! Anything else is irresponsible IMO and a professional advisor's parent governing body would be particularly interested in it's members that did not as would the PII insurers of such members! :agree:


As one who has commented long and often about speculation and suppositions, you'll admit that it's pure supposition on your part to assume that I have a "parent governing body". If you can find one, though, of which I am a member ... go ahead and tell them. It would be the first complaint I have had, of any nature, in over 32 years.

I do, however, admit to being a fully paid-up member of the Pedants' Society. It should be "its members".

I purposely didn't use the first person in raising the subject of 'governing/regulatory bodies' so that you wouldn't be able to construe it as personal but you have done that anyway! :rolleyes:

How you conduct your business is entirely up to you and good to see that you don't have the 'aggravation' of complying with the requirements of 'governing/regulatory bodies' there! :wink:

Posting on a mb like this though does not require you to comply with any work related obligations! :wink:

I just don't see why you feel the need to justify your work related competence level relative (presumably) to what you are posting on here? :confused:

I don't get the significance or purpose of the 'pedant' comment?! :rolleyes::greengrin

[Lofarl]

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=8222#comments

Not a bad read that article if you can forget where it came from and stomach the end part about the other 10 clubs may hurt his beloved Sellic.

[HibeeMG]

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=8222#comments

Not a bad read that article if you can forget where it came from and stomach the end part about the other 10 clubs may hurt his beloved Sellic.

You're right, not a bad read. As far as I can see it wrapped the history of Rangers' 'cheating' up pretty well.

I actually do agree that Celtc shouldn't be excluded from the meeting that the rest of the SPL clubs are having. Going forward, the SPL10 have all the cards stacked in their favour so it would seem petty to not show their hand to Celtc at this stage.

[cad]

You're right, not a bad read. As far as I can see it wrapped the history of Rangers' 'cheating' up pretty well.

I actually do agree that Celtc shouldn't be excluded from the meeting that the rest of the SPL clubs are having. Going forward, the SPL10 have all the cards stacked in their favour so it would seem petty to not show their hand to Celtc at this stage.



Celtic can play Rangers or a new form of Rangers every week in that bubble they both live in for all I care ,we should do ourselves and favour, cut this financial umbilical cord the The Old Firm and Sky provide , only then Scottish football can live its own life .


AS for the future, a UEFA enquiry into the 3 governing bodies , dismantling of the 3 then a single new entity running Scottish football ,
the way both these clubs have manipulated the custodians in charge of our game is sickening , to even consider sitting at the same table should question your sanity .

Better off left well alone IMHO .

[HibeeMG]

Celtic can play Rangers or a new form of Rangers every week in that bubble they both live in for all I care ,we should do ourselves and favour, cut this financial umbilical cord the The Old Firm and Sky provide , only then Scottish football can live its own life .


AS for the future, a UEFA enquiry into the 3 governing bodies , dismantling of the 3 then a single new entity running Scottish football ,
the way both these clubs have manipulated the custodians in charge of our game is sickening , to even consider sitting at the same table should question your sanity .

Better off left well alone IMHO .

My sanity has been in question for a long time! :wink:

My point was that we shouldn't be skulking off to have our wee meetings. We should get the Celtc representative into the meeting, sit him at the end of the table and discuss how much TV and ticket money we're going to be taking off them, knowing that they can do feckall about it!

[grunt]

More hot air from Graham Spiers:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/knights-a-king-and-shadowy-milieu-underpinning-game-of-thrones.16986326


Knights, a King and shadowy milieu underpinning game of thrones

The vast Rangers support, done in by weeks of negative headlines and the death sentences being passed on their club, at last have some respite this weekend. Paul Murray and his Blue Knights consortium, with their brazen intention to buy the club and avoid liquidation, have seen to that. But this Rangers saga, and the salvation of the club, may be a long way off yet.

The Blue Knights, with Murray and Dave King the figurehead and economic strength respectively, are pinning their hopes on striking a Company Voluntary Arrangement with Rangers' creditors. Yet until the tribunal's ruling on the big tax case is known – the club is threatened with a potential £49 million-plus back-taxes bill – how can that happen?

There are various theories currently doing the rounds about Rangers and HMRC. The most popular – and possibly believable – is that the revenue service has privately intimated it will strike a sympathetic deal with Rangers which will vouchsafe a CVA going through. Others, however, still believe that HMRC will prove no such pushover at all. One business analyst, who has studied the economic circus of Scottish football for the past 20 years, told me yesterday: "I've seen all the speculation about HMRC being 'accommodating', but I believe they will still want their pound of flesh from Rangers. The fact is the HMRC position remains the great unknown in this saga."

It is a tantalising situation for Paul Murray. In October last year, on the BBC Scotland programme which so impressively helped to skewer Craig Whyte, Murray himself sat before a camera and said he had been amazed that Whyte had gone ahead and taken on Rangers, given the potentially huge liability (the HMRC case) which still hung over the club. "I'd never seen that before anywhere in my 25 years of buying and selling companies – a guy taking on a historical tax liability like that," Murray said. Yet here we are 10 months down the line and, with the HMRC outcome still not known, Murray is himself in a near-identical situation. It has left some strongly believing that the ex-Rangers director knows more about HMRC's intentions than the rest of us.

The other focus this weekend shifts strongly on to King, the real economic power behind Murray and the Blue Knights' bid. If anyone seriously doubts how much money King has earned in his near 30-year sojourn in South Africa, then consider this: SARS, the South African revenue service, are still chasing him for around 900 million SA rand in alleged unpaid taxes. In sterling, that is around £75m. Just how much money do you have to earn in the first place to be asked to stump up such a tax bill? Blithely, two years ago, King was reported in Pretoria to be happy to pay back around £25m to SARS, which was rejected. Either way, it seems this exiled Glaswegian, as well as befriending Gary Player and regularly caddying for him at the Masters in Augusta, has accumulated serious wealth.

Yet King also brings "baggage", which is why Stewart Regan, the SFA chief executive, has been happy to tip off the press in the past 24 hours that King would not pass the governing body's belaboured "fit and proper persons" test if he tried to become an Ibrox director under any new club ownership. It is well known that, in South Africa, King has been accused of tax evasion, money-laundering and even racketeering – all emotive allegations, many of which have yet to reach a courtroom.

Amidst all this, it is enough for Regan and the SFA to hurriedly point out that, purely on the basis of having been a board member of the last Ibrox regime which led to the club towards insolvency, King would not be allowed to become a Rangers director.
Yet, within the Blue Knights, King's power and influence could not be over-estimated. Indeed, they might well be viewed as essential. King's financial input is a primary factor in the Blue Knights' ability to restructure Rangers and rebuild the team. King is a key – if elusive – cog in this unfolding Rangers drama.

If I were either Regan or Neil Doncaster, the SPL chief exec-utive, I would be praying that this Murray/Blue Knights bid somehow comes off. Doncaster is currently in an impossible situation: on the one hand, if Rangers were liquid-ated and died, the SPL member clubs would be under enormous pressure to punish any 'newco' by means of banishment from the SPL, possibly even to the Irn-Bru Third Division.
Yet what could SPL chief Doncaster – or anyone else, for that matter – do without Rangers? The worth of the SPL in terms of TV rights is reduced to a relative pittance if either half of the Old Firm is taken away. Can you imagine the call Doncaster would have to make to Barney Francis, managing director of Sky Sports, with whom Doncaster has just struck a new deal? "Erm, Barney, bad news. We've had to punish Rangers over this bankruptcy bus-iness. They are now in the Third Division. "There will be no Old Firm derbies for three years - but Rangers should be back by 2015."

For all concerned – excepting crowing Celtic fans – it is best if Rangers emerge intact from administration.

One thing is clear: Craig Whyte is dead meat. Despite tech-nically owning around 90% of Rangers, it is striking the way the club's administrators, Duff & Phelps, speak about selling the club or doing this or that deal with scarcely a passing mention of Rangers' current owner. Whyte, almost certainly now denuded of his secured cred-itor status, appears to have as much sway at Ibrox these days as the stadium's cleaners. I don't know a single person who can fathom why he got into this mess. He has almost comically miscalculated the scrutiny he would come under while attempting his various shenanigans. I find Whyte a ludicrous, shambolic figure, almost to the point of pity.

[grunt]

Also from the Herald, but a totally different take on the Murray bid team. No mention of King's millions here, in this article the capital comes from Ticketus. I'd like to see them sell that idea to Ticketus investors. Clearly these Herald journalists don't talk to each other.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/survival-of-the-fittest.16986438

Survival of the fittest

There is an endless supply of intrigue coming out of Rangers as several groups play a role in this financial, legal and emotional epic, full of negotiations, stark warnings, progress and a slew of revelations. The coming week is likely to be the same.
Paul Murray, head of the Blue Knights consortium, will meet the administrators in the next 48 hours to hold further talks about his bid to buy the club. Murray's group, which includes all three major supporters' organisations, as well as the finance fund Ticketus, have positioned themselves at the forefront of a number of interested parties.

Receiving the backing of Ticketus is considered a smart move. They lent £24.4 million to Craig Whyte in return for profits from future season ticket sales, and Whyte used £18m of that to pay off Lloyds Bank when he bought Rangers from Sir David Murray. The mechanics of that deal have convinced the administrators that Whyte's status as a secured creditor is worthless – there is no evidence of him having invested any of his own cash – but it also leaves Ticketus vulnerable to losing their money. Yet some sources close to the situation are all but certain that Ticketus's arrangement would not hold with a new owner. The company may have decided their choice is to embark on lengthy and costly moves to challenge Whyte to try to get back some of their money, or to essentially write off their involvement with Whyte and strike a new deal with his successor, and they may see the Blue Knights as the best hope of recouping some of the money they face losing.
"Paul [Murray] has had some discussion about their position," said Andy Kerr, of the Rangers Supporters Assembly. "They're nervous they will end up severely burned in this deal if it goes wrong. We're talking about reducing the amount due to them, repaying over a longer period but, most important, getting capital up front if the takeover is successful."

Buying the club while it exits administration through a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) with the creditors would involve Whyte passing on his majority shareholding. The administrators are confident they can either take control of that – as his Wavetower company (now Rangers FC Group) owes the club money – or reduce the value of Wavetower's influence to such an extent that it becomes an irrelevance.

The administrators have set a deadline of Friday for indicative offers to be made. They insist other interested parties are also serious about bidding for the club. Although they stress they want to avoid selling the club to anybody who does not pass the Scottish Football Association's fit and proper persons criteria, as Whyte and Dave King, the second largest shareholder, now fail to do, they are only obliged to sell to the highest bidder. "Anybody who doesn't pass the fitness test won't necessarily be discarded there and then, but we have to treat them with extreme caution because the last thing that RFC needs is another Craig Whyte character," said Paul Clark, of the administrators Duff & Phelps. "We believe that a new owner will be installed before the end of the season. "We have one or two parties that talk to the media, and other parties who have been quietly and diligently getting on with their business outside the glare of the media, and we are taking them just as seriously. I am not ruling anybody out, I'm just saying that nobody should assume that the only serious bidders are the ones who are in the public domain."

Clark can raise a better return for creditors if there is a bidding contest for the club. There are still obstacles to Rangers exiting administration through a CVA, though, since the outcome of the tax tribunal into the club's use of employee benefit trusts could deliver a significant bill. This would have to be drawn into any CVA offer, which the creditors then vote to accept or reject, but Clark is confident that a sale can still be achieved. "We can't predict the size of the bill, if there is one," he said. "Whatever the debt, it just dilutes the amount available to the creditors. As a very significant stakeholder, HMRC shouldn't be looking to destroy value. They have never suggested they are going to be belligerent. They are not at all happy with the conduct of the people who have run RFC, particularly over the last few months."

Clark also confirmed that after agreeing to wage cuts "more than a handful" of senior players had clauses inserted into their contracts entitling them to free transfers in the event of Craig Whyte retaining or regaining control of the club. No commitment has been made to pay money owed to Dundee United after their William Hill Scottish Cup tie at Ibrox, but the administrators are in discussions with the SFA over the matter.

The situation, for every development, still contains many unresolved strands.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Is Speirs not one of the guys that was lauding Whyte at the time he took over?
If so how can anyone take him as a serious journalist?

I can't make up my mind about Speirs genet though I find him repugnant then again the same applies to Traynor

[Jim44]

More hot air from Graham Spiers:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/knights-a-king-and-shadowy-milieu-underpinning-game-of-thrones.16986326


Maybe a bit pedantic and clumsy but not a million miles off the mark.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Celtic were spared with 2 hours til doomsday if i recall correctly.
I don't see why it suitor be any different here.
It appears like a phoney war with people jockeying for position - smoke and Mirrors and brinkmanshipship.
Someone wake me up when it's over

[WindyMiller]

It's late, and it's been a long day.... but I'm not getting the bit about Dave King not being allowed on the RFC Board post-administration.

Does that extend to all directors who were on the Board when they went into admin?

As I understand it,yes.






I find this strange!!!!


Clark also confirmed the existence of a “Craig Whyte clause" in the contracts of some of the bigger-name players in the Rangers squad.
“I didn’t make it clear on Friday about this Craig Whyte clause. I should make it clear now. It’s not in everybody’s contract but there are a number of players who did want a clause that said something like, should Craig Whyte either retain or regain, control of the club then they would be entitled to a free transfer.
“That’s in there for a number of them. More than a handful have that in their contracts, the ones who have most likely got value.
“What the senior players are saying is that, if this football club moves into the hands of somebody we trust, then we want to remain at Rangers. It should not be seen as the players taking an opportunity to get themselves away on a free transfer in the summer. They’re saying: ‘Like everybody else here, we’ve been through a lot and we’re not happy with what’s gone on and what we don’t want is for this to continue and to be stuck in a club where we don’t want to be without break from our contract. You’re asking us to make a big contribution. Well, we need to have flexibility’. And, to me, that’s a fair compromise.” Clark is adamant that Whyte, above, has no future at Rangers and that, ideally, a new owner will be in place before the end of the current season.

[greenginger]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/knights-a-king-and-shadowy-milieu-underpinning-game-of-thrones.16986326



Am i missing something here.:confused:


According to this dumb hack the SFA say Dave King would not pass the fit and proper test because he was involved in the last Rangers board that has lead the Club to the edge of insolvency.

The debts incurred are really minor compared to the £ 50 million plus liability racked up under the SDM regime when Paul Murray was also a director.

When the BTC case bill finally lands will Paul Murray join Dave King as persona -non - grata in Scottish Football circles ?

[down-the-slope]

I've mentioned a few times that, from HMRC's immediate point of view, they would be better off waiting for liquidation.However, the counter-argument to that is that that may result in shutting off a future revenue stream. I had a situation where I was able to demonstrate to HMRC that pursuing their proposed settlement would result in the taxpayer's bankruptcy and no money for them. By accepting a lower settlement, they were able to recover that amount in full, plus (and this is my point) would secure a future income stream from the business.

The value in keeping the business going is, I reckon, the player squad. The admins have alluded to this a few times. I am not sure on this point, but in liquidation the players' contracts are either voided or revert to the SFA.

Incidentally, I have been saying for a few years now that the only way out for Hearts is liquidation... for the very reasons you mention.

CWG - flaw in that is exactly because its football and not pastic widget plc...we all know that some form of huns 2012 will emerge if liquidation occurs...so HMRC will get the revenue stream from that vehicle :rolleyes: having got a biggish chunk from the buyers via liquidation....

[CropleyWasGod]

CWG - flaw in that is exactly because its football and not pastic widget plc...we all know that some form of huns 2012 will emerge if liquidation occurs...so HMRC will get the revenue stream from that vehicle :rolleyes: having got a biggish chunk from the buyers via liquidation....

I did say "may".... but I accept it should be "probably won't".

Which is fine from a tax-payer's point of view. Some jam today, more jam tomorrow.

Again from the tax-payer's point of view, the ultimate jam scenario would be winning the BTC, and doing a deal with RFC whereby they paid everything by instalments.

Given the hammering that would give their ongoing finances, that wouldn't be too bad from a football perspective either.

[down-the-slope]

Nothing to do with the "red top" fascination with applying their principal doctrine of "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" then! :wink: :greengrin

Listen, if that philosophy blows your hair back then I'm sure that you'll just run with it! :agree:

You might be surprised when the facts become known though should they be quite different to the current "red top" esque speculation running through our media and mb's especially on this topic! :wink: :greengrin


Being disingenuous here tornado..how does anyone know when 'facts' are 'facts'...everyone with knows that winners write history....now that is a fact :wink:

[Big Ed]

Roddy Forsyth has just been on Radio 5Live saying that Duff & Phelps indicated to him that Rangers would not be paying Dundee United their share of the gate receipts from their Scottish Cup tie. According to him; this means that Rangers are in breach of SFA rules and would be excluded from next year's Scottish Cup.
If they still exist, of course. :greengrin

[s.a.m]

Roddy Forsyth has just been on Radio 5Live saying that Duff & Phelps indicated to him that Rangers would not be paying Dundee United their share of the gate receipts from their Scottish Cup tie. According to him; this means that Rangers are in breach of SFA rules and would be excluded from next year's Scottish Cup.
If they still exist, of course. :greengrin

I read a statement from one of the adminstrators earlier, where he said that (without the bit about the Scottish Cup). Leaving aside the Cup, will that not affect their registration with the SFA??

[CropleyWasGod]

Being disingenuous here tornado..how does anyone know when 'facts' are 'facts'...everyone with knows that winners write history....now that is a fact :wink:

Now is it a fact, or just supposition put about by losers? :cb

[Big Ed]

I read a statement from one of the adminstrators earlier, where he said that (without the bit about the Scottish Cup). Leaving aside the Cup, will that not affect their registration with the SFA??

Forsyth did go on to say that the administrator hoped to speak to the SFA next week: whatever that is meant to achieve. :rolleyes:

[s.a.m]

I've just had a look at the SFA website, and they have said this:

Finally, we have sent a letter to the Rangers administrators, Duff and Phelps, advising them that failure to pay monies owed to another member constitutes a breach of the Cup Competition Rules. Consequently, the club faces disciplinary action unless they make payments due to Dundee United from their recent William Hill Scottish Cup tie. A Notice of Complaint has been issued to that effect."

[The final column is the maximum punishment for non-compliance with the issue raised in column 3.]

The
Scottish Cup Rules




325


45(b)


Division of Receipts and Payment of Expenses - Clubs shall observe the terms of Scottish Cup Rule 46.


Fine
Order to replay a match
Ejection from the Scottish Cup
Suspension


Clubs


Fine
Order to replay a match
Ejection from the Scottish Cup
Suspension


Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round


Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round plus £5,000


Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round plus £10,000


Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round plus £20,000 and ejection from the Scottish Cup and one year suspension from the Scottish Cup

[Big Ed]

I've just had a look at the SFA website, and they have said this:

Finally, we have sent a letter to the Rangers administrators, Duff and Phelps, advising them that failure to pay monies owed to another member constitutes a breach of the Cup Competition Rules. Consequently, the club faces disciplinary action unless they make payments due to Dundee United from their recent William Hill Scottish Cup tie. A Notice of Complaint has been issued to that effect."

[The final column is the maximum punishment for non-compliance with the issue raised in column 3.]

The
Scottish Cup Rules




325


45(b)


Division of Receipts and Payment of Expenses - Clubs shall observe the terms of Scottish Cup Rule 46.


Fine
Order to replay a match
Ejection from the Scottish Cup
Suspension


Clubs


Fine
Order to replay a match
Ejection from the Scottish Cup
Suspension


Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round


Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round plus £5,000


Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round plus £10,000


Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round plus £20,000 and ejection from the Scottish Cup and one year suspension from the Scottish Cup





Another headache for the Hun Hoards. :violin:

[Keith_M]

What's the betting on it being this:



"Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round"

[CropleyWasGod]

What's the betting on it being this:



"Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round"

Given that they canny pay.....does that mean "well, let's chuck 'em out" or "we'll fine 'em, but they canny pay, so we'll effectively be letting 'em off." ?

[down-the-slope]

I did say "may".... but I accept it should be "probably won't".

Which is fine from a tax-payer's point of view. Some jam today, more jam tomorrow.

Again from the tax-payer's point of view, the ultimate jam scenario would be winning the BTC, and doing a deal with RFC whereby they paid everything by instalments.

Given the hammering that would give their ongoing finances, that wouldn't be too bad from a football perspective either.


Surely that IS in the best interests of Tax payers. Unless a buyer appears who can prove to HMRC that they have the money to cover such a shedule of re-payments..but why would someone cripple the future business with this.

I cant see why anyone - unless they are of the mega rich ego types that have bought into EPL (and if they were that type whey not buy Everton :rolleyes:) - would not wait until Tax case was sorted or wait for Liquidation :confused: Now I realise that the potential of 3 years @ £15 + million from Champs league is the make weight in such an outcome...but that is only a potential, whereas any tax case loss amount is actual.

Still reckon that any £50 million plus tax case loss and they are liquidated

Also don't forget the £18 million debt to the bank that was all the focus at the start of this has not just dissappeared...it has just been rolled up into a bigger debt with Ticketas...any new owner has that 'cost' to bear.

25,000 seats at lets say £400 :rolleyes: £10 million..so suddenly its £30 million....thats quite a return for them and a hole in the next 3 years finances...

Also if we think that Hibs have a hard sell for ST's right now...anyone fancy being in Sales and Marketing at Rangers right now :cb

[CropleyWasGod]

Surely that IS in the best interests of Tax payers. Unless a buyer appears who can prove to HMRC that they have the money to cover such a shedule of re-payments..but why would someone cripple the future business with this.

I cant see why anyone - unless they are of the mega rich ego types that have bought into EPL (and if they were that type whey not buy Everton :rolleyes:) - would not wait until Tax case was sorted or wait for Liquidation :confused: Now I realise that the potential of 3 years @ £15 + million from Champs league is the make weight in such an outcome...but that is only a potential, whereas any tax case loss amount is actual.

Still reckon that any £50 million plus tax case loss and they are liquidated

Also don't forget the £18 million debt to the bank that was all the focus at the start of this has not just dissappeared...it has just been rolled up into a bigger debt with Ticketas...any new owner has that 'cost' to bear.

25,000 seats at lets say £400 :rolleyes: £10 million..so suddenly its £30 million....thats quite a return for them and a hole in the next 3 years finances...

Also if we think that Hibs have a hard sell for ST's right now...anyone fancy being in Sales and Marketing at Rangers right now :cb

When I said "ultimate", I was speaking theoretically...it's the only way that all of the potential tax in the BTC could be recovered, and guarantee an ongoing tax take as well. I'm with you in thinking that it would take a real daftie to take on that debt, as well as the Ticketus hole.

As for that particular hole, I think it's probably more than £30m, but that will do fine for starters. :cb


Incidentally, the current Retail/Marketing manager at Arsenal, used to fulfil similar roles at Hearts and Rangers. :wink:

[joe breezy]

I'm a wee bit less optimistic about a good resolution now ie Rangers ceasing to exist or dropping a few divisions at least

There seems to be quite a bit of talk about interested parties, here's hoping it all still goes tits up for them

[CropleyWasGod]

From the far East and America.
If they fell in a bucket of ***** they'd come out smelling of Rangers.

Courage, sir.

They're still looking at needing £80-£100m if the BTC goes against them.

[SurferRosa]

From the far East and America.
If they fell in a bucket of ***** they'd come out smelling of Rangers.

I`m still trying to work out where all these big money buyers were a year ago or when Murray first put them up for sale. He couldnae give that club away. Now they`re up to their necks in it, suddenly RFC are an attractive purchase.........doesn`t make sense to me..:confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

I`m still trying to work out where all these big money buyers were a year ago or when Murray first put them up for sale. He couldnae give that club away. Now they`re up to their necks in it, suddenly RFC are an attractive aquisition.........doesn`t make sense to me..:confused:

The admins have said that there are some potential buyers who don't want to be known at this stage.

Call me an old cynic, but the surest way to push the sale of something is to suggest that there are others interested.

[stokesmessiah]

The admins have said that there are some potential buyers who don't want to be known at this stage.

Call me an old cynic, but the surest way to push the sale of something is to suggest that there are others interested.

Especially when you try to conjure up images of a middle eastern sheik with billions to burn.

[jgl07]

The value in keeping the business going is, I reckon, the player squad. The admins have alluded to this a few times. I am not sure on this point, but in liquidation the players' contracts are either voided or revert to the SFA.



The reason why the Administrators have avoided a cull of players is that the prospective bidders have indicated that they do not want to buy a club shorn of its major playing assets. I beleive that the Blue Knights are a load of time wasters without anthing near the resources to mount a serious bid.

I am not really convinced that there is much value in this. Self-evidently the club cannot afford the current playing staff so it will come down to those with any real transfer value come the next window. I do not see that many players that could generate much money as they would have been sold in the last window. You never good good prices in what amounts to a fire sale.

Also will the 75% or 50% pay cuts give any entitlement to a free transfer on account of breach of contract? Any player who wished could probably engineer a free transfer. The wage cut will end after three months and any player who refused transfers lined up and insisted on a return to full wages might be able to get a better deal elsewhere as a free agent.

[CropleyWasGod]

Especially when you try to conjure up images of a middle eastern sheik with billions to burn.

... cue the gags about Sheik Ma Haun.

[CropleyWasGod]

The reason why the Administrators have avoided a cull of players is that the prospective bidders have indicated that they do not want to buy a club shorn of its major playing assets. I beleive that the Blue Knights are a load of time wasters without anthing near the resources to mount a serious bid.

I am not really convinced that there is much value in this. Self-evidently the club cannot afford the current playing staff so it will come down to those with any real transfer value come the next window. I do not see that many players that could generate much money as they would have been sold in the last window. You never good good prices in what amounts to a fire sale.

Also will the 75% or 50% pay cuts give any entitlement to a free transfer on account of breach of contract? Any player who wished could probably engineer a free transfer. The wage cut will end after three months and any player who refused transfers lined up and insisted on a return to full wages might be able to get a better deal elsewhere as a free agent.

... yet more reason for letting them go pop, then?

[down-the-slope]

The admins have said that there are some potential buyers who don't want to be known at this stage.

Call me an old cynic, but the surest way to push the sale of something is to suggest that there are others interested.

:agree: may be true...or may be the old auctioneer trick of pointing randomly and upping the bid to push up trhe price and create more 'frenzy'

to answer the 'where were they when Murry first keen to sell'

the BTC banck debt etc were all there...so anyone interested must see potential to get ownership with some / all of that liability reduced or gone

[jgl07]

... yet more reason for letting them go pop, then?

Yes that's about how I see things.

The various scenarios for avoiding liquidation seem very convoluted even assuming that Rangers win the two tax cases. With Ticketus having their claws on the first three years of season ticket money and the prospects of points deductions and no access to Europe for at least one season, it ios going to be tough to put a competitive team on the park.

Going for liquidation and a new club would mean that they would be completely debt free. There are advantages of doing things quickly to put together a club and sort out arrangments for a ground so as to make a decent bid for a SFL3 place. They would be back in the top flight in three seasons and be eligible for Europe. They would be back quicker if there was league restructuring.

Come on Rangers, you know it makes sense!

[WindyMiller]

The reason why the Administrators have avoided a cull of players is that the prospective bidders have indicated that they do not want to buy a club shorn of its major playing assets. I beleive that the Blue Knights are a load of time wasters without anthing near the resources to mount a serious bid.

I am not really convinced that there is much value in this. Self-evidently the club cannot afford the current playing staff so it will come down to those with any real transfer value come the next window. I do not see that many players that could generate much money as they would have been sold in the last window. You never good good prices in what amounts to a fire sale.

Also will the 75% or 50% pay cuts give any entitlement to a free transfer on account of breach of contract? Any player who wished could probably engineer a free transfer. The wage cut will end after three months and any player who refused transfers lined up and insisted on a return to full wages might be able to get a better deal elsewhere as a free agent.

They've only got to say that the don't like the new owners, apparently.


Clark also confirmed the existence of a “Craig Whyte clause" in the contracts of some of the bigger-name players in the Rangers squad.

“I didn’t make it clear on Friday about this Craig Whyte clause. I should make it clear now. It’s not in everybody’s contract but there are a number of players who did want a clause that said something like, should Craig Whyte either retain or regain, control of the club then they would be entitled to a free transfer.

“That’s in there for a number of them. More than a handful have that in their contracts, the ones who have most likely got value.

“What the senior players are saying is that, if this football club moves into the hands of somebody we trust, then we want to remain at Rangers. It should not be seen as the players taking an opportunity to get themselves away on a free transfer in the summer. They’re saying: ‘Like everybody else here, we’ve been through a lot and we’re not happy with what’s gone on and what we don’t want is for this to continue and to be stuck in a club where we don’t want to be without break from our contract. You’re asking us to make a big contribution. Well, we need to have flexibility’. And, to me, that’s a fair compromise.” Clark is adamant that Whyte, above, has no future at Rangers and that, ideally, a new owner will be in place before the end of the current season.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes that's about how I see things.

The various scenarios for avoiding liquidation seem very convoluted even assuming that Rangers win the two tax cases. With Ticketus having their claws on the first three years of season ticket money and the prospects of points deductions and no access to Europe for at least one season, it ios going to be tough to put a competitive team on the park.

Going for liquidation and a new club would mean that they would be completely debt free. There are advantages of doing things quickly to put together a club and sort out arrangments for a ground so as to make a decent bid for a SFL3 place. They would be back in the top flight in three seasons and be eligible for Europe. They would be back quicker if there was league restructuring.

Come on Rangers, you know it makes sense!

I know it makes sense

You know it makes sense.

Most commercial opinion knows it makes sense.

It makes even more sense over the road.

But there is something about the emotion and macho-ness of football that blinds people to that sort of thinking.

[joe breezy]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/situation-vacant-stupid-billionaire-required/#more-2260

[WarringtonHibee]

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/429429_340989975953677_100001280315336_1005086_131 2597407_n.jpg

:greengrin

[...WentToMowAnSPL]

:flag::flag::flag::flag::flag:
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/429429_340989975953677_100001280315336_1005086_131 2597407_n.jpg

:greengrin

:top marks:top marks:top marks

[Eyrie]

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/429429_340989975953677_100001280315336_1005086_131 2597407_n.jpg

:greengrin

Bit expensive - you could buy their entire club for that.

[I'm_cabbaged]

Bit expensive - you could buy their entire club for that.

CW could've had his cake and ate it for the same price!!

[spike220]

The gift that keeps that keeps giving

http://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.2166182.1331420894!image/3743447730.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/3743447730.jpg

Or in his case evidently not!!

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm sure Paul Murray and the Bluenose Knights are just making sure they get a seat at the table. Any offer will be conditional on numerous conditions that the administrators can't guarantee at the moment so the process will run until the BTC is decided.

Agree with that. I think it's also positioning themselves as the true inheritors of Hundom. When someone eventually presses start on the liquidiser there will be nothing to stop more than one interested party setting themselves up as the NewHuns. It's looking pretty unlikely that Whyte will get that chance now, but I'm sure it was part of his original plan. I think Paul Murray & co are making sure they are seen as the only game in town.

[Spike Mandela]

Are Hearts now the second biggest club in Scotland in terms of wages?:greengrin

[hibs0666]

The gift that keeps that keeps giving

http://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.2166182.1331420894!image/3743447730.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/3743447730.jpg

Or in his case evidently not!!

Looks like someone has just rammed a floating charge up his jacksey.

[21.05.2016]

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/429429_340989975953677_100001280315336_1005086_131 2597407_n.jpg

:greengrin


:top marks:faf:

[Andy74]

The administrators have been talking this weekend about how the most important thing now is to get the club under new ownership.

Why is this and why is it important?

A football club should just be run so that it lives within its means. Suggesting a new owner is important seems to be saying that you are again looking for someone to invest as opposed to allow the club to be run properly.

Surely this is wrong and the most important job for the administrators should be getting the company back into shape in terms of outgoings not exceeding its income.

A new owner can then just get on with trying maximise income and so on.

If Rangers get sold on to a new' investor' with new promises then just nothing is being learned here about football finance.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Are Hearts now the second biggest club in Scotland in terms of wages?:greengrin

Dunno about overall wage bill, but Obua will be getting paid more than any Rangers player.

[CropleyWasGod]

The administrators have been talking this weekend about how the most important thing now is to get the club under new ownership.

Why is this and why is it important?

A football club should just be run so that it lives within its means. Suggesting a new owner is important seems to be saying that you are again looking for someone to invest as opposed to allow the club to be run properly.

Surely this is wrong and the most important job for the administrators should be getting the company back into shape in terms of outgoings not exceeding its income.

A new owner can then just get on with trying maximise income and so on.

If Rangers get sold on to a new' investor' with new promises then just nothing is being learned here about football finance.

Not quite, Andy.

The most important job for the administrators is to work on behalf of the creditors and shareholders, and maximise their position. If that means getting a new owner in with lots of money, that's their job done.

The problem of how to run the company in the future then becomes that of the new owner.

(Incidentally, if this is what the admins are now saying, it's a shift from last week when they said that their preferred option was the CVA route.)

[CropleyWasGod]

Agree with that. I think it's also positioning themselves as the true inheritors of Hundom. When someone eventually presses start on the liquidiser there will be nothing to stop more than one interested party setting themselves up as the NewHuns. It's looking pretty unlikely that Whyte will get that chance now, but I'm sure it was part of his original plan. I think Paul Murray & co are making sure they are seen as the only game in town.

Now joined by another ex-Jambo.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/douglas-park-joins-rangers-rescue-bid.17000787

And a little bit more info about how Ticketus are to be involved.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/03/12/rangers-in-crisis-ex-director-paul-murray-reveals-the-big-hitters-involved-in-his-blue-knights-takeover-plan-86908-23785167/

As I thought, it's about providing cash until they (Ticketus) can get a way out. According to that report, that will happen when there is a share issue. Given the failure of the last share issue, that may not be as straightforward as they think.

[Peevemor]

The gift that keeps that keeps giving

http://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.2166182.1331420894%21image/3743447730.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/3743447730.jpg

Or in his case evidently not!!


Looks like someone has just rammed a floating charge up his jacksey.

... or his finger just went throught the toilet paper? :dunno:

[CropleyWasGod]

And another one :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17340834

[Spike Mandela]

And another one :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17340834

Care to unravel that one for the layman CWG?:confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

Care to unravel that one for the layman CWG?:confused:

As I understand it:-

1. the pension fund (doesn't say if it was related to RFC), was thinking about lending RFC £2.9m.

2. it was only thinking about it!!

3. according to the pension fund, the money was held in the famous Collyer Bristow client account.

4. the money was paid over without authorisation (by the solicitors presumably) to RFC.

If all that is true, CB will get their erse felt by the Law Society at the very least. Lawyers on here will be able to tell you if it's criminal as well.

[jgl07]

As I understand it:-

1. the pension fund (doesn't say if it was related to RFC), was thinking about lending RFC £2.9m.

2. it was only thinking about it!!

3. according to the pension fund, the money was held in the famous Collyer Bristow client account.

4. the money was paid over without authorisation (by the solicitors presumably) to RFC.

If all that is true, CB will get their erse felt by the Law Society at the very least. Lawyers on here will be able to tell you if it's criminal as well.

This and other legal disputes involving Whyte, Ticketus, and HMRC suggests that all this talk of a quick sale and a move out of administration is pie in the sky nonsense.

It is stretching things enough to say that a sale could go through with up to £55 millions in tax disputes to resolve even with the mythical 'Treasury approved deal'. It is even more implausible with legal actions from different parties contesting exactly what will be included in the package for sale.

To think we used to call the Yams deluded!

[JeMeSouviens]

Now joined by another ex-Jambo.


Sure you're not getting mixed up with Donald? Douglas Park is of the Hamilton bus group/BMW dealers.

[WindyMiller]

This and other legal disputes involving Whyte, Ticketus, and HMRC suggests that all this talk of a quick sale and a move out of administration is pie in the sky nonsense.

It is stretching things enough to say that a sale could go through with up to £55 millions in tax disputes to resolve even with the mythical 'Treasury approved deal'. It is even more implausible with legal actions from different parties contesting exactly what will be included in the package for sale.

To think we used to call the Yams deluded!


Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.


:partyhibb

[WindyMiller]

Sure you're not getting mixed up with Donald? Douglas Park is of the Hamilton bus group/BMW dealers.


I believe he was on the board at Tynie at some point.




Edit; found this http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YjduofUoxN4J:www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/stephen_halliday_financial_woes_mount_at_ibrox_but _wealth_of_suitors_in_frame_1_2138660+douglas+park +,+former+hearts'+director&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

[Peevemor]

Sure you're not getting mixed up with Donald? Douglas Park is of the Hamilton bus group/BMW dealers.

I don't know if it's the same guy (or his son?), but Douglas Park of "Parks of Hamilton" was on the hearts' board in the 80s. He even laid on free buses for the supporters to some key away games.

[lapsedhibee]

Douglas Park of "Parks of Hamilton" was on the hearts' board in the 80s. He even laid on free buses for the supporters to some key away games.

:confused: Can't think of any 'key away games' that Hearts had in the 80s.

[WindyMiller]

:confused: Can't think of any 'key away games' that Hearts had in the 80s.

Did they no win the double back then?

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't know if it's the same guy (or his son?), but Douglas Park of "Parks of Hamilton" was on the hearts' board in the 80s. He even laid on free buses for the supporters to some key away games.

So he was, mentioned here:

http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20061108/1974-1984_2241543_1567515

Great article btw, relive the yo-yo years. :wink: 81-82 a particular favourite. :greengrin



With three games left against Dumbarton, Kilmarnock and Motherwell, three points were required for promotion, but the pressure was on, due to injuries and the inevitable suspensions. Against Dumbarton, the team was leading 2-1 at half time, but the 4,861 fans were then stunned when the maroons collapsed in the second period and lost four goals without reply.

Hearts now faced the other two promotion challengers and at Rugby Park the maroons were without four first team players through suspension, but forced a 0-0 draw. However, Gerry McCoy was sent off and this compounded the problems for the final match of the season at home to Motherwell, where a victory was required if the club was to go back to the Premier Division. A crowd of 14,709 came to lend support to a weak Hearts side, but the maroons went down 1-0 and Motherwell and Kilmarnock were promoted.

How we laughed.

[greenginger]

As I understand it:-

1. the pension fund (doesn't say if it was related to RFC), was thinking about lending RFC £2.9m.

2. it was only thinking about it!!

3. according to the pension fund, the money was held in the famous Collyer Bristow client account.

4. the money was paid over without authorisation (by the solicitors presumably) to RFC.

If all that is true, CB will get their erse felt by the Law Society at the very least. Lawyers on here will be able to tell you if it's criminal as well.

Robert Maxwell 2 the sequel. Does anyone know if Whyte has a rowing boat ? :greengrin

[grunt]

As I understand it:-
1. the pension fund (doesn't say if it was related to RFC), was thinking about lending RFC £2.9m.
2. it was only thinking about it!!
Hmm, seems pretty odd to me. I'm thinking of lending you some money. Here, hold onto it while I think about it...

[jgl07]

Are Hearts now the second biggest club in Scotland in terms of wages?:greengrin

Only when they pay them.

[aljo7-0]

As I understand it:-

1. the pension fund (doesn't say if it was related to RFC), was thinking about lending RFC £2.9m.

2. it was only thinking about it!!

3. according to the pension fund, the money was held in the famous Collyer Bristow client account.

4. the money was paid over without authorisation (by the solicitors presumably) to RFC.

If all that is true, CB will get their erse felt by the Law Society at the very least. Lawyers on here will be able to tell you if it's criminal as well.
They will be in trouble with the Law Society as using clients funds without their instructions is a significant breach of the Accounts rules.
They will be open to being sued by the Pension Fund for using./losing their money.
They could also be in trouble with the law as the definition of theft is depriving a rightful owner of the use of their property and paying out someones money to another without consent could be interpreted that way.
For the record I have never done te above so I'm only guessing :greengrin

[green glory]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17323222

Pat Nevin tells it how it is. :thumbsup:

The admins now telling us they can sell the club, even with the uncertainty over the big tax case. The deadline for a buyer is Friday. Cannae wait till then!!!

[CropleyWasGod]

They will be in trouble with the Law Society as using clients funds without their instructions is a significant breach of the Accounts rules.
They will be open to being sued by the Pension Fund for using./losing their money.
They could also be in trouble with the law as the definition of theft is depriving a rightful owner of the use of their property and paying out someones money to another without consent could be interpreted that way.
For the record I have never done te above so I'm only guessing :greengrin

Plenty solicitors have been jailed for pockling Clients' Accounts, but for their own use. Is this the same?

(please say yes:greengrin)

[aljo7-0]

To be honest I'm not sure - criminal law is not my thing. But by giving money to someone else they have deprived the Pension fund of ownership. OK they have not spent the money as such themselves but I don't see why it wouldn't be looked on as criminal.

If you gave me a coat to hold whilst you nipped to the loo and I then, without your consent, simply gave it away to someone who I knew was not the owner - your coat has been stolen and I've pretty much done it (even with nol personal gain). I would expect the police to be feeling my collar about that.

[CropleyWasGod]

To be honest I'm not sure - criminal law is not my thing. But by giving money to someone else they have deprived the Pension fund of ownership. OK they have not spent the money as such themselves but I don't see why it wouldn't be looked on as criminal.

If you gave me a coat to hold whilst you nipped to the loo and I then, without your consent, simply gave it away to someone who I knew was not the owner - your coat has been stolen and I've pretty much done it (even with nol personal gain). I would expect the police to be feeling my collar about that.

...it doesn't appear to be the "thing" of that Gary boy from Collyer Bristow either . :rolleyes:

What did the coat look like?

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17323222

Pat Nevin tells it how it is. :thumbsup:

The admins now telling us they can sell the club, even with the uncertainty over the big tax case. The deadline for a buyer is Friday. Cannae wait till then!!!

Strictly speaking, they could.

It would take a helluva lot of brass neck on their behalf, and helluva lot of stupidity on a buyer's behalf, though.

Oh wait.... yeah.... that would work.

[aljo7-0]

...it doesn't appear to be the "thing" of that Gary boy from Collyer Bristow either . :rolleyes:

What did the coat look like?
Lovely - well worth nicking.

[ancient hibee]

There are going to be a lot of professional people thinking they may just have made a boo boo getting involved with Mr.Whyte and his get rich(now poor)quick scheme.

[ancienthibby]

borrowed.

Manchester United have settled a multimillion-pound tax bill on behalf of their star players including Wayne Rooney, The Times has learnt.
The resolution by the Premier League champions of a dispute with Revenue & Customs (HMRC) over image rights payments signals a lessening of hostilities between football and the taxman that has spanned nearly a decade.
HMRC has focused on clubs in England’s top league over what it considers tax avoidance of millions of pounds. It reached fever pitch in recent weeks with the collapse of Rangers under liabilities of up to £75 million and the tax evasion trial of Harry Redknapp, the Tottenham Hotspur manager, who was acquitted on all charges.
The crackdown is on schemes that allow a player to receive a proportion of his salary as image rights in a separate company, in some cases offshore, which incurs significantly lower rates of tax. The payments are made in exchange for the club being allowed to use the player’s image for promotional work.
While the system is legal, HMRC believes that many players have exploited it to avoid paying the top rate of income tax, which was raised to 50 per cent two years ago. A 2010 court case between Rooney and his former agent revealed that the 26-year-old striker received £1.5 million a year in image rights under his old contract with United. This represented nearly a quarter of his £6.2 million salary at the time.
While HMRC has accepted that a player of Rooney’s stature could command substantial image rights fees, the debate has been about what constitutes a reasonable proportion of total salary.
This remains a grey area, although there will be closer monitoring of the number of promotional appearances a player makes for his club to ensure that the amount ascribed is at least representative. Rugby union is thought to have agreed a cap, which would be harder to implement in football.
There have also been questions about the legitimacy of such a tax structure for lesser known players at smaller clubs. The Portsmouth administration case in 2010 revealed that the defender Sol Campbell’s deal on image rights was worth £1.56 million a year. United is not expected to reveal the terms of its settlement in its next set of accounts but it is understood to be less than the £6.4 million declared last year by Chelsea.
In a bond issue prospectus two years ago, United said its potential tax exposure was £5.3 million but this related to national insurance contributions. The club, like most in the professional leagues, is covered by an indemnity clause in players’ contracts against claims by the tax authorities over image rights. This would require the player to reimburse the club. However, it is unclear whether clubs would pursue the debt or write it off.
Manchester United’s deal with HMRC, which was negotiated separately from a Premier League agreement covering 16 clubs and based on turnover, means that most of the top 20 English teams have settled tax liabilities from 2004 to 2010. HMRC said it would continue to negotiate with clubs yet to settle, which include Manchester City.
Some feel that sport is an easy target. “It should be remembered that in the 2011-12 season the Premier League is likely to contribute in excess of £1 billion to the Exchequer,” Pete Hackleton, a senior tax manager in the Sports & Entertainment Group at Saffery Champness, said.
Face value boosts pay
Eric Cantona was among the first of the foreign imports to recognise the value of his image off the field. The money for image rights is paid into a company set up by the player, which is liable for corporation tax of up to 26 per cent instead of income tax at the top rate of 50 per cent.
Some structures allow for a director’s loan from the company to the player, which is liable for only 2 per cent tax as a benefit in kind. The top rate kicks in only when the loan is written off.
When it comes to cashing in the proceeds of an image rights company, capital gains tax can be avoided by a player living abroad for three years and paying the money to himself as a dividend.
In 2000 HMRC lost a case against Dennis Bergkamp and David Platt, who argued that image rights were bona fide commercial payments. Under greater scrutiny, however, clubs will have to account for individual appearances of players on behalf of their sponsors.

So, can you summarise for the uninatiated, exactly what is the connection to RFC, a club in administration??

[CropleyWasGod]

So, can you summarise for the uninatiated, exactly what is the connection to RFC, a club in administration??

Other than providing yet another example of HMRC's belligerent attitude to tax avoidance in football in recent years, there's not a lot of similarity.

MUFC's case is very like Chelsea's, which was settled a few weeks back. It's about passing off some of the payments to players as payments for image rights. RFC's is, as we all know, about payments to Employee Benefit Trusts on behalf of players.

[ancienthibby]

Other than providing yet another example of HMRC's belligerent attitude to tax avoidance in football in recent years, there's not a lot of similarity.

MUFC's case is very like Chelsea's, which was settled a few weeks back. It's about passing off some of the payments to players as payments for image rights. RFC's is, as we all know, about payments to Employee Benefit Trusts on behalf of players.

I was thinking more of the inexorable slide into the bottomless pit of slime and mire that RFC has 'welcomed as their own'

Every day seem to bring another, and then another, and then another demonstration of the utter incompetence/legal avoidance of those at Castle Greyskull.

So what we now seem to have is that Craikie (Notso)Whyte instructs his lawyers to make a payment that neither he or they have the right to do so, and yet nothing seemingly is being done about it?

Or, will I be proved wrong in the morning, with a Fraud Squad announcement??

I do not think so!:aok:

[CropleyWasGod]

I was thinking more of the inexorable slide into the bottomless pit of slime and mire that RFC has 'welcomed as their own'

Every day seem to bring another, and then another, and then another demonstration of the utter incompetence/legal avoidance of those at Castle Greyskull.

So what we now seem to have is that Craikie (Notso)Whyte instructs his lawyers to make a payment that neither he or they have the right to do so, and yet nothing seemingly is being done about it?

Or, will I be proved wrong in the morning, with a Fraud Squad announcement??

I do not think so!:aok:

I think it's probably wrong to make an assumption that nothing is being done about it. Gary Withey, the partner at the centre of things, has left Collyer Bristow. Being solicitors, they will not be showing their dirty washing in public. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if they have already approached the Law Society themselves.

[ancienthibby]

I think it's probably wrong to make an assumption that nothing is being done about it. Gary Withey, the partner at the centre of things, has left Collyer Bristow. Being solicitors, they will not be showing their dirty washing in public. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if they have already approached the Law Society themselves.

Does it not strike you though, Mr Cropps, that this whole relationship between a legal firm and its client (which is at the heart of all of this) is deserving of the utmost public scrutiny at the soonest??

[greenginger]

Thinking again about this Jerome Pension Fund scam and the court bun fight for the £3.6 million that was with Whyte's lawyers.

I think it is certain that Jerome is due their £2.95 million back from Rangers, but the money that is left in the account is not theirs ,as it had already been released to Rangers and probably blown on January's wages.

If it turns out that Ticketus or HMRC are awarded the funds where does that leave Duff and Phelps ?Will they will be ordered to repay this money or will the pension fund just become another creditor ?

If the Administrators are instructed to repay the money immediately how can they comply with the Court ? :aok:

[CropleyWasGod]

Does it not strike you though, Mr Cropps, that this whole relationship between a legal firm and its client (which is at the heart of all of this) is deserving of the utmost public scrutiny at the soonest??

Nope. Not in the slightest. The relationship between a solicitor and its client is based on confidentiality, and can only be open to public scrutiny with the expressed consent of the client, or where both parties are compelled to do so by force of law.

We may want to know. That doesn't mean we should do.

[ancienthibby]

nope. Not in the slightest. The relationship between a solicitor and its client is based on confidentiality, and can only be open to public scritiny with the expressed consent of the client, or where both parties are compelled to do so by force of law.



bring it on!!!!!

[CropleyWasGod]

Thinking again about this Jerome Pension Fund scam and the court bun fight for the £3.6 million that was with Whyte's lawyers.

I think it is certain that Jerome is due their £2.95 million back from Rangers, but the money that is left in the account is not theirs ,as it had already been released to Rangers and probably blown on January's wages.

If it turns out that Ticketus or HMRC are awarded the funds where does that leave Duff and Phelps ?Will they will be ordered to repay this money or will the pension fund just become another creditor ?

If the Administrators are instructed to repay the money immediately how can they comply with the Court ? :aok:

The Client Account is not divided up into "RFC's money/Craig's money/JPF''s money". It is a pot of money held on behalf of CW/RFCG.

With that in mind, if the Court decides that JPF are due their £2.95m first, they will get it from that account.

If the Court decides that, say, HMRC, are due all of the £3.6m in the account... then, as you say, JPF become yet another creditor.

I'm not sure the Court can instruct RFC to repay JPF's money. Again, one for the lawyers on here, but that would probably be a separate case. In fact, thinking aloud, the fact that RFC are in administration probably precludes that kind of judgement.

[CentreLine]

Now joined by another ex-Jambo.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/douglas-park-joins-rangers-rescue-bid.17000787

And a little bit more info about how Ticketus are to be involved.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/03/12/rangers-in-crisis-ex-director-paul-murray-reveals-the-big-hitters-involved-in-his-blue-knights-takeover-plan-86908-23785167/

As I thought, it's about providing cash until they (Ticketus) can get a way out. According to that report, that will happen when there is a share issue. Given the failure of the last share issue, that may not be as straightforward as they think.

Are Rangers still able to del in shares after they were suspended for failure to publish accounts?

[CropleyWasGod]

Are Rangers still able to del in shares after they were suspended for failure to publish accounts?

AFAIK, it was a shares exchange that they were suspended from. A mechanism for others to trade in RFC's shares.

I am not sure if this stops them from raising money through a share issue. Of course, if there are no audited accounts, a share issue would be difficult to sell.

You'd think all that kind of stuff would be sorted before the issue went ahead, though. :greengrin

[jgl07]

I think it's probably wrong to make an assumption that nothing is being done about it. Gary Withey, the partner at the centre of things, has left Collyer Bristow. Being solicitors, they will not be showing their dirty washing in public. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if they have already approached the Law Society themselves.

I read somewhere that Collyer Bristow were in danger of being liquidated themselves over a £50m liability dispute. Good for insolvency specialists!

[greenginger]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17310468


Just how thick are these BBC dickheads.

Analysing the events of Rangers liquidation they quote SPL reg.11 to work out what would happen to Ranger's SPL share and conclude any transfer would have to be approved by the SPL Board.

In matters of liquidation, SPL reg 14 is the relevant clause. Any transfer of share has to be approved by " the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution ".

A " Special " Qualified Resolution seems to be the appropriate type of resolution required and that must have 83% approval.


I don't know if the BBC sports dep. are being devious in trying to smooth the path for New-Co Huns or merely illiterate.

[johnrebus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17310468


Just how thick are these BBC dickheads.

Analysing the events of Rangers liquidation they quote SPL reg.11 to work out what would happen to Ranger's SPL share and conclude any transfer would have to be approved by the SPL Board.

In matters of liquidation, SPL reg 14 is the relevant clause. Any transfer of share has to be approved by " the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution ".

A " Special " Qualified Resolution seems to be the appropriate type of resolution required and that must have 83% approval.


I don't know if the BBC sports dep. are being devious in trying to smooth the path for New-Co Huns or merely illiterate.



No, its ok, honestly.

Jim Traynor said last night on Sportsound that Rangers will be back in the SPL next season because its all about finance and sporting integrity doesn't matter.



:rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17310468


Just how thick are these BBC dickheads.

Analysing the events of Rangers liquidation they quote SPL reg.11 to work out what would happen to Ranger's SPL share and conclude any transfer would have to be approved by the SPL Board.

In matters of liquidation, SPL reg 14 is the relevant clause. Any transfer of share has to be approved by " the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution ".

A " Special " Qualified Resolution seems to be the appropriate type of resolution required and that must have 83% approval.


I don't know if the BBC sports dep. are being devious in trying to smooth the path for New-Co Huns or merely illiterate.


One of the fascinating aspects of this whole affair for me is the fact that, for the most part, complicated issues are being reported on by sports and news journalists who don't have specialist knowledge in tax and insolvency matters. Whilst I don't doubt their intent on getting at the truth, sometimes their lack of specialism results in confusing reports and messages. (eg STV and their "VAT being deducted from wages" nonsense).

Working out exactly what the reporters have been told (not what they think they have been told) is a joy..... :rolleyes:

[WindyMiller]

One of the fascinating aspects of this whole affair for me is the fact that, for the most part, complicated issues are being reported on by sports and news journalists who don't have specialist knowledge in tax and insolvency matters. Whilst I don't doubt their intent on getting at the truth, sometimes their lack of specialism results in confusing reports and messages. (eg STV and their "VAT being deducted from wages" nonsense).

Working out exactly what the reporters have been told (not what they think they have been told) is a joy..... :rolleyes:



:agree:

For once the Scotsman have at least asked someone with a bit knowledge on financial matters; http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/rangers-administration-craig-whyte-still-has-big-say-in-future-of-club-warns-finance-expert-1-2168928

[CropleyWasGod]

:agree:

For once the Scotsman have at least asked someone with a bit knowledge on financial matters; http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/rangers-administration-craig-whyte-still-has-big-say-in-future-of-club-warns-finance-expert-1-2168928

It's this side-article that I find very interesting. It helps to explain the Ticketus angle.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/rangers-administration-paul-murray-has-good-reason-to-join-forces-with-ticketus-1-2168802

[WindyMiller]

It's this side-article that I find very interesting. It helps to explain the Ticketus angle.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/rangers-administration-paul-murray-has-good-reason-to-join-forces-with-ticketus-1-2168802


In your opinion.:greengrin


Surely this bid by Murray is just pie in the sky?

[PaulSmith]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/dangers-rangers-tax-shambles/850

[CropleyWasGod]

In your opinion.:greengrin


Surely this bid by Murray is just pie in the sky?

***ake is it tutorial time again? :greengrin

On the Murray bid, and the seriousness of it, Paul Clark did take a sideswipe at him over the weekend. He was suggesting that it was all "media talk".

Oh really??

[CropleyWasGod]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/dangers-rangers-tax-shambles/850

It's nice to get some exposure for the views of "other" fans. :agree:

[grunt]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/dangers-rangers-tax-shambles/850I was just going to post this. I think it will be helpful to get London journalists involved, as I hope they will be able to see more clearly what is going on. That is certainly an interesting blog post.
He's just tweeted,
Interesting SFA have just accused me of 'lying', 'pig-headedness' and then put the phone down mid-conversation....

[green glory]

I was just going to post this. I think it will be helpful to get London journalists involved, as I hope they will be able to see more clearly what is going on. That is certainly an interesting blog post.
He's just tweeted,

I'm 'follow following' this chap now. Asking the right questions of the right people. Don't see Jim Trayner or Tom English having the courage to tackle this. I find it strange though the SPL should wait till after the big tax case verdict before publishing it's findings.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm 'follow following' this chap now. Asking the right questions of the right people. Don't see Jim Trayner or Tom English having the courage to tackle this. I find it strange though the SPL should wait till after the big tax case verdict before publishing it's findings.

Keep us informed, please? :agree:

[Ozyhibby]

I was just going to post this. I think it will be helpful to get London journalists involved, as I hope they will be able to see more clearly what is going on. That is certainly an interesting blog post.
He's just tweeted,

Be interesting to see what happens when a real journalist has a crack at the story.

[cabbageandribs1875]

I'm 'follow following' this chap now. Asking the right questions of the right people. Don't see Jim Trayner or Tom English having the courage to tackle this. I find it strange though the SPL should wait till after the big tax case verdict before publishing it's findings.



because they are downright cowards, petrified of reprisals from personal attacks by rabid blue-nosed bigots, they will most likely browse rangers fans forums and will have noted the hatred that's typed about absolutely anyone that dares to say anything against their vile club :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

because they are downright cowards, petrified of reprisals from personal attacks by rabid blue-nosed bigots, they will most likely browse rangers fans forums and will have noted the hatred that's typed about absolutely anyone that dares to say anything against their vile club :agree:

To be fair, it was the Record that first broke the story about the Ticketus scam, as long ago as last summer.

[jgl07]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17310468

Just how thick are these BBC dickheads.

Analysing the events of Rangers liquidation they quote SPL reg.11 to work out what would happen to Ranger's SPL share and conclude any transfer would have to be approved by the SPL Board.

In matters of liquidation, SPL reg 14 is the relevant clause. Any transfer of share has to be approved by "the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution".

A "Special" Qualified Resolution seems to be the appropriate type of resolution required and that must have 83% approval.

I don't know if the BBC sports dep. are being devious in trying to smooth the path for New-Co Huns or merely illiterate.

I suspect that it is lazy journalism by the BBC. They will print all the PR guff that is put out by the SPL leadership and other parties keen on keeping Rangers at all costs.

This is the same numpties that throughout last year were assuring everyone that the agreement to reduce the SPL to 10 teams was on the verge of being approved. It has not been approved and is highly unlikely to be approved.

The BBC article also stated that in the event of Rangers going 'pop' it would not save the bottom club from relegation and hinting that it would mean an extra club being promoted. This is not what happened when Falkirk failed the ground criteria and Motherwell survived relegation in 2002-3.

These is an agenda here as it is signifying that there is no point in Dunfermline or Hibs opposing the reinstatement of Rangers as a means of avoiding the drop themselves.

All very insidious and somewhat insulting to the intelligence to be told barefaced lies.

[PatHead]

Rangers bidder Paul Murray may fail Scottish FA 'fitness test'
Paul Murray has made public some of the details of his consortium's proposed takeover of Rangers, but he may be unable to join the club's new board.
Businessman Douglas Park and London-based pair Scott Murdoch, a property expert, and fund manager John Bennett are some of Murray's Blue Knights.
But Murray's former directorship at Ibrox prior to administration may fall foul of "fit and proper person" rules.
The Scottish Football Association board could block the Scot's involvement.
Although Murray was ousted from the board by Craig Whyte shortly after he bought the club from Sir David Murray, the club's insolvency nine months later raises doubts over him playing an official role in any Scottish club.
The SFA's rule 10.2(j) in their Articles of Association appear to exclude anyone who has been a "director of a club in membership of any national association within the five-year period preceding such club having undergone an insolvency event".
However, it is understood the SFA's legal team are unsure whether the specific rule would be enforceable given Murray had already left. Any individual also has the right of appeal...................

From BBC today.

I have said umpteen times he shouldn't be allowed near a football club.

[CropleyWasGod]

Rangers bidder Paul Murray may fail Scottish FA 'fitness test'
Paul Murray has made public some of the details of his consortium's proposed takeover of Rangers, but he may be unable to join the club's new board.
Businessman Douglas Park and London-based pair Scott Murdoch, a property expert, and fund manager John Bennett are some of Murray's Blue Knights.
But Murray's former directorship at Ibrox prior to administration may fall foul of "fit and proper person" rules.
The Scottish Football Association board could block the Scot's involvement.
Although Murray was ousted from the board by Craig Whyte shortly after he bought the club from Sir David Murray, the club's insolvency nine months later raises doubts over him playing an official role in any Scottish club.
The SFA's rule 10.2(j) in their Articles of Association appear to exclude anyone who has been a "director of a club in membership of any national association within the five-year period preceding such club having undergone an insolvency event".
However, it is understood the SFA's legal team are unsure whether the specific rule would be enforceable given Murray had already left. Any individual also has the right of appeal...................

From BBC today.

I have said umpteen times he shouldn't be allowed near a football club.

Apart from him (a) being a Hun and (b) being an accountant..... why? (I'm not disagreeing, just interested)

[cabbageandribs1875]

To be fair, it was the Record that first broke the story about the Ticketus scam, as long ago as last summer.

and probably after a tip-off from his old friend SDM, to throw anyone of the scent of any wrongdoings in the murray regime, if they want to finally start doing some serious investigative journalism they could maybe start of with a guy that appears to be immune from any searching questions/criticism, a man who presided not just at one club...but TWO clubs... campbell ogilvie, Mr teflon himself

[Hibs Class]

:agree:

For once the Scotsman have at least asked someone with a bit knowledge on financial matters; http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/rangers-administration-craig-whyte-still-has-big-say-in-future-of-club-warns-finance-expert-1-2168928

I've a feeling that Neil Patey may be the EY bloke that has been interviewed on Reporting Scotland about this a few times.

[green glory]

https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/179522022240550912

Would this be the response of people with nothing to hide. Hopefully a full on C4 investigation on the way.

I've asked who he spoke to, hopefully I'll get a reply.

[CropleyWasGod]

I've a feeling that Neil Patey may be the EY bloke that has been interviewed on Reporting Scotland about this a few times.

Steve Morrow has been all over the BBC about this too. Is that who you're thinking of?

[CropleyWasGod]

https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/179522022240550912

Would this be the response of people with nothing to hide. Hopefully a full on C4 investigation on the way.

I've asked who he spoke to, hopefully I'll get a reply.

YOU'RE STEWART REGAN!!!!

:greengrin

[PatHead]

Apart from him (a) being a Hun and (b) being an accountant..... why? (I'm not disagreeing, just interested)


Has been a director of Rangers at the time they were making these alleged payments and director of a club that was in the mess it was prior to Murray selling it. His track record speaks for itself.

[TheEastTerrace]

I'm 'follow following' this chap now. Asking the right questions of the right people. Don't see Jim Trayner or Tom English having the courage to tackle this. I find it strange though the SPL should wait till after the big tax case verdict before publishing it's findings.

This is the beginning of the storm for the SFA and SPL - Campbell Ogilvie will have some serious questions to answer very soon, as well as former SFA employees.

Hearts may also want to look at Mr Ogivie's time at the club

[CropleyWasGod]

Has been a director of Rangers at the time they were making these alleged payments and director of a club that was in the mess it was prior to Murray selling it. His track record speaks for itself.

The first point is, as you say, "alleged". If it is proven, then I would agree, everyone involved during that period should have a life-ban from involvement in football.

The second I'm not so sure about. He has a decent pedigree outside football, I understand.

But, hey, if someone wants to sell the club to a character with a mixed history, and he has the money... who am I to stop him? Ain't that right, Sir David? :greengrin

[Hibs Class]

Steve Morrow has been all over the BBC about this too. Is that who you're thinking of?

Checked the photo of Neil on LinkedIn - pretty sure it is him. (Although, TBH I only really tune in for Cat Cubie so don't pay too much attention during the hun news features)

[CropleyWasGod]

Checked the photo of Neil on LinkedIn - pretty sure it is him. (Although, TBH I only really tune in for Cat Cubie so don't pay too much attention during the hun news features)

Ah okay.....

And we're back on the totty. It's a slow day Huns-wise.

[PatHead]

The first point is, as you say, "alleged". If it is proven, then I would agree, everyone involved during that period should have a life-ban from involvement in football.

The second I'm not so sure about. He has a decent pedigree outside football, I understand.

But, hey, if someone wants to sell the club to a character with a mixed history, and he has the money... who am I to stop him? Ain't that right, Sir David? :greengrin

So did Whyte, made lots of money from various businesses and became a billionaire according to a paper I read :devil:

[ancienthibby]

Checked the photo of Neil on LinkedIn - pretty sure it is him. (Although, TBH I only really tune in for Cat Cubie so don't pay too much attention during the hun news features)

Should not be any confusion about the two.

Neil Patey from Ernst & Young tends to be used by the Beeb on Reporting Scotland.

Stephen Morrow is from Stirling University, appears a lot on Newsnicht Scotland and, IMHO, is too often found wanting when being questioned.:greengrin

Patey, I feel, is good value.:agree:

[Benny Brazil]

Should not be any confusion about the two.

Neil Patey from Ernst & Young tends to be used by the Beeb on Reporting Scotland.

Stephen Morrow is from Stirling University, appears a lot on Newsnicht Scotland and, IMHO, is too often found wanting when being questioned.:greengrin

Patey, I feel, is good value.:agree:

Was he not also the guy who was on the Beebs Scottish football debate last week?

[WindyMiller]

I've a feeling that Neil Patey may be the EY bloke that has been interviewed on Reporting Scotland about this a few times.


:agree:

The Scotsman may actually be quoting him from these interviews, and there's me giving them credit for a piece of investigative journalism.


:doh:

[green glory]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/dangers-rangers-tax-shambles/850

Sorry if already posted, but part 2 coming very shortly. Will post as soon as I see it.

[Liberal Hibby]

Keep us informed, please? :agree:

Were you not (several dozen pages ago) looking for a journo to ask various questions you had devised based on your understanding of the case so far?

[IWasThere2016]

Has been a director of Rangers at the time they were making these alleged payments and director of a club that was in the mess it was prior to Murray selling it. His track record speaks for itself.

And accountants shouldn't run businesses.

[CropleyWasGod]

Were you not (several dozen pages ago) looking for a journo to ask various questions you had devised based on your understanding of the case so far?

Oh bloody hell... maybe :greengrin

I might trawl through it later...but, if you have the time and inclination :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

And accountants shouldn't run businesses.

Koff... ballshecht... koff

[IWasThere2016]

Koff... ballshecht... koff

:cb

[jgl07]

The first point is, as you say, "alleged". If it is proven, then I would agree, everyone involved during that period should have a life-ban from involvement in football.

The second I'm not so sure about. He has a decent pedigree outside football, I understand.

But, hey, if someone wants to sell the club to a character with a mixed history, and he has the money... who am I to stop him? Ain't that right, Sir David? :greengrin

I think the financial state of Rangers prior to the Craig Whyte takeover is a matter of fact not of allegation. Rangers were in a financial shambles regardless of how the Big Tax Case and the Wee Tax Case are resolved.

As for selling to 'someone with a colourful past' I think that you should be looking at Lloyds Bank Group, as by all accounts they more or less forced the sale on David Murray and the rest of the Rangers board.

[CropleyWasGod]

I think the financial state of Rangers prior to the Craig Whyte takeover is a matter of fact not of allegation. Rangers were in a financial shambles regardless of how the Big Tax Case and the Wee Tax Case are resolved.

As for selling to 'someone with a colourful past' I think that you should be looking at Lloyds Bank Group, as by all accounts they more or less forced the sale on David Murray and the rest of the Rangers board.

It's not the financial state that I am saying is "alleged". It's the tax evasion and double-contracts that are.

[Seveno]

because they are downright cowards, petrified of reprisals from personal attacks by rabid blue-nosed bigots, they will most likely browse rangers fans forums and will have noted the hatred that's typed about absolutely anyone that dares to say anything against their vile club :agree:

Quite simply, they are scared of antagonising Rangers fans and thus losing readership. That is the extent of their financial knowledge but important for them.

[jgl07]

It's not the financial state that I am saying is "alleged". It's the tax evasion and double-contracts that are.

The reports about Murray (and King) being banned from involvement appear to be down to the overall state of Rangers' finances 'on their watch' regardless of the unresolved tax cases.

Using the same logic how much longer can Campbell Ogilvie stay in his current post?

[green glory]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/

Part 2 as promised.

[Spike Mandela]

The administrators apply to be administrators...............

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/

[johnrebus]

Bit overpriced, no?


http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Castle-Greyskull-Masters-Universe-1980s-/260977834377?pt=UK_Toys_Creative_Educational_RL&hash=item3cc37db989



:cb

[jgl07]

The administrators apply to be administrators...............

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/

I smell a prolonged legal dispute here as Duff and Phelps, Craig Whyte, HMRC, Ticketus, sundry pension companies, etc fight over the few tangible assets that Rangers have.

This could mean that any prospect of avoiding liquidation will be knocked on the head by the ongoing legal battle.

[johnrebus]

[I[/I]I smell a prolonged legal dispute here as Duff and Phelps, Craig Whyte, HMRC, Ticketus, sundry pension companies, etc fight over the few tangible assets that Rangers have.

This could mean that any prospect of avoiding liquidation will be knocked on the head by the ongoing legal battle.


Surely the first thing to do is to establish whether Craig Whyte owns the Huns - or not.

Easy for D&P to say he is irrelevant, but I have a feeling it won't be quite as simple as that........,



Bring it on.


:party:

[green glory]

Surely the first thing to do is to establish whether Craig Whyte owns the Huns - or not.

Easy for D&P to say he is irrelevant, but I have a feeling it won't be quite as simple as that........,

Bring it on.

:party:

As per the Scotsman article today that's also the expert view. Cue a battle for the assets while the club bleeds dry of cash. Possible prevention of any newco restarting at Ibrox.

[calmac12000]

As per the Scotsman article today that's also the expert view. Cue a battle for the assets while the club bleeds dry of cash. Possible prevention of any newco restarting at Ibrox.

As I don't think you had to be a genius to forsee this whole saga is getting extremely messy.

[CropleyWasGod]

As per the Scotsman article today that's also the expert view. Cue a battle for the assets while the club bleeds dry of cash. Possible prevention of any newco restarting at Ibrox.

It's similar to an acrimonious divorce. The solicitors rake it in, leaving the various parties penniless and homeless.

I could almost feel sorry for 'em.


:whistle:

[ancienthibby]

It's similar to an acrimonious divorce. The solicitors rake it in, leaving the various parties penniless.

I could almost feel sorry for 'em.


:whistle:

Wash your mouth out, young man!:greengrin

[blindsummit]

I smell a prolonged legal dispute here as Duff and Phelps, Craig Whyte, HMRC, Ticketus, sundry pension companies, etc fight over the few tangible assets that Rangers have.

This could mean that any prospect of avoiding liquidation will be knocked on the head by the ongoing legal battle.

IMHO, this is the best possible outcome for us rankgers haters. I would actually though, also prefer they somehow avoided the get out of liquidation, and instead suffered a long, drawn out, expensive legal battle between mutliple parties, crippling whatever vestigal club remains in place. Years of pain, suffering and failure for the ever dwindling band of loyal followers. Bring it on!

[ancienthibby]

IMHO, this is the best possible outcome for us rankgers haters. I would actually though, also prefer they somehow avoided the get out of liquidation, and instead suffered a long, drawn out, expensive legal battle between mutliple parties, crippling whatever vestigal club remains in place. Years of pain, suffering and failure for the ever dwindling band of loyal followers. Bring it on!

This whole thread is worth it for that word alone!:agree:

Though I suspect you might mean vestigial??:dunno:

[WindyMiller]

One of the fascinating aspects of this whole affair for me is the fact that, for the most part, complicated issues are being reported on by sports and news journalists who don't have specialist knowledge in tax and insolvency matters. Whilst I don't doubt their intent on getting at the truth, sometimes their lack of specialism results in confusing reports and messages. (eg STV and their "VAT being deducted from wages" nonsense).

Working out exactly what the reporters have been told (not what they think they have been told) is a joy..... :rolleyes:

"BBC Scotland's senior football reporter Chris McLaughlin" just stated that Murray would hope to have his bid in by Friday and take over by the middle of next week!

PI$H!

[blindsummit]

This whole thread is worth it for that word alone!:agree:

Though I suspect you might mean vestigial??:dunno:

Correct sir! that is indeed what I meant. I was typing on a tablet, in my defence, and I can't type for ordure :greengrin

[HibeesLA]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/

Part 2 as promised.

A great example there from the Rangers fans of how NOT to fly the Union Flag :flag::saltireflag

[ancienthibby]

Correct sir! that is indeed what I meant. I was typing on a tablet, in my defence, and I can't type for ordure :greengrin

Really?? No scheidt!!:greengrin

[blindsummit]

Really?? No scheidt!!:greengrin

Man you're reaching for it now :greengrin

[green glory]

Oh this just gets better!

https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/179637540918263808

[CropleyWasGod]

Oh this just gets better!

https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/179637540918263808

Brilliant.... this is like a David Lynch film.

Christian freaking Aid???

Love the comment... is that him that played for Hearts?

[ancienthibby]

Man you're reaching for it now :greengrin

No! It's yours!

I wouldnae go there, if I was you!:faf:

[blindsummit]

Brilliant.... this is like a David Lynch film.

Christian freaking Aid???

Love the comment... is that him that played for Hearts?

My sides are aching. this couldn't get any better :greengrin. I wonder if the pope will intervene now too :greengrin

[green glory]

Brilliant.... this is like a David Lynch film.

Christian freaking Aid???

Love the comment... is that him that played for Hearts?

Lol no. Channel 4's chief news correspondent and award winning war correspondent.

[CropleyWasGod]

Oh this just gets better!

https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/179637540918263808

He doesn't say what CA have said.

This report on football financing is from 2011:-

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/blowing-the-whistle-caweek-report.pdf

[CropleyWasGod]

"BBC Scotland's senior football reporter Chris McLaughlin" just stated that Murray would hope to have his bid in by Friday and take over by the middle of next week!

PI$H!

Yeah right.

"I want that house. I'll move in next week."

:rolleyes:

Actually, if he CAN move that quickly, without due diligence, hell freaking mend him.

[green glory]

He doesn't say what CA have said.

This report on football financing is from 2011:-

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/blowing-the-whistle-caweek-report.pdf



He's going to be covering this in the 3rd part of his blog tomorrow. This week's gonnae be braw. :tee hee:

[greenginger]

Yeah right.

"I want that house. I'll move in next week."

:rolleyes:

Actually, if he CAN move that quickly, without due diligence, hell freaking mend him.


Duff and Phelps would not be likely to hand over the Ibrox keys until they have raised enough money to pay themselves.

They would'nt want to become creditors of the club and have to vote a CVA for themselves. :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

My sides are aching. this couldn't get any better :greengrin. I wonder if the pope will intervene now too :greengrin

If the Pope blesses them, then they'll really know they're screwed.

[The_Todd]

Finally the whole farcical situation is being investigated by real journalists so maybe the SFA and SPL won't be able to let Rangers wriggle off the hook so easily now. If any of you have ever read RangersMedia you'd be forgiven for thinking our tired old hacks up here had been somehow harsh on Rangers.

Just wait til they feel the force of an unbiased media.

[jgl07]

Yeah right.

"I want that house. I'll move in next week."


The only problem is that the previous owner still thinks it is his house and will take legal action. The tax authorities thinks that they should have the house in lieu of unpaid taxes by the previous owner and the one before him.

The house costs around £6 million a year to run and another guy thinks that they have paid the rent in advance to use the hous for the next four years.

Yeah that'll be right!

[CropleyWasGod]

The only problem is that the previous owner still thinks it is his house and will take legal action. The tax authorities thinks that they should have the house in lieu of unpaid taxes by the previous owner and the one before him.

The house costs around £6 million a year to run and another guy thinks that they have paid the rent in advance to use the hous for the next four years.

Yeah that'll be right!

:top marks

Not to mention that Christian Aid think it's being run as an opium den.

[Seveno]

The only problem is that the previous owner still thinks it is his house and will take legal action. The tax authorities thinks that they should have the house in lieu of unpaid taxes by the previous owner and the one before him.

The house costs around £6 million a year to run and another guy thinks that they have paid the rent in advance to use the hous for the next four years.

Yeah that'll be right!

It's a 'big hoose' though so plenty room for all of them.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Finally the whole farcical situation is being investigated by real journalists so maybe the SFA and SPL won't be able to let Rangers wriggle off the hook so easily now. If any of you have ever read RangersMedia you'd be forgiven for thinking our tired old hacks up here had been somehow harsh on Rangers.

Just wait til they feel the force of an unbiased media.

Hallelujah! [in a non-religious way]

[green glory]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/game-on/#more-2281

More on the Alex Thomson call to the SFA.

[Sylar]

The Sun are running a story this morning that there's interest from New York Investment bank group Fortress in the takeover of Rangers, with $27 billion of assets.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4193153/American-big-guns-make-move-for-Gers.html

[lapsedhibee]

The Sun are running a story this morning that there's interest from New York Investment bank group Fortress in the takeover of Rangers, with $27 billion of assets.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4193153/American-big-guns-make-move-for-Gers.html


ExclusiveBy KENNY McALPINE
Last Updated: 14th March 2012
A BILLION pound American investment bank is behind a sensational Rangers takeover bid.

SunSport can reveal that New-York based Fortress, which currently boasts assets of £27BILLION, has expressed definite interest with administrators Duff and Phelps and it is understood the Yanks' move is being taken seriously — while a Far East consortium from Singapore continue to weigh up their options.

An insider close to the deal told SunSport: "This American company has piles of cash behind them and they are turn-around specialists."

Fortress Investment Group was set up as a private equity firm in 1998 by mega-rich American duo Wesley Edens, 51 and Robert Kauffman, 48.

Four years ago dad-of-four Edens was ranked 962 on the Forbes World rich list with a personal fortune of around £770million.

Just one year earlier the magazine ranked Kauffman at 557 with a bulging bank balance of £1.1billion.

Fortress began as an equity company before expanding into hedge funds, real estate and debt securities.

It is unclear as yet if the corporate giants have been approached by Gers supporting businessmen trying to rescue the stricken club, who were plunged into administration last month over an unpaid tax bill.

Rival bidders are preparing to show their hands as the Friday deadline looms for new owners to prove they are serious about buying the stricken SPL champs.

Paul Murray and his Blue Knights, who include London-based John Bennett and Scott Murdoch and motor tycoon Douglas Park, still believe they are in pole position to snap up Rangers.

Ex-director Murray, 46, who has the backing of fans groups and ex-Gers gaffer Walter Smith, inists he is confident of formalising his bid in the next 48 hours.

Now he could face Stateside opposition.

[Keith_M]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/

Part 2 as promised.


A great example there from the Rangers fans of how NOT to fly the Union Flag :flag::saltireflag


That's brilliant, it's upside down

:faf:

[Part/Time Supporter]

ExclusiveBy KENNY McALPINE
Last Updated: 14th March 2012
A BILLION pound American investment bank is behind a sensational Rangers takeover bid.

SunSport can reveal that New-York based Fortress, which currently boasts assets of £27BILLION, has expressed definite interest with administrators Duff and Phelps and it is understood the Yanks' move is being taken seriously — while a Far East consortium from Singapore continue to weigh up their options.

An insider close to the deal told SunSport: "This American company has piles of cash behind them and they are turn-around specialists."

Fortress Investment Group was set up as a private equity firm in 1998 by mega-rich American duo Wesley Edens, 51 and Robert Kauffman, 48.

Four years ago dad-of-four Edens was ranked 962 on the Forbes World rich list with a personal fortune of around £770million.

Just one year earlier the magazine ranked Kauffman at 557 with a bulging bank balance of £1.1billion.

Fortress began as an equity company before expanding into hedge funds, real estate and debt securities.

It is unclear as yet if the corporate giants have been approached by Gers supporting businessmen trying to rescue the stricken club, who were plunged into administration last month over an unpaid tax bill.

Rival bidders are preparing to show their hands as the Friday deadline looms for new owners to prove they are serious about buying the stricken SPL champs.

Paul Murray and his Blue Knights, who include London-based John Bennett and Scott Murdoch and motor tycoon Douglas Park, still believe they are in pole position to snap up Rangers.

Ex-director Murray, 46, who has the backing of fans groups and ex-Gers gaffer Walter Smith, inists he is confident of formalising his bid in the next 48 hours.

Now he could face Stateside opposition.

About the only truth in that report.

[greenginger]

Fortress Finance backing bid for Rangers ?

Competition for Wonga on the Pay-Day Cheques front then.

http://www.ukpaydayreviews.com/one-month-loan

[WindyMiller]

A big boy done it and ran away!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17364257

[greenginger]

Sir David Murray holding court yesterday with the Scottish Football (pet poodle) Hacks and not an awkward question asked. :confused:


EBT's - " Categorically there were no dual contracts "

"There were no contractual entitlement on part of the players "

We are to believe all the foreign stars just came to Rangers taking a drop in salary with a hope that Santa would be good to them ?

" The Remuneration Trust was always mentioned in our accounts "

What does " Remuneration " mean Mr Murray ? my dictionary defines it as PAY !!!

The football press will never ask an obvious Question. :confused:

[JimBHibees]

I heard Chick Young making a very vigorous defence of Campbell Ogilvie on Sportsound last night. Campbell apparently is happy to talk about everything however just not now and only to Chick. Havent been following this as
closely as some others however is not the main issue that Rangers were in effect using two different contracts, one of which was undisclosed to the SFA which apparently is illegal and which was the EBT type contract. If that is the case and it seems to be as indicated by Hugh Adam then surely Ogilivie must bear some responsibility.

The bold Chico seemed to be indicating that Ogilvie's role was much less than had been originally thought, he was apparently side tracked by some of Murray's lackies at the time and that EBT's havent as yet been proven to be illegal in terms of tax law (awaiting BTC judgement). No mention of the dual contract thing which you would assume given Ogilvie's current role he would know what was allowed and not allowed.

IMO Young's defence went a little further than it should as it came over as not just Ogilvie's view but that Young was agreeing with him that this was correct. How Chick would know this I dont know.

Maybe I am missing the point?

[greenginger]

What Murray said was there was no contractual requirement for the players to receive about half their salary and they came and played for Rangers and the EBT money only came to the players out of the goodness of the Trustees hearts.

You would have to be one dumb son of a b*tch to believe that one.

Obviously the Scottish Hacks swallow it, fortunately the HMRC hav'nt. :agree:

[lapsedhibee]

I heard Chick Young making a very vigorous defence of Campbell Ogilvie on Sportsound last night. Campbell apparently is happy to talk about everything however just not now and only to Chick. Havent been following this as
closely as some others however is not the main issue that Rangers were in effect using two different contracts, one of which was undisclosed to the SFA which apparently is illegal and which was the EBT type contract. If that is the case and it seems to be as indicated by Hugh Adam then surely Ogilivie must bear some responsibility.

The bold Chico seemed to be indicating that Ogilvie's role was much less than had been originally thought, he was apparently side tracked by some of Murray's lackies at the time and that EBT's havent as yet been proven to be illegal in terms of tax law (awaiting BTC judgement). No mention of the dual contract thing which you would assume given Ogilvie's current role he would know what was allowed and not allowed.

IMO Young's defence went a little further than it should as it came over as not just Ogilvie's view but that Young was agreeing with him that this was correct. How Chick would know this I dont know.

Maybe I am missing the point?

I can't currently decide which of two disgusting rabbles I more want to see the back of: the Huns themselves, or the slavering media Hun-apologists. Young, Dodds, Smith, etc etc etc etc. If the current 'crisis for Scottish football' results in a mass clear out at BBC Scotland sports, that would be excellent. Keep Gordon and Spence and bin the rest, please.

[TheEastTerrace]

Murray defends Ogilvie

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/ogilvie-wasnt-involved-in-paying-people.17017403

[CropleyWasGod]

What Murray said was there was no contractual requirement for the players to receive about half their salary and they came and played for Rangers and the EBT money only came to the players out of the goodness of the Trustees hearts.

You would have to be one dumb son of a b*tch to believe that one.

Obviously the Scottish Hacks swallow it, fortunately the HMRC hav'nt. :agree:

In essence, that is how Trusts work. It is up to the Trustees to decide how the money is distributed.

However, in this situation, I would like to know who the Trustees are in each case. :cb

[WindyMiller]

A concerted effort to-day from the Weegia.

[lapsedhibee]

Murray defends Ogilvie

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/ogilvie-wasnt-involved-in-paying-people.17017403

Murray said: "We're confident that we have a strong case"

:faf:

Risible.

[Part/Time Supporter]

A concerted effort to-day from the Weegia.

Wagons have been well and truly circled.

Too little, too late IMO.

[MrSmith]

Wagons have been well and truly circled.

Too little, too late IMO.

Hopefully but the realist in me says that this will be swept under th carpet and the status quo will remain intact.

[Caversham Green]

In essence, that is how Trusts work. It is up to the Trustees to decide how the money is distributed.

However, in this situation, I would like to know who the Trustees are in each case. :cb

It's a point that is constantly being overlooked. When you're considering contractual obligations payments out of the trust are just as relevant to the case as payments into it. The question of who made the decisions about those payments, what those decisions were based on and who actually received the payments is surely just as important as whether there were any second contracts on paper.

Laudrup and Albertz should be asked whether they received any money from the trust, and if so, why.

[green glory]

http://i39.tinypic.com/657ezb.jpg

Glasthunbury??

[Sergio sledge]

In essence, that is how Trusts work. It is up to the Trustees to decide how the money is distributed.

However, in this situation, I would like to know who the Trustees are in each case. :cb

There is reference to a letter detailing 2nd payments, is this letter referring to payments out of the EBT or are these separate issues? Have any papers released copies of the letter? When does a letter change from being a letter of intent to a legally binding document?

[Caversham Green]

Murray defends Ogilvie

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/ogilvie-wasnt-involved-in-paying-people.17017403

A lesson in obfuscation if ever there was one.


"Campbell Ogilvie wasn't involved in paying people," said Murray.

But he was a director, and as such should have known about the use of EBTs. Collective responsibility is the whole point of having a board of directors.


When then asked if his position at the SFA was in any way conflicted because of the use of EBTs he added: "No. In no way, whatsoever."

That is not for Sir David Murray to decide.


They were never binding contracts, he said.

That depends on how they were worded - again, not his decision to make.


"It has to be made clear that the use of EBTs was in no way illegal," he said. Both Murray and McGill stressed that, even if the tribunal finds against Rangers, it is wrong to suggest that is proof of "illegal payments" to players.


The use of EBTs was not illegal but, assuming HMRC win the case, the way RFC used them was - that's what the case is all about and an HMRC win will provide proof of illegal payments.

[CropleyWasGod]

There is reference to a letter detailing 2nd payments, is this letter referring to payments out of the EBT or are these separate issues? Have any papers released copies of the letter? When does a letter change from being a letter of intent to a legally binding document?

The payments out of the EBT are, essentially, of no relevance to the SFA. It's the payments IN to the Trust that they should look at.

Once they have left RFC, they become the "property" of the Trust.

However, as Cav says, HMRC are interested in the payments in and out.

[alfie]

Radio 5 Live are holding a debate on their future on Mon at 7pm. I got an email offering tickets to be in the audience last night, strangely enough there are none available today...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/shows/shows/5live_rangers_debate

[WindyMiller]

The more attention this gets throughout the U.K. the less chance of a whitewash.

More and more tax-payers who would normally show no interest in Scottish football will pay attention to another business trying to avoid paying their way.

All good I.M.O.

[green glory]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/level-playing-field/906

Part 3.

[greenginger]

Our captain Ian Murray went over to the Dark Side in 2005 right in the middle of the scam payments period.

I would not imagine his salary was augmented by EBT contributions but you never Know.

However , I am sure he must have heard talk about the dressing room about who was getting what.

Anyone on here know Murray well enough to pop a couple of questions ? :aok:

[jgl07]

Our captain Ian Murray went over to the Dark Side in 2005 right in the middle of the scam payments period.

I would not imagine his salary was augmented by EBT contributions but you never Know.

However , I am sure he must have heard talk about the dressing room about who was getting what.

Anyone on here know Murray well enough to pop a couple of questions ? :aok:

I would imagine that the EBT payments were reserved for the top (mostly overseas) players. In many cases their agents negotiate an 'after tax' wage that forced a number of clubs to go down the EBT route.

[Part/Time Supporter]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/level-playing-field/906

Part 3.

No doubt he will now be in the bad books of Celtc fans for daring to suggest that they are part of the problem.

[green glory]

More from Alex Thomson's Twitter.

https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/179909629759864832

[greenginger]

I would imagine that the EBT payments were reserved for the top (mostly overseas) players. In many cases their agents negotiate an 'after tax' wage that forced a number of clubs to go down the EBT route.



If the " after tax " wage is not on the contract registered with the SFA then additional payments must have been made. :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/level-playing-field/906

Part 3.

This is so refreshing. Love it.

[Seveno]

Even if the EBT scheme was not illegal, it was clearly used to entice players to Ibrox with the certainty of receiving substantial money.

It is downright immoral. They were cheating the taxman, the honest tax payer and the SPL. I wish someone would ask this of Murray - do you think it was a moral thing to do ?

[Seveno]

This is so refreshing. Love it.

I vote that we dump Doncaster and make Thomson the Chief Exec of the SPL.

[JimBHibees]

This is so refreshing. Love it.

That is a fantastic read and spot on in every way.

[FranckSuzy]

Wonder if he'll turn his attention to Hearts and their 'finances'? :pray:

[CropleyWasGod]

Even if the EBT scheme was not illegal, it was clearly used to entice players to Ibrox with the certainty of receiving substantial money.

It is downright immoral. They were cheating the taxman, the honest tax payer and the SPL. I wish someone would ask this of Murray - do you think it was a moral thing to do ?

Playing Devil's Advocate here, a little bit, but also putting some historical perspective on it.

Minimising tax is not a crime, as long as it is within the law. Whether it is immoral depends on your own morality. For example, your work giving you a mobile phone worth £200, rather than a pay rise, is going to cost you less tax and your employer less NI. Minimising tax? Yes. Illegal? No. Immoral? I doubt anyone would consider it so.

At the time, RFC and SDM, like many other football clubs and businesses, started using EBT's because it was reckoned to be the latest way of minimising tax. A client of mine, a wee property development business, with no overseas employees or high earning staff, was approached with a view to using one. Personally, I avoided them, on the basis that "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is....."

Now.... illegal they weren't. Tax saving they were. Immoral? That's where the argument starts. I have no doubt that RFC went into EBT's, on the basis of the advice they were given, and in the belief that they were a legitimate means of saving tax. Is that immoral?

Or... comparing the mobile phone/EBT cases, is the difference down to the size of the issues?

[Seveno]

Wonder if he'll turn his attention to Hearts and their 'finances'? :pray:

What ? Surely you don't think that there could be anything untoward with our friends at the PBS ? :wink:

[Seveno]

Playing Devil's Advocate here, a little bit, but also putting some historical perspective on it.

Minimising tax is not a crime, as long as it is within the law. Whether it is immoral depends on your own morality. For example, your work giving you a mobile phone worth £200, rather than a pay rise, is going to cost you less tax and your employer less NI. Minimising tax? Yes. Illegal? No. Immoral? I doubt anyone would consider it so.

At the time, RFC and SDM, like many other football clubs and businesses, started using EBT's because it was reckoned to be the latest way of minimising tax. A client of mine, a wee property development business, with no overseas employees or high earning staff, was approached with a view to use one. Personally, I avoided them, on the basis that "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is....."

Now.... illegal they weren't. Tax saving they were. Immoral? That's where the argument starts. I have no doubt that RFC went into EBT's, on the basis of the advice they were given, and in the belief that they were a legitimate means of saving tax. Is that immoral?

Or... comparing the mobile phone/EBT cases, is the difference down to the size of the issues?

The difference is that the EBT is pretending to be something that it isn't. It is set up as a discretionary trust when we all know that discretion does not come into it. The players knew in advance what they were going to get and that they would never be asked to pay it back.

[RyeSloan]

A big boy done it and ran away!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17364257


Pathetic, truely pathetic.

So someone was raising £24m using future ticket proceeds from the club that Murray still owned and he knew nothing about it. Aye right.

He almost gets to the point in the end...he left the club high and dry and in need of substantial personal investment from the person who took over. He failed to make sure that person had the funds available.

It's quite clear Murray is at fault for not only in allowing Rangers to get into the state it was but also in selling it to someone that didn't have the required funding to 'save' the club from the disaster course Murray had put it on......

[CropleyWasGod]

The difference is that the EBT is pretending to be something that it isn't. It is set up as a discretionary trust when we all know that discretion does not come into it. The players knew in advance what they were going to get and that they would never be asked to pay it back.

That's easy to say in hindsight, since we are all now in tune with what an EBT is.

At the time, though.... the players wouldn't consider the morality of it, they're only interested in what they get in their pocket.

Did RFC? We will probably never know that. Chances are it was sold to them as "cast-iron", with no caveats about the potential implications. Even if it weren't, and they were fully aware of the implications, chances are they have said "sod it... we will deal with that if HMRC ever knock on the door"... that is a common stance that businesses take.

Of course, given SDM's latest diatribe about CW, if they lose the BTC, he will no doubt claim that he was "duped" by his advisers.

[aljo7-0]

The difference is that the EBT is pretending to be something that it isn't. It is set up as a discretionary trust when we all know that discretion does not come into it. The players knew in advance what they were going to get and that they would never be asked to pay it back.
You've got to assume that the players in question and/or their agents were told about the EBT and the payments they would be receiving from it before they signed. They presumably would have raised a doubt about the discretionary issue and what guarantee they would have that they would be paid as without any sort of guarantee they were only ever going to get the pay under the direct contract with RFC. Were there any sort of back letters or similar regarding these payments that might not amount to a second contract but were promissary in nature and effectively guaranteed payments from a discretionary trust? I dunno but part of me can see John Grieg giving an impassioned speech about the Mighty Rangers and their history etc etc along with a nudge and wink to say it will be paid. Still think a foreign player would want some sort of written guarantee.

I don't know exactly how an agent gets paid for negotiating a deal for his client but if it is on any sort of commission (on salary) type basis you would think they must have been aware of the future discretionary payments that their client would receive. It all smells really.

Making this all up as I go along of course but it gets you thinking.

[Seveno]

That's easy to say in hindsight, since we are all now in tune with what an EBT is.

At the time, though.... the players wouldn't consider the morality of it, they're only interested in what they get in their pocket.

Did RFC? We will probably never know that. Chances are it was sold to them as "cast-iron", with no caveats about the potential implications. Even if it weren't, and they were fully aware of the implications, chances are they have said "sod it... we will deal with that if HMRC ever knock on the door"... that is a common stance that businesses take.

Of course, given SDM's latest diatribe about CW, if they lose the BTC, he will no doubt claim that he was "duped" by his advisers.

Well I don't expect most football players to really understand the issues and their agents are unlikely to discuss the finer points of morality.

It is David Murray that I was holding to account. He will certainly have been fully aware of the issues and clearly chose to ignore them. But then, if you own houses in Edinburgh, Perthshire, Jersey, New Zealand and France, whilst owing the Bank £800m, I'm sure he had other things to occupy his mind.

[Seveno]

The story goes that a 'back letter' was found and that is what HMRC have been using as ammunition. Might just be wishful thinking on someone's part but let's all keep our fingers crossed.

[CropleyWasGod]

Well I don't expect most football players to really understand the issues and their agents are unlikely to discuss the finer points of morality.

It is David Murray that I was holding to account. He will certainly have been fully aware of the issues and clearly chose to ignore them. But then, if you own houses in Edinburgh, Perthshire, Jersey, New Zealand and France, whilst owing the Bank £800m, I'm sure he had other things to occupy his mind.

I'm not disagreeing with you in any of this, by the way.

It's always part of my job, as it is in yours, to point out to clients the risks involved in any course of action. To do that, I have to play Devil's Advocate a lot to tease out the real issues.

However, a lot of what I have said will be the "defence" used by SDM (and, of course, all the other directors. As Cav says, this is about collective responsibility )

[JeMeSouviens]

The story goes that a 'back letter' was found and that is what HMRC have been using as ammunition. Might just be wishful thinking on someone's part but let's all keep our fingers crossed.

The Sun allege that this is one of them:

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3994/contractb.jpg

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3994/contractb.jpg

[CropleyWasGod]

The Sun allege that this is one of them:

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3994/contractb.jpg

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3994/contractb.jpg

It could be anything, cobbled together by anyone, of course.

It could be pretty damning, though. :cb

If it is "real", this is "only" damning in terms of the SFA/SPL issues.

HMRC would be interested in both this and the workings of the Trust itself. As I understand things (and this may be urban myth, or maybe I dreamt it lol), the Tribunal have to look at every individual's situation in turn before they can come to a decision. Given the number of players (and, perhaps, executives) involved, one can understand why it is taking so long.

[TheEastTerrace]

It could be anything, cobbled together by anyone, of course.

It could be pretty damning, though. :cb

If it is "real", this is "only" damning in terms of the SFA/SPL issues.

HMRC would be interested in both this and the workings of the Trust itself. As I understand things (and this may be urban myth, or maybe I dreamt it lol), the Tribunal have to look at every individual's situation in turn before they can come to a decision. Given the number of players (and, perhaps, executives) involved, one can understand why it is taking so long.

CWG - I get the feeling RTC blog is keeping it's powder dry for an opportune moment to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons with some implicating evidence. Bit of chatter on Twitter today gave that impression.

[CropleyWasGod]

CTG - I get the feeling RTC blog is keeping it's powder dry for an opportune moment to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons with some implicating evidence. Bit of chatter on Twitter today gave that impression.

Interesting.

Problem is, as we've seen with that "contract", that it is very easy to throw something out there and make out that it's "evidence".

I'm not doubting the RTC blog, they have been on the case for a long time now, but they can be "duped" (there's that word again, thanks Sir David) as well.

To paraphrase Kevin Keegan, though, "Id love that... I'd really love it."

[TheEastTerrace]

Interesting.

Problem is, as we've seen with that "contract", that it is very easy to throw something out there and make out that it's "evidence".

I'm not doubting the RTC blog, they have been on the case for a long time now, but they can be "duped" (there's that word again, thanks Sir David) as well.

To paraphrase Kevin Keegan, though, "Id love that... I'd really love it."

For sure. I await with interest too.

SFA about to release a statement from Campbell Ogilvie according to Evening Times journo

[jonty]

For sure. I await with interest too.

SFA about to release a statement from Campbell Ogilvie according to Evening Times journo

They've copied Mikey's open letter.


To whom it may concern
Please see below the result of our internal disciplinery process. Mr Ogilvie (Left) was reprimanded by the SFA Board (right)

:yw:


The SFA

[TheEastTerrace]

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1335&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=9490

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1335&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=9490

Much as one would expect, I suppose.

This bit....I was aware of the EBT scheme in operation at Rangers during my time at the club and, indeed, was a member. ..... is the first acknowledgement I have seen of any particular individual's involvement. It also confirms the rumour that it wasn't just about players.

[Ozyhibby]

That statement means that either chic young lied on sportsound last night or was lied to by Ogilvie.
Either way he was incompetent.

[CropleyWasGod]

That statement means that either chic young lied on sportsound last night or was lied to by Ogilvie.
Either way he was incompetent.

..or he is lying now?

[CallumLaidlaw]

I may have missed this on this thread but just read this -

RT - Incredibly, #Rangers may not be in administration after all because of a technicality. Issue to be settled in court on Monday. #RFC

[CropleyWasGod]

I may have missed this on this thread but just read this -

RT - Incredibly, #Rangers may not be in administration after all because of a technicality. Issue to be settled in court on Monday. #RFC

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/

[WindyMiller]

I may have missed this on this thread but just read this -

RT - Incredibly, #Rangers may not be in administration after all because of a technicality. Issue to be settled in court on Monday. #RFC

Just heard that on BBC Scotland.

IIRC there was mention on this thread about D&P applying to be ad-mins 2/3 days ago.

It appears the original application hasn't been registered.

[green glory]

I may have missed this on this thread but just read this -

RT - Incredibly, #Rangers may not be in administration after all because of a technicality. Issue to be settled in court on Monday. #RFC

Yes I heard about this. Are HMRC not now seeking to impose their own admins, as should have been the case anyway?

[ancienthibby]

Yes I heard about this. Are HMRC not now seeking to impose their own admins, as should have been the case anyway?

:pray:

[green glory]

CY a 'journalist'? There should be a public enquiry into that.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Yes I heard about this. Are HMRC not now seeking to impose their own admins, as should have been the case anyway?

They might, but would need to prove that D&P are not acting in the best interests of the creditors.

More likely it will be a formality to confirm the appointment. It appears someone forgot to tell the FSA, which they needed to do because the Huns had their own credit card a few years back.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes I heard about this. Are HMRC not now seeking to impose their own admins, as should have been the case anyway?

It's so that the company (ie CW and the other shareholders) can't have them removed.

The application is being made by the company (Rangers). As the administrators are agents of the company, appointed by the company previously, they have applied on behalf of the Company for this order.

The effect of it being granted would be that they become administrators under an administration order, rather than by a notice of appointment. One effect of this would be that they could no longer be removed by the company. This is perhaps an indication that Duff & Phelps (D&P) saw potential conflict with the Company in the form of Mr Whyte.

[jgl07]

That statement means that either chic young lied on sportsound last night or was lied to by Ogilvie.

Either way he was incompetent.

He was company secretary at Rangers as they trod the path towards insolvency. He then moved on to Hearts and was Managing Director as they went in a similar direction, only faster. It matter little if he was directly involved as both happened on his watch.

After that he is rewarded with a post in the SFA charged with investigating such events.

Hunbelievable!

[CropleyWasGod]

He was company secretary at Rangers as they trod the path towards insolvency. He then moved on to Hearts and was Managing Director as they went in a similar direction, only faster. It matter little if he was directly involved as both happened on his watch.

After that he is rewarded with a post in the SFA charged with investigating such events.

Hunbelievable!

No he's not. He has recused himself from the RFC enquiry.

There isn't one into Hearts yet.

[TornadoHibby]

If the " after tax " wage is not on the contract registered with the SFA then additional payments must have been made. :agree:

Not sure how that would be done as a number of "non RFC contract" factors relating to any players financial position could influence the amount of income tax paid under PAYE and they could, as a minimum vary from year to year! :wink: :confused:

Just a passing thought! :wink: :greengrin

[jgl07]

They might, but would need to prove that D&P are not acting in the best interests of the creditors.

More likely it will be a formality to confirm the appointment. It appears someone forgot to tell the FSA, which they needed to do because the Huns had their own credit card a few years back.


I understood that Duff and Phelps were seeking to become administrators without the say so of Craig Whyte. This is to cover themselves in the event of (inevitable) conflict with Whyte.

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/

[CropleyWasGod]

I understood that Duff and Phelps were seeking to become administrators without the say so of Craig Whyte. This is to cover themselves in the event of (inevitable) conflict with Whyte.

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/

Exactly that. RFC could still, in theory, ask the Court to remove them. This motion, as I understand it, takes RFC out of the chain.

[Seveno]

Much as one would expect, I suppose.

This bit....I was aware of the EBT scheme in operation at Rangers during my time at the club and, indeed, was a member. ..... is the first acknowledgement I have seen of any particular individual's involvement. It also confirms the rumour that it wasn't just about players.

So he knew that it was all a scam and the 'discretionary' aspect was just a heap of s**t.

He rivals Murray in my morality index.

[CropleyWasGod]

So he knew that it was all a scam and the 'discretionary' aspect was just a heap of s**t.

He rivals Murray in my morality index.

Mmmm..., again, he will blame the advisors. :rolleyes:

[Seveno]

He was company secretary at Rangers as they trod the path towards insolvency. He then moved on to Hearts and was Managing Director as they went in a similar direction, only faster. It matter little if he was directly involved as both happened on his watch.

After that he is rewarded with a post in the SFA charged with investigating such events.

Hunbelievable!

How long till the SFA are insolvent and will we learn that they have been running their own EBT ?

[CropleyWasGod]

How long till the SFA are insolvent and will we learn that they have been running their own EBT ?

As an aside, is his Presidency a full-time paid post?

[Seveno]

As an aside, is his Presidency a full-time paid post?

No, he just gets to 'borrow' £250,000 a year from the EBT. Tax free, of course.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

@alextomo will get to the bottom of this ;) Actually I'm glad of his impartiality neverthless clearly has his finger right on the pulse after admitting he knew little of Scottish football but he's on the money with this query...

"@fitbafan who is Chick Young?
TweetDeck • 13/03/2012 19:41"

[CropleyWasGod]

No, he just gets to 'borrow' £250,000 a year from the EBT. Tax free, of course.

:top marks