Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[SouthamptonHibs]

Just going by the types off songs they sing when i've been at the game "Hello Hello" etc, back that up with there chairmens thoughts on newco rangers. But fair do's i may off mis judged them, i'll listen to those that no them better. Hail Hail

[Iain G]

Bit of a contradiction in terms, surely? I've got plenty of respect for Killie/Motherwell/St Mirren/Ayr fans etc who stick by their local team instead of following Rantic. That said, this is isn't a question about the fans of those clubs and all to do with the stance of each club - if they support a NewCo staying in the SPL then I think it's only fair that they face some sort of backlash from fans of other clubs (and maybe even their own?)

The issue isnt the fans here, all power and respect to those supporting their local teams in the direct face of the In Firm. The issue here is Johnson and the club owners thinking they are reliant on the Old Firm coin, the sooner we can break the link between Old Firm dependence and independence of the rest of the Scottish game the better for all of us and the more competitive the league will get and the better and more interesting the Scottish game will get as all clubs have to get back to blooding their own local players again.

OFGTF :agree:

[vanNISHtelroy]

Not a bad idea. Always enjoyed the trip to Ayrshire but there fans are diet huns.

Cheers for that!

[lyonhibs]

Cheers for that!

He's way off the mark with the comments re: your fans, but as for your Chairman greasing up....................... :bitchy:

[SouthamptonHibs]

Cheers for that!
Already put a comment on with drawing my statement just angry with everything just now hail hail

[vanNISHtelroy]

I was reasonably sure that we would support the NewCo if it came to it due to needing the money that comes from either of the ugly sisters but do find it difficult to read all the comments that MJ is giving everyone.

It was pretty obvious that with a debt of ~£9m (~£6m of that due to hotel I think) the bank would have an influence on our position on this issue.

Not in an annoying way after last week btw....but 15 years ago today Monty went up to lift the Scottish Cup!

[Iain G]

I was reasonably sure that we would support the NewCo if it came to it due to needing the money that comes from either of the ugly sisters but do find it difficult to read all the comments that MJ is giving everyone.

It was pretty obvious that with a debt of ~£9m (~£6m of that due to hotel I think) the bank would have an influence on our position on this issue.

Not in an annoying way after last week btw....but 15 years ago today Monty went up to lift the Scottish Cup!

But where do the Killie fans sit on the issues, are you happy enough for the NewCo to exist in the SPL when and if it arrives, or are you happy to finally see Rangers get what they deserve and die a horrible, nasty, ugly yet thoroughly deserving death? :wink:

[vanNISHtelroy]

I think that the majority would be quite happy to see them get exactly what they deserved.

[VickMackie]

I think it's a great idea to boycott those that support the OF/Rangers during this.

Unfortunately/fortunately there are people who will always go to support the team irrespective of the other club because they want to support our team.

Also, people will lose track of who they should boycott and others won't like being suggested too that they should boycott . There will be no coordination or official list drawn up unless supporters clubs arranged something and circulated it.

It would be great to see the Rangers away end empty all next season. It won't happen though. Pity.

[Benny Brazil]

Any thoughts or suggestions on where Mark Daly got his information / documentation?
Would appear to me that a large number of these documents would be something that would be useful in lets say a tribunal case which has been ongoing :greengrin

[Jones28]

A very insightful and interesting report from Mark Daly there :aok:

Conflict of interests must surely mean that the current admininstrators will be replaced.

Graham Speirs also comes across well, he asked questions of Rangers a long time before anyone else and was subsequently banished by David Murry.

This is only going to get more interesting :agree:

[ScottB]

With the lengths Mark Daly went to get his information, I'm just wondering if Mr Charles Green is maybe having second thoughts? Somehow I don't think he is squeaky clean :hmmm:

As I wondered a few pages ago, this is increasingly looking like a scam orchestrated by some or all of Murray, Whyte, Duff & Phelps and Green...

[CropleyWasGod]

Any thoughts or suggestions on where Mark Daly got his information / documentation?
Would appear to me that a large number of these documents would be something that would be useful in lets say a tribunal case which has been ongoing :greengrin

If, as we all suspect, Hector is the mole, then someone will be getting their jotters. At the heart of the Taxpayer's Charter is confidentiality, and this kind of leak runs a coach and horses through that.

Brilliant telly, though....:greengrin

[Hibernia&Alba]

We should all remember as this unfolds that not that long ago Rangers (and Celt c) were desperate to get out of Scottish Football.

For anyone to tell us that we 'need' Rangers or any New Club called something like Rangers is ridiculous. If they could have gone they would, now they want us to save them!!

Correct. Self-serving hypocrisy.

[Jones28]

I wonder how much Killie would stand to lose if all fans were to boycott? Been to RP once and there was about 2000 Hibbes there, last day of the season.

I imagine Hearts are similar to us in terms of away supporters. Aberdeen, UTD and Motherwell will be same boat with the other clubs all similar to eachother.

Obviously the Old Firm provide the most - not hard considering it'll be closer than an actual home game for some Rangers fans.

[Benny Brazil]

If, as we all suspect, Hector is the mole, then someone will be getting their jotters. At the heart of the Taxpayer's Charter is confidentiality, and this kind of leak runs a coach and horses through that.

Brilliant telly, though....:greengrin

So what benefit or issues will this give the HMRC? Will it help speed up the tribunal decision making process or put additional pressure on the person/s making this decision?

[cabbageandribs1875]

paul murray interview

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18185328

Former Rangers director Paul Murray has called for a probe of Duff & Phelps's handling of the football club's period in administration



"the only time craig whyte has panicked was when he thought other administrators(other than duff and duffier) were going to be appointed"

[CropleyWasGod]

So what benefit or issues will this give the HMRC? Will it help speed up the tribunal decision making process or put additional pressure on the person/s making this decision?

It should have no bearing on the BTC decision. That process will continue, in the same way and at the same pace.

However, it may persuade HMRC to petition the Court for a change in administrator. I say "may" because remember that this is just one side of the story. The question of "conflict of interest" is just that, for the moment... a question. If HMRC, or any other creditor, become convinced that there is genuine substance to that allegation, then they should consider such action.

[Carheenlea]

I take it those who say we should be boycotting here and boycotting there don't actually follow Hibs? To boycott Killie v Hibs is to boycott Hibs as well. Absolutely ludicrous.
I'm getting fed up of the whole thing now, and as far as I'm concerned Killie and who have you can think what they like. I'm only interested in Hibs, and the views of other club chairmen is not going to prevent me from supporting my team.

[CropleyWasGod]

paul murray interview

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18185328

Former Rangers director Paul Murray has called for a probe of Duff & Phelps's handling of the football club's period in administration



"the only time craig whyte has panicked was when he thought other administrators(other than duff and duffier) were going to be appointed"






No.... CW panicked at the end of the Malmo game. :agree:

And, may I be the first to offer Mr. Murray a plate of sour grapes?

[Spike Mandela]

I think the moral justification for the SPL allowing newco Rangers back into the SPL is waning fast. This whole saga is being shown to be a mess of mammoth proportions. The previous viewpoint which Doncaster and his SPL chums were banking on was along the lines that Rangers were the victims of one man, Mr Whyte, and therefore the Club were not totally culpable. Tonight's BBC allegations shift most of that blame onto David Murray and question the role of the administrators.

How the SPL ultimately deal with newco Rangers will be very much under the spotlight, more so than ever. If they re-instate newco Rangers they may not be able to fall back on the wegie press to defend their position:wink:

Why the fuss about conflict of interest now? People were saying this on here and elsewhere on the day Duff and Phelps were appointed as they had advised Whyte on the takeover. When HMRC challenged the appt of D and P in court I am sure their lawyer would have mentioned this. It is not a new revelation surely?

Here is a quote from the 14th Feb this year........


The administrators will be Duff & Phelps


HMRC initially objected to Duff & Phelps - said there were concerns of "public perception" if they were appointed.

[cocopops1875]

Agree the idea/reasons behind it are fine Mo but what about lack of support for our players ? People will always go and this kinda thing has to be all or not at all

[CropleyWasGod]

Why the fuss about conflict of interest now? People were saying this on here and elsewhere on the day Duff and Phelps were appointed as they had advised Whyte on the takeover. When HMRC challenged the appt of D and P in court I am sure their lawyer would have mentioned this. It is not a new revelation surely?

It's the involvement of David Grier, and the evidence suggesting that, that is new. That wouldn't have been known at the time of D & P's appointment.

It's perfectly possible for a firm to manage an apparent conflict of interest, to the extent that it is no longer a conflict. However, it is a difficult thing to do, and not always desirable; "how it is" and "how it looks" are often very different.

If any such concerns were raised at the time, I am sure that D&P would have defended their appointment by confirming that any apparent conflict of interest would be appropriately managed. The evidence, though, suggests that they haven't.

[Kaiser1962]

Why the fuss about conflict of interest now? People were saying this on here and elsewhere on the day Duff and Phelps were appointed as they had advised Whyte on the takeover. When HMRC challenged the appt of D and P in court I am sure their lawyer would have mentioned this. It is not a new revelation surely?

I dont think any of this is new (to us) Spike but the difference is that there now appears to be evidence to support the claims now. Whether it was there before and ignore, I dont know, but it cant be disregarded now that it is in the public domain.

Rangerstaxcase blog made some good and interesting comments about the difficulty they have had bringing this into the open when the authorities and the media have all been trying to suppress it.

[Speedy]

Does anyone have any aspirin? :dizzy:

[blackpoolhibs]

I take it those who say we should be boycotting here and boycotting there don't actually follow Hibs? To boycott Killie v Hibs is to boycott Hibs as well. Absolutely ludicrous.
I'm getting fed up of the whole thing now, and as far as I'm concerned Killie and who have you can think what they like. I'm only interested in Hibs, and the views of other club chairmen is not going to prevent me from supporting my team.

I see where you are coming from, and agree any boycott hurts Hibs too. What do you suggest people do to protest?

Can you tell me what would be the point of going to football should the huns come through this still in the SPL?

How much cheating would it take before you decide enough is enough?

[Benny Brazil]

It should have no bearing on the BTC decision. That process will continue, in the same way and at the same pace.

However, it may persuade HMRC to petition the Court for a change in administrator. I say "may" because remember that this is just one side of the story. The question of "conflict of interest" is just that, for the moment... a question. If HMRC, or any other creditor, become convinced that there is genuine substance to that allegation, then they should consider such action.

Ok and sorry if this has been discussed before - so if HMRC do decide to push for a change of administrators - is liquidation more likely - does HMRC stand to benefit more from liquidation or from a CVA?

[Golden Bear]

It's the involvement of David Grier, and the evidence suggesting that, that is new. That wouldn't have been known at the time of D & P's appointment.

It's perfectly possible for a firm to manage an apparent conflict of interest, to the extent that it is no longer a conflict. However, it is a difficult thing to do, and not always desirable; "how it is" and "how it looks" are often very different.

If any such concerns were raised at the time, I am sure that D&P would have defended their appointment by confirming that any apparent conflict of interest would be appropriately managed. The evidence, though, suggests that they haven't.

I'll not forget the sheepish look on the face of the Administrator during the initial TV interview when the question of a possible conflict of interest was raised by one of the media.

Every picture tells a story.

[hibsmad]

I take it those who say we should be boycotting here and boycotting there don't actually follow Hibs? To boycott Killie v Hibs is to boycott Hibs as well. Absolutely ludicrous.
I'm getting fed up of the whole thing now, and as far as I'm concerned Killie and who have you can think what they like. I'm only interested in Hibs, and the views of other club chairmen is not going to prevent me from supporting my team.

Your right, all I care about is Hibs too. However the reason I have been fed up more than happy in recent years is because other clubs have been spending more than they can afford such as Killie. Now if these clubs all want to stick together and let each other off lightly then as far as I'm concerned anything that the fans can do to stop this is fine with me. Boycotting included.

Ultimately it would all be about Hibs as I am not prepared to be every other clubs whipping boys just because we are the only ones who want to play by the rules.

[CropleyWasGod]

Ok and sorry if this has been discussed before - so if HMRC do decide to push for a change of administrators - is liquidation more likely - does HMRC stand to benefit more from liquidation or from a CVA?

First question... a new administrator would need time to get acquainted with the case, maybe a few weeks. I don't think there is enough cash to sustain a delay like that. So, in short, yes, liquidation is more likely.

Second question ... I think every creditor stands to make more from liquidation, but the administrators still seem to disagree with that.

[Benny Brazil]

First question... a new administrator would need time to get acquainted with the case, maybe a few weeks. I don't think there is enough cash to sustain a delay like that. So, in short, yes, liquidation is more likely.

Second question ... I think every creditor stands to make more from liquidation, but the administrators still seem to disagree with that.

Thanks CWG - certainly going to be an interesting week coming up - these revelations, the SPL vote, the SPL investigation and the Green bid - plenty to keep you busy :greengrin

[Hibs7]

Aberdeen supporters raging at Stuart Milne and threatening a boycott of season tickets if he agrees to let the weedgie newco into the SPL, in the Scotsman.

[silverhibee]

Once the tax man has finished with RFC, do they go after the players for un-paid tax.

[Benny Brazil]

Once the tax man has finished with RFC, do they go after the players for un-paid tax.

Not sure they can Silver - surely its the employers responsibility - not the individual?

[blackpoolhibs]

Agree, if the cheating goes unpunished then the implication is that the rest of us only exist to prop up a successful Rangers, ta ta SPL.

:agree: And you have to ask those that remain, just how much more cheating will it take for them to join those who have left? :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

Once the tax man has finished with RFC, do they go after the players for un-paid tax.

No. As BB says, any mismanagement of an employee tax situation is entirely the fault of the employer, unless it can be proved that there was collusion with the employees. (over to you, Thommo? :greengrin)

[silverhibee]

No. As BB says, any mismanagement of an employee tax situation is entirely the fault of the employer, unless it can be proved that there was collusion with the employees. (over to you, Thommo? :greengrin)

CWG, excuse my stupidness on this as i don't really have a clue about these things, but what is a "double tax" mean.

[CropleyWasGod]

CWG, excuse my stupidness on this as i don't really have a clue about these things, but what is a "double tax" mean.

It's not really "double tax", but "double contracts". The allegation is that RFC employed players on two contracts. One was "normal", and subject to PAYE, and disclosed to the SFA/SPL. The other related to contributions to a Trust, from which the players could draw loans, which were not repayable. In the second case, no tax was paid by anyone, and the contracts were allegedly not registered with the SFA etc.

So, it's a double-whammy in terms of bad behaviour. Underpayment of tax, and non-disclosure of the contracts.

[WindyMiller]

If, as we all suspect, Hector is the mole, then someone will be getting their jotters. At the heart of the Taxpayer's Charter is confidentiality, and this kind of leak runs a coach and horses through that.

Brilliant telly, though....:greengrin

Could the leak not be coming from the people that the SPL employed to do the investigating of EBT's?

[StevieC]

First question... a new administrator would need time to get acquainted with the case, maybe a few weeks. I don't think there is enough cash to sustain a delay like that. So, in short, yes, liquidation is more likely.

That was my first thought. I'm guessing a new administrator at this stage would have no choice but to come straight in and liquidate. It seems nothing would be lost to play out the Green CVA pantomime for the time being. Once that finally plays out, and the CVA is ditched, would be the point to have D&P ousted .. and if it was proven they were negligent I'd make them sing for their Administrator fees (assuming they've not yet submitted a final bill).

[Spike Mandela]

BBC tweeting that SPL have set deadline for administrators providing info on possible double contract situation.

**** me this suggests to me SPL lagging a bit behind with investigation. Surprise, surprise.

[Part/Time Supporter]

BBC tweeting that SPL have set deadline for administrators providing info on possible double contract situation.

**** me this suggests to me SPL lagging a bit behind with investigation. Surprise, surprise.

Looks like last night's show has already had a positive effect (kicking the SPL up the bum).

[Lucius Apuleius]

No. As BB says, any mismanagement of an employee tax situation is entirely the fault of the employer, unless it can be proved that there was collusion with the employees. (over to you, Thommo? :greengrin)

But surely the employee is remiss when he files his tax return if he does not disclose it?

[lapsedhibee]

But surely the employee is remiss when he files his tax return if he does not disclose it?

Don't have to disclose loans - only income.

[silverhibee]

It's not really "double tax", but "double contracts". The allegation is that RFC employed players on two contracts. One was "normal", and subject to PAYE, and disclosed to the SFA/SPL. The other related to contributions to a Trust, from which the players could draw loans, which were not repayable. In the second case, no tax was paid by anyone, and the contracts were allegedly not registered with the SFA etc.

So, it's a double-whammy in terms of bad behaviour. Underpayment of tax, and non-disclosure of the contracts.


As i said i know nothing about all this tax stuff, what i do know is that the tax man has started to turn there attention towards football players from Scotland who were with the hvns about un-paid taxes that have not been declared to HMRC.

That's why i asked about the double tax thing. :aok:

It's all a bit baffling to me all this stuff. :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Has anybody else noticed the big name that isn't on the list of EBT beneficiaries???


Uncle Walter appears to be squeeky clean.

[TrinityHibs]

Has anybody else noticed the big name that isn't on the list of EBT beneficiaries???


Uncle Walter appears to be squeeky clean.

Swally, Hateley and Kenny Miller are missing as well

[stokesmessiah]

http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/2179094491/chrisNEW_normal.jpg (http://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug)
No date given for deadline, but I'm told next couple of weeks could be crucial. If #Rangers don't comply, sanctions could follow. @BBCchrismclaug (http://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug) 19 minutes ago

BBC Scotland has learned the #SPL has set a deadline for #Rangers administrators to provide info they need on possible dual contracts. @BBCchrismclaug (http://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug) 20 minutes ago

[The Falcon]

But surely the employee is remiss when he files his tax return if he does not disclose it?


Don't have to disclose loans - only income.

I tend to lake Lucius's view here. I suspect that if the term "loan" in this particular case is subject to even the basic form of legal scrutiny then it would be found to be inaccurate and out of context. Whoever heard of a "loan" that didnt have to be repaid? It is either reimbursement or a gift but it most certainly is not a loan.

[green glory]

Does anyone have a link to the list of EBT benificiaries?

[cabbageandribs1875]

Does anyone have a link to the list of EBT benificiaries?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18148818


prepare to be shocked when you see what barry ferguson got

[CropleyWasGod]

I tend to lake Lucius's view here. I suspect that if the term "loan" in this particular case is subject to even the basic form of legal scrutiny then it would be found to be inaccurate and out of context. Whoever heard of a "loan" that didnt have to be repaid? It is either reimbursement or a gift but it most certainly is not a loan.

The basic principle in HMRC's view is that it is almost always the fault of the employer if an employee tax scheme is not operated properly. Fair or otherwise, that's the way they have worked for a long time.

It would be a major surprise if they went back on that now. That said, it would be supported by most, on the basis of morality at least.

[JeMeSouviens]

But surely the employee is remiss when he files his tax return if he does not disclose it?

If his employer and/or tax advisor has told him it's not taxable income he wouldn't disclose it.

[The Falcon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18148818


prepare to be shocked when you see what barry ferguson got


Aye. They all love the club. So they do.

[Paisley Hibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18148818


prepare to be shocked when you see what barry ferguson got

I see nid is on the list :cb

[green glory]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18148818

prepare to be shocked when you see what barry ferguson got

Cheers.

[johnbc70]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18148818


prepare to be shocked when you see what barry ferguson got

That 30K to Souness looks very suspicious when you consider it was about the time he paid £2M to take Tugay from the Huns to Blackburn. Wonder if it was in a brown paper bag?

[JeMeSouviens]

Couple of things to clarify:

EBTs were until 2010 a legitimate (if morally dubious) tax avoidance scheme. The key, however, is that the payments were made on a discretionary basis, not contractual and were not made as compensation for duties normally carried out in the course of someone's employment.

So, if I own a successful business and have a load of cash in the bank and decide to benevolently be nice to all my staff by paying £100K into their trusts, that's fine. If I agree with them to give them half their wages that way, that's not fine. In the Huns' case, the £6M to Dodgy Dave and some of the other payments to directors are possibly ok. The payments to players and managers are more than likely not.

The side letters are evidence of guilt but are not a pre-requisite for guilt. If the Huns have 50 players all getting dodgy payments through an EBT but HMRC can only find side letters for 40 of them, the tribunal can still infer that the other 10 were also getting the dosh on a dodgy basis and find the Huns liable for the tax on all 50. Even if there were no side letters but there was other evidence (witnesses, internal emails etc) they could still be found liable.

Similarly, the SPL/SFA rules forbid payments to players for playing made in addition to what's in their registered contract. They don't have to have had a 2nd contract, although obviously that does provide evidence that such payments took place.

[green glory]

http://t.co/1NBtSW3b

[Beefster]

http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/2179094491/chrisNEW_normal.jpg (http://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug)
No date given for deadline, but I'm told next couple of weeks could be crucial. If #Rangers don't comply, sanctions could follow. @BBCchrismclaug (http://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug) 19 minutes ago

BBC Scotland has learned the #SPL has set a deadline for #Rangers administrators to provide info they need on possible dual contracts. @BBCchrismclaug (http://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug) 20 minutes ago

If I was a cynical man, I'd think the SPL has only moved to do this because the BBC has shown them up.

[CropleyWasGod]

If I was a cynical man, I'd think the SPL has only moved to do this because the BBC has shown them up.

Or, the deadline was set some time ago, and CM is reporting their response to such a question.

[lapsedhibee]

Might have missed the answer to this, but I think I read today that the SPL have given D&D a deadline for providing information about player contracts/EBTs. Does this mean that the SPL hadn't even begun investigating the issue until Daly's piece yesterday? Think we had suggestions on here weeks ago that the SPL might be holding back on going public with the results of their EBT investigations until Hector's BTC verdict came out, but can it really be that they had done absolutely nothing all this time? Staggering (or not) if so.

[CropleyWasGod]

Might have missed the answer to this, but I think I read today that the SPL have given D&D a deadline for providing information about player contracts/EBTs. Does this mean that the SPL hadn't even begun investigating the issue until Daly's piece yesterday? Think we had suggestions on here weeks ago that the SPL might be holding back on going public with the results of their EBT investigations until Hector's BTC verdict came out, but can it really be that they had done absolutely nothing all this time? Staggering (or not) if so.

They must have started the investigation if they asked D&P for the information.

As the BBC report says, A request was made by the SPL in March and BBC Scotland has learned they are still awaiting information from the club's administrator Duff & Phelps.

[lapsedhibee]

They must have started the investigation if they asked D&P for the information. :confused:

As the BBC report says, A request was made by the SPL in March and BBC Scotland has learned they are still awaiting information from the club's administrator Duff & Phelps.

Ah right, ta - they asked for information in March. And two months later there's an unspecified deadline for it to be produced. Still shocking imo!

[CropleyWasGod]

Ah right - they asked for information in March. And two months later there's an unspecified deadline for it to be produced. Still shocking imo!

On whose part, though? I would suggest D & P, in that they haven't responded, apparently.

We don't know how many reminders have been sent, or whether the deadline was set a while back.

[calmac12000]

What are the chances of an unequivocal statement from the Scottish footballing authorities confirming that they do not approve of cheating, lying and tax evasion? After all, at the end of the day Doncaster appears to be condoning these behaviours as the lesser of two evils. The other being for Rangers and their many apologists, being that Rangers, in the unlikely event of them surviving next season are dealt with fairly, without fear or favour. The cynic in me tells me that the powers that be will sugar coat and obfuscate any proposal to the extent that any action they take will be completely self serving.
:pfgwa:pfgwa:pfgwa:flag::flag::flag:

[calmac12000]

Ah right, ta - they asked for information in March. And two months later there's an unspecified deadline for it to be produced. Still shocking imo!

Surely any competent regulatory authority would specify exactly when a reply is required?

[JimBHibees]

They must have started the investigation if they asked D&P for the information.

As the BBC report says, A request was made by the SPL in March and BBC Scotland has learned they are still awaiting information from the club's administrator Duff & Phelps.

Just not been very vigorous in following it up.

[PatHead]

Can't believe Regan hasn't taken the time to watch the programme. If I was aware of a high ranking member of my organisation having been on TV the night before I would want to see it.

[Spike Mandela]

Just not been very vigorous in following it up.

Does anybody really believe that the SPL are willing or capable of a thorough investigation into this matter? What are the chances of any damning documentation not being shredded by now. Doncaster has made it clear he wants Rangers in the SPL at all costs so it's unlikely that he would push an investigation to find evidence which would preclude their possible membership.

[carnoustiehibee]

Can't believe Regan hasn't taken the time to watch the programme. If I was aware of a high ranking member of my organisation having been on TV the night before I would want to see it.

hes at a fifa conference abroad apparently

[PatHead]

Can anyone confirm the difference between Murray borrowing £6m from BoS to buy Rangers and Whyte buying Rangers with money from Ticketus? Programme last night made it clear SDM never put a penny of his own money in.

(Infact I think Whyte put a pound of his own in so technically he paid more by himself.)

[PatHead]

hes at a fifa conference abroad apparently


Guys on here have managed to post copies. If he wanted to see it he could have.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Can anyone confirm the difference between Murray borrowing £6m from BoS to buy Rangers and Whyte buying Rangers with money from Ticketus? Programme last night made it clear SDM never put a penny of his own money in.

(Infact I think Whyte put a pound of his own in so technically he paid more by himself.)

Murray would have borrowed that money using his existing resources and relationship with BoS. Whyte borrowed the Ticketus money based on Huns buying tickets for the next few years.

[joe breezy]

Guys on here have managed to post copies. If he wanted to see it he could have.

They're doing all they can to avoid this...

if a DVD of the documentary was delivered direct to their house by a pink elephant ridden by Ali McCoist they'd still somehow deny any knowledge of it.

[Spike Mandela]

http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/2179094491/chrisNEW_normal.jpg (http://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug)
No date given for deadline, but I'm told next couple of weeks could be crucial. If #Rangers don't comply, sanctions could follow. @BBCchrismclaug (http://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug) 19 minutes ago

BBC Scotland has learned the #SPL has set a deadline for #Rangers administrators to provide info they need on possible dual contracts. @BBCchrismclaug (http://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug) 20 minutes ago

Yeah right, how many delayed meetings would they need to have before imposing sanctions.:rolleyes:

[Caversham Green]

Couple of things to clarify:

EBTs were until 2010 a legitimate (if morally dubious) tax avoidance scheme. The key, however, is that the payments were made on a discretionary basis, not contractual and were not made as compensation for duties normally carried out in the course of someone's employment.

So, if I own a successful business and have a load of cash in the bank and decide to benevolently be nice to all my staff by paying £100K into their trusts, that's fine. If I agree with them to give them half their wages that way, that's not fine. In the Huns' case, the £6M to Dodgy Dave and some of the other payments to directors are possibly ok. The payments to players and managers are more than likely not.

The side letters are evidence of guilt but are not a pre-requisite for guilt. If the Huns have 50 players all getting dodgy payments through an EBT but HMRC can only find side letters for 40 of them, the tribunal can still infer that the other 10 were also getting the dosh on a dodgy basis and find the Huns liable for the tax on all 50. Even if there were no side letters but there was other evidence (witnesses, internal emails etc) they could still be found liable.

Similarly, the SPL/SFA rules forbid payments to players for playing made in addition to what's in their registered contract. They don't have to have had a 2nd contract, although obviously that does provide evidence that such payments took place.

A good summary there JMS - a further point is that the payments are at the discretion of the trust which should be independent of the employer. Although there's a scenario where they could theoretically be a legitimate exercise I think in practice they were always just a tax fiddle.

The reason the tax case is taking so long is that they need to consider each indivdual case to establish the quantum of tax underpaid and with the numbers involved that a fairly hefty proposition. In the case of the SPL investigation though, they only need to establish innocence or guilt, and really only in one case so that RFC then have a case to answer. I think they should be asking questions of some of the players and their agents from the BBC's list.

I still can't fathom why they haven't spoken to the president of the SFA, or why he is still in that position.

[Gez1875]

​who owns ticketus? has anyone actually looked into this?

[Wembley67]

Read the 9000 posts in the rangers thread!

[StevieC]

Can anyone confirm the difference between Murray borrowing £6m from BoS to buy Rangers and Whyte buying Rangers with money from Ticketus?

About 15 league titles?? :dunno:

[Gez1875]

Read the 9000 posts in the rangers thread!

no.

just tell me, hahahaha

[Caversham Green]

Can anyone confirm the difference between Murray borrowing £6m from BoS to buy Rangers and Whyte buying Rangers with money from Ticketus? Programme last night made it clear SDM never put a penny of his own money in.

(Infact I think Whyte put a pound of his own in so technically he paid more by himself.)

As P/TS has said, the money Murray used was effectively his in that he would have to repay it to BoS out of his other resources. Whyte effectively sold an asset of the club to buy the club, which is a sort of circular equation and is illegal.

That being the case, Grier and Duff and Phelps should have alerted the authorities whenever they became aware of the arrangement under 'money-laundering' rules. What they should not have done is talk to the directors about it, which is what they claim to have done in the BBC programme.

[JimBHibees]

Does anybody really believe that the SPL are willing or capable of a thorough investigation into this matter? What are the chances of any damning documentation not being shredded by now. Doncaster has made it clear he wants Rangers in the SPL at all costs so it's unlikely that he would push an investigation to find evidence which would preclude their possible membership.

Dont think they are to be honest given Doncasters utterings.

[WindyMiller]

The Herald quoted Donkey on the 6th May

"We are in the middle of some detailed investigations about player payments allegedly made out-of-contract at Rangers and that investigation will continue," he said. "There will either be a prima facie case here against Rangers and it will be a disciplinary procedure, or there will be no prima facie case. I just don't know. The investigation is ongoing."

[JimBHibees]

The Herald quoted Donkey on the 6th May

"We are in the middle of some detailed investigations about player payments allegedly made out-of-contract at Rangers and that investigation will continue," he said. "There will either be a prima facie case here against Rangers and it will be a disciplinary procedure, or there will be no prima facie case. I just don't know. The investigation is ongoing."

The only thing that is accurate in that statement.

[Treadstone]

Can anyone confirm the difference between Murray borrowing £6m from BoS to buy Rangers and Whyte buying Rangers with money from Ticketus? Programme last night made it clear SDM never put a penny of his own money in.


About the same difference as the Glazers buying Man U with Man U money . Just a bit slicker.

[Caversham Green]

There are about sixty different companies called Ticketus X Ltd where X is a different number for each company. I believe they are all subsidiaries of Octopus Investments Ltd. I suspect Octopus is owned by a number of corporate and individual shareholders - I don't know any names though.

[Gez1875]

There are about sixty different companies called Ticketus X Ltd where X is a different number for each company. I believe they are all subsidiaries of Octopus Investments Ltd. I suspect Octopus is owned by a number of corporate and individual shareholders - I don't know any names though.

cheers man.

[lapsedhibee]

Ah right, ta - they asked for information in March. And two months later there's an unspecified deadline for it to be produced. Still shocking imo!


On whose part, though? I would suggest D & P, in that they haven't responded, apparently.

We don't know how many reminders have been sent, or whether the deadline was set a while back.

D&D, certainly, but the SPL - lax or wot? Not really surprising, in the light of all Donkey's pish, but still shocking. In failing to even get their 'investigation' off the ground in >2 months, showing themselves to be slovenly or corrupt bassas! (Think I'll go with corrupt.)

[stokesmessiah]

A good summary there JMS - a further point is that the payments are at the discretion of the trust which should be independent of the employer. Although there's a scenario where they could theoretically be a legitimate exercise I think in practice they were always just a tax fiddle.

The reason the tax case is taking so long is that they need to consider each indivdual case to establish the quantum of tax underpaid and with the numbers involved that a fairly hefty proposition. In the case of the SPL investigation though, they only need to establish innocence or guilt, and really only in one case so that RFC then have a case to answer. I think they should be asking questions of some of the players and their agents from the BBC's list.

I still can't fathom why they haven't spoken to the president of the SFA, or why he is still in that position.

Caversham, can i ask, who administers the trust?

[Caversham Green]

Caversham, can i ask, who administers the trust?

Aye, ask away.


I won't be able to tell you though. :greengrin

[BarneyK]

Caversham, can i ask, who administers the trust?

Can I ask who trusts the Administrators? :greengrin

[Paisley Hibby]

There are about sixty different companies called Ticketus X Ltd where X is a different number for each company. I believe they are all subsidiaries of Octopus Investments Ltd. I suspect Octopus is owned by a number of corporate and individual shareholders - I don't know any names though.

I seem to remember reading that they operate a wee bit like Lloyds 'names'. Different investors put money into different projects, each one separate from the other. So it's not so much Ticketus or Octopus that would lose out but the individuals who happened to invest in the Rangers opportunity.

[Paisley Hibby]

Can I ask who trusts the Administrators? :greengrin

Not many I would imagine. However, if the creditors think that Duff and Duffer are best placed to get them more money back than anybody else they will not really care about a conflict of interest - perceived or otherwise.

[Caversham Green]

I seem to remember reading that they operate a wee bit like Lloyds 'names'. Different investors put money into different projects, each one separate from the other. So it's not so much Ticketus or Octopus that would lose out but the individuals who happened to invest in the Rangers opportunity.

I think that's about right - a lot of the Ticketus companies have been dissolved/liquidated, which suggests they might be investment projects that have failed or have now been completed.

[WhileTheChief..]

Octupus are an investment house that run various forms of investments such as mutual funds, Enterprise Investment Schemes and Venture Capital Trusts amongst other things.

These can be invested in directly or also through your pension. EISs and VCTs offer various tax reliefs and are generally used by wealthier investors who recognise that there is a higher risk involved in these investments in the hope of higher returns (think along the lines of Dragons Den).

Ticketus is one of these. I would imagine that each number after Ticketus will relate to each deal that the company has done. Assuming that the Rangers deal falls through then that will simply be £27M written off the value of Ticketus. Some of their deals will be winners and others losers. The only people that lose out are the original investors and they knew the risks were high in the first place!

[Just Alf]

Can I ask who trusts the Administrators? :greengrin

Craig Whyte!

[Leithenhibby]

I'm gutted that I missed the programme last night but true to form You guys have kept me posted :aok:
As always ... :wink:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/19817653@N04/7255219040/in/photostream/lightbox/

[Saorsa]

Following the statement from the Killie chairman, Michael Johnston, who thinks that Rangers have been punished enough and no more sanctions should be taken against them, I think that supporters of all other clubs who oppose this view should boycott all matches at Rugby Park, and any other clubs that take Johnston's and Rangers side. If Johnston thinks that Rangers are key to his clubs existence, they may lose out on TV money and one or two visits of the current buns per season, but how much more would they lose if they played all season with no visiting supporters.

Tell me if you think this idea is rubbish or if you think that it might be a goer?I think it's a good idea and exactly what otheres need tae threaten and then carry out if necessary.

[JeMeSouviens]

Encouraging statement from Motherwell I think:

http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2012/05/24/club-statement-rangers-fc/

"We do not believe we can separate the sporting integrity of our league from the sustainable future of our club; the two go hand in hand."

[WindyMiller]

Encouraging statement from Motherwell I think:

http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2012/05/24/club-statement-rangers-fc/

"We do not believe we can separate the sporting integrity of our league from the sustainable future of our club; the two go hand in hand."


:aok:

[Spike Mandela]

Encouraging statement from Motherwell I think:

http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2012/05/24/club-statement-rangers-fc/

"We do not believe we can separate the sporting integrity of our league from the sustainable future of our club; the two go hand in hand."

The league is clearly split down the lines of teams that have their financial houses in order against those that are vulnerable to losing the income Rangers might provide.

[Lungo--Drom]

Big Mo I agree with you :agree:
Michael Johnston-Hunpuppet can go ride himself. Rugby Park is a freezing dump anyway and yes I like the pies but I can buy them from a shop. Okay that's Der Hun (RFC Newco) and "We Are The Killie Boys" on the boycott list now :aok:

This is starting to make my away match budget look quite manageable :cb


Following the statement from the Killie chairman, Michael Johnston, who thinks that Rangers have been punished enough and no more sanctions should be taken against them, I think that supporters of all other clubs who oppose this view should boycott all matches at Rugby Park, and any other clubs that take Johnston's and Rangers side. If Johnston thinks that Rangers are key to his clubs existence, they may lose out on TV money and one or two visits of the current buns per season, but how much more would they lose if they played all season with no visiting supporters.

Tell me if you think this idea is rubbish or if you think that it might be a goer?

[gramskiwood]

Hun on Reporting Scotland "I think quite a few of them have had their fingers in the till starting from the top up" :greengrin

[snooky]

Encouraging statement from Motherwell I think:

http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2012/05/24/club-statement-rangers-fc/

"We do not believe we can separate the sporting integrity of our league from the sustainable future of our club; the two go hand in hand."


I also noted the part
"In the event that a “Newco” proposal is presented to us, we intend to fully discuss with representatives of our supporters groups, prior to making any decision.”

Well, .. well said 'Well. :aok:

[Jim44]

Encouraging statement from Motherwell I think:

http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2012/05/24/club-statement-rangers-fc/

"We do not believe we can separate the sporting integrity of our league from the sustainable future of our club; the two go hand in hand."

It does sound hopeful but I wouldn't set too much store by what some of these chairmen are saying. In the last 24 hours the Aberdeen and Motherwell bosses have said they would 'do what is good for their clubs and good for the SPL. Why jump to the conclusion that this means taking an anti-Rangers stance. Are they not choosing their words carefully and making use of ambiguity?

[Lungo--Drom]

I am starting to agree with you Spike. It is sad that some teams are in such a financially precarious position that they have to rely on the raubgold (stolen gold) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gold) brought to the sport by these crooks. I'd rather go hungry than take a penny from them. This could develop into a split in the SPL with sporting integrity on one side and poverty dodging unscrupulous fuds on the other :rolleyes:


The league is clearly split down the lines of teams that have their financial houses in order against those that are vulnerable to losing the income Rangers might provide.

[Lungo--Drom]

And so we the fans are faced with the task of policiing this whole thing for ourselves because the SPL / SFA whoever are clearly all up to their necks in this s**t, making sure that the money machine keeps spinning. It all stinks to high heaven and everyone is probably cacking themselves in the boardrooms of every SPL and indeed SFL club as s**t like this usually heads down the way once it has hit the fan!

We the fans need to stay true to ourselves and, I don't know how but am open to suggestions, make it totally clearto the SPL / SFA and all the clubs that we will not stand by and let these money fiddling numbnuts rip us off. We all (Scottish football fans) support our various clubs for a various mix of sporting/loyalty/inherited reasons, not to be willing funders of a corrupt money machine. These clowns like Doncaster all need to wake up and understand that we are sports supporters not idiots!

:giruy:



Does anybody really believe that the SPL are willing or capable of a thorough investigation into this matter? What are the chances of any damning documentation not being shredded by now. Doncaster has made it clear he wants Rangers in the SPL at all costs so it's unlikely that he would push an investigation to find evidence which would preclude their possible membership.

[VickMackie]

I seem to remember reading that they operate a wee bit like Lloyds 'names'. Different investors put money into different projects, each one separate from the other. So it's not so much Ticketus or Octopus that would lose out but the individuals who happened to invest in the Rangers opportunity.

This is what I find interesting about ticketus deal. They're bleating about losing their money. Surely the investment is a risk and they have no grounds for complaint?

I can understand if they have clauses but I think I read that those who invest do so in a tax efficient vehicle so they don't pay capital gains or their capital has the tax equivalent added to it. Can't remember which. Kind of ironic though!

[VickMackie]

Octupus are an investment house that run various forms of investments such as mutual funds, Enterprise Investment Schemes and Venture Capital Trusts amongst other things.

These can be invested in directly or also through your pension. EISs and VCTs offer various tax reliefs and are generally used by wealthier investors who recognise that there is a higher risk involved in these investments in the hope of higher returns (think along the lines of Dragons Den).

Ticketus is one of these. I would imagine that each number after Ticketus will relate to each deal that the company has done. Assuming that the Rangers deal falls through then that will simply be £27M written off the value of Ticketus. Some of their deals will be winners and others losers. The only people that lose out are the original investors and they knew the risks were high in the first place!

Unbelievable, I reply to a post just on the previous page saying something similar!

[Barney McGrew]

You saying that Satchel might be on the take and so would have been ineligible for the cup final? Now that has the potential to be the best news ever.

Rudi Skacel has a ****in EBT, a ****in EBT, a ****in EBT :singing:

:whistle:

[MSK]

Rudi Skacel has a ****in EBT, a ****in EBT, a ****in EBT :singing:

:whistle::greengrin

[down-the-slope]

Big Mo I agree with you :agree:
Michael Johnston-Hunpuppet can go ride himself. Rugby Park is a freezing dump anyway and yes I like the pies but I can buy them from a shop. Okay that's Der Hun (RFC Newco) and "We Are The Killie Boys" on the boycott list now :aok:

This is starting to make my away match budget look quite manageable :cb

So when we play them away we have a .net gathering in a pub and get a shed load of Browings Pies in from Aldi :greengrin

[snooky]

And so we the fans are faced with the task of policiing this whole thing for ourselves because the SPL / SFA whoever are clearly all up to their necks in this s**t, making sure that the money machine keeps spinning. It all stinks to high heaven and everyone is probably cacking themselves in the boardrooms of every SPL and indeed SFL club as s**t like this usually heads down the way once it has hit the fan!We the fans need to stay true to ourselves and, I don't know how but am open to suggestions, make it totally clearto the SPL / SFA and all the clubs that we will not stand by and let these money fiddling numbnuts rip us off. We all (Scottish football fans) support our various clubs for a various mix of sporting/loyalty/inherited reasons, not to be willing funders of a corrupt money machine. These clowns like Doncaster all need to wake up and understand that we are sports supporters not idiots!

:giruy:


Nice play on words there, LD :greengrin

[Lungo--Drom]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/grier-denies-conflict-of-interest-over-rangers.17683206

Jeesh, I missed all this cause I was at work all morning and only just back in the door not long ago. If you wrote this whole thing (all of it) into a Hollywood movie people would say it was too stupid and unbelieveable a story line :rolleyes:



Grier denies conflict of interest over Rangers

A SENIOR partner with Rangers administrators Duff & Phelps last night denied he faced a serious conflict of interest after it was claimed he had worked on the deal to buy the club with money raised from selling season ticket rights to Ticketus.

[Lungo--Drom]

Oopht, never even noticed! :greengrin

Maybe that could be the rallying cry and the slogan for the t-shirts?

"Ain't no s**t gonna hit these fans!"

:duck::wink:


Nice play on words there, LD :greengrin

[Brando7]

Encouraging statement from Motherwell I think:

http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2012/05/24/club-statement-rangers-fc/

"We do not believe we can separate the sporting integrity of our league from the sustainable future of our club; the two go hand in hand."

Aberdeen fans now putting the pressure on :thumbsup:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/aberdeen/2012/05/24/aberdeen-fans-warn-they-ll-boycott-season-tickets-if-club-backs-rangers-newco-bid-86908-23871507/

[greenginger]

You saying that Satchel might be on the take and so would have been ineligible for the cup final? Now that has the potential to be the best news ever.

There was definitely tax free payments made at the PBS. There accounts to 2011 have a contingent liability noted for an assessment by HMRC which is being in part disputed .

Skacel contract with the Hearts is reported at £ 3000/week which would make him one of the lower paid 1st team squad and his deal was brokered by the player and Vlad in Lithland. Odds on the deal was the £ 3 K a week through the books and the rest straight from UBIG to his bank account.

In his court case papers he admits to being paid 290,000 Euro per year rather than the 190,000 Euro as per his contract.

Problem is who is going to look into it ? The Rangers are the main story and Doncaster has been sitting with his finger up his ass for 2 months waiting on paperwork from der Hun that the BBC seem to have sourced without too much difficulty.

I think Hibs.net need to hire their own Private Detective. :greengrin

[VickMackie]

Aberdeen fans now putting the pressure on :thumbsup:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/aberdeen/2012/05/24/aberdeen-fans-warn-they-ll-boycott-season-tickets-if-club-backs-rangers-newco-bid-86908-23871507/

Excellent.

[Brando7]

Very surprised Mr Green has been so quiet over the last 24hrs

[hiblander]

I don´t have much to say about Glasgow Rangers....but with the way of Scottish Football and the way Clydebank, Gretna, Dundee etc have been dealt with in the past....cheerio you blue nose *******s and g`luck in the 3rd division.

See you later Juve !!!



:agree:

[Sergey]

Is last nights documentary on IPlayer?

I can't find it!

[Hibs Class]

Is last nights documentary on IPlayer?

I can't find it!

Try here. Hopefully it works. If not, just go to last night's viewing and make sure you choose BBC1 Scotland (mine defaults to London)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_one/20120523

[ancienthibby]

Is last nights documentary on IPlayer?

I can't find it!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01j0k6k/BBC_Scotland_Investigates_2012_Rangers_The_Men_Who _Sold_the_Jerseys/

[Sergey]

Top banana, lads

:thumbsup:

[Leithenhibby]

From swallowswallow:

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3wA9hzGQGs&sns=em

Part - 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy0ZEBiShRA&sns=em

Part - 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKQtYiC9rG8&sns=em

Part - 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYOuKPwe-ow&sns=em


Man alive, what a ******g mess .... :greengrin

[Ryan91]

Duff and Duffer are to submit a CVA proposal on Monday according to the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18201352 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18201352)

No doubt it'll be delayed for various reasons.

:coffee:

[gramskiwood]

Jumping before they're pushed

[The Falcon]

Duff and Duffer are to submit a CVA proposal on Monday according to the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18201352 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18201352)

No doubt it'll be delayed for various reasons.

:coffee:

Will the BTC contingency be included in the CVA? If not it would make it more attractive to the ordinary creditor.

[StevieC]

Duff and Duffer are to submit a CVA proposal on Monday according to the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18201352 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18201352)

No doubt it'll be delayed for various reasons.

:coffee:

"the proposal does not constitute a final offer"
(based on a £25m lawsuit against Collyer Bristow)

I thought a CVA was exactly that, a final offer?"
Can creditors accept on the basis that it includes the extra £25m in the pot and reject if it doesn't?
Surely they are not ready to produce a CVA if they still don't know the final "pot?

[The Falcon]

"the proposal does not constitute a final offer"
(based on a £25m lawsuit against Collyer Bristow)

I thought a CVA was exactly that, a final offer?"
Can creditors accept on the basis that it includes the extra £25m in the pot and reject if it doesn't?
Surely they are not ready to produce a CVA if they still don't know the final "pot?


Not a cats chance in hell of getting that. IMO.

[Leithenhibby]

Duff and Duffer are to submit a CVA proposal on Monday according to the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18201352 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18201352)

No doubt it'll be delayed for various reasons.

:coffee:


I would hope that HMRC are waiting in the wings for their call .. :aok:

Who thought that this would rummble on as long as it has? and for that reason I can't see it coming to a close any time soon. :wink:

After Thursdays programme it has just become more treacherous for that mob and I look forward to today's proceedings :greengrin

[greenginger]

"the proposal does not constitute a final offer"
(based on a £25m lawsuit against Collyer Bristow)

I thought a CVA was exactly that, a final offer?"
Can creditors accept on the basis that it includes the extra £25m in the pot and reject if it doesn't?
Surely they are not ready to produce a CVA if they still don't know the final "pot?

I wonder how much of the creditor's pittance Duff and Duffer will retain to fight this Micky Mouse law suit ?

If I understand it, the case is Whyte with the aid of Collyer Bristow mislead the Rangers take over panel as to the source of the funding to pay off Lloyds Bank and this in turn prevented Paul Murray taking over the Club , launching a £ 25 million share issue, and securing the club's future.

Never mind that there was no certainty that Murray ( P ) would get control of Rangers or his share issue would be supported, I think the weakness in their case is the take over panel recommended rejecting Whyte's offer to David Murray regardless of where the funding was coming from.

No doubt a large chunk of the creditor's pot will be kept for their own and legal expenses, and I'm sure a contingency sum for the other side for their expenses which will no doubt be awarded against the ( Mal ) - administrators.

[PatHead]

I think that's about right - a lot of the Ticketus companies have been dissolved/liquidated, which suggests they might be investment projects that have failed or have now been completed.

You are correct in your assumption. Typically these investments will be spread over a few different share classes rather than an EIS/VCT investing solely in Rangers Season Tickets. Most EIS/VCTs run for a period of 3 years after which the maximum tax relief will have been given and they will then roll over into another investment if they so wish.


With regard to the question on why are Ticketus "bleating" about losing money- I don't think they are bleating as such just trying to get the best return for their investors. If this means calling in a secured debt they will do so.

[PatHead]

Is it just me that is surprised that almost 2 weeks after the end of their season Rangers are about the only club who haven't released or even talked about releasing anyone? If I was a creditor I would be :confused:

[lapsedhibee]

Is it just me that is surprised that almost 2 weeks after the end of their season Rangers are about the only club who haven't released or even talked about releasing anyone? If I was a creditor I would be :confused:

Are they perhaps waiting to see who does walking away?

[MyJo]

Is it just me that is surprised that almost 2 weeks after the end of their season Rangers are about the only club who haven't released or even talked about releasing anyone? If I was a creditor I would be :confused:

With the situation they are in they can't afford to release anyone. They will sell to get money into the club and those they don't sell they will need for next season unless they are going to field a team of 17 year olds :greengrin

[down-the-slope]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18183076

this ispretty shocking if you read between the lines - D&P pretty much saying that their job is flogging Rangers and anything else - i.e. providing SPL with paperwork on EBT's - takes second place.

Now why this is fair enough on the one hand - they are effectively running the club and therefore need to have regard to the SPL licence and rules (or SPL should charge) and if they obstruct investigation its in effect potentially preventing the true financial picture / state of the company being seen by potential bidders. In other words if found guilty there may be no licence to flog like an old car to whom ever...never mind though drag it out and coin in the alleged £600 ph fees.................................

[StevieC]

The big question for me is how, after the documentary findings, is Ogilvie still in a job??

:dunno:

[The Falcon]

The big question for me is how, after the documentary findings, is Ogilvie still in a job??

:dunno:

He will (and should) have the right to defend himself.

However, if the BBC report is accurate, then a lot of people are telling porkies. In my experience people with nothing to hide dont tell lies. They dont have to.

[down-the-slope]

The big question for me is how, after the documentary findings, is Ogilvie still in a job??

:dunno:


8299

[CropleyWasGod]

The big question for me is how, after the documentary findings, is Ogilvie still in a job??

:dunno:

At the moment, it is only one side of the story, Stevie. We all want it to be true, of course, but the BBC have got things wrong in the past, so CO (and D&P) do have the right to put their side of things.

[The Falcon]

I wouldnt be surprised if the SFA/SPL offer some sort of EBT amnesty in that if everybody fizzes up to having done so wont be punished as long as they stop it now and dont do it again. That would get the SFA/SPL and the perps off the hook. Not really fair on those who have abided by the rules but fairness flew out the window a long time ago.

[CropleyWasGod]

Will the BTC contingency be included in the CVA? If not it would make it more attractive to the ordinary creditor.

It has to be. That is included in the amount (sorry, the QUANTUM) of HMRC's claim.

[The Falcon]

It has to be. That is included in the amount (sorry, the QUANTUM) of HMRC's claim.

Reassuring CWG.

[Caversham Green]

At the moment, it is only one side of the story, Stevie. We all want it to be true, of course, but the BBC have got things wrong in the past, so CO (and D&P) do have the right to put their side of things.

I'm with StevieC on this one. There's no doubt that Ogilvie benefitted from the EBT - he admitted as much himself. Whether the payments are found to be 'legitimate' or not, that deeply compromises his position with the SFA and there is a clear conflict of interest. The best case scenario for him is that he is indebted to a trust with direct links to a member club, that alone must raise questions about his ability to act impartially. He should at the very least have been suspended for the duration of the inquiries into RFC.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm with StevieC on this one. There's no doubt that Ogilvie benefitted from the EBT - he admitted as much himself. Whether the payments are found to be 'legitimate' or not, that deeply compromises his position with the SFA and there is a clear conflict of interest. The best case scenario for him is that he is indebted to a trust with direct links to a member club, that alone must raise questions about his ability to act impartially. He should at the very least have been suspended for the duration of the inquiries into RFC.

His defence, though, (and I am not siding with him, merely assuming what he would say) is that it is not the SFA who are conducting the investigation.

[Caversham Green]

Thinking about the BBC programme, one issue that emerged that doesn't seem to have been discussed much (unless I've missed it) was Sir David Murray's 'loan' from the EBTs.

Murray has effectively taken £6.3m tax-free out of RFC and disguised it through the EBT vehicle - this from a man who it would seem has put little if any of his own money into the club. I don't see how that can possibly be seen to be a correct use of EBTs. While the players were entitled to assume that their tax liabilities were being dealt with correctly by their employers, the directors are better able to control the use of EBTs and are expected to understand the rules and operate them correctly. I could see HMRC going after SDM and the other directors for tax on their own EBTs if they can't recover it from RFC (IA).

[The Falcon]

I'm with StevieC on this one. There's no doubt that Ogilvie benefitted from the EBT - he admitted as much himself. Whether the payments are found to be 'legitimate' or not, that deeply compromises his position with the SFA and there is a clear conflict of interest. The best case scenario for him is that he is indebted to a trust with direct links to a member club, that alone must raise questions about his ability to act impartially. He should at the very least have been suspended for the duration of the inquiries into RFC.


What if, and I dont think it is, but what if the info the BBC has is wrong? Surely their evidence needs to be tested?

The man that knows for certain if its true or not is Ogilvie and if he is remaining in post on a lie then it reflects very badly on him and, one can hope, this will also have implications for the Yams.

[down-the-slope]

His defence, though, (and I am not siding with him, merely assuming what he would say) is that it is not the SFA who are conducting the investigation.

Correct - but as I pointed out previously SFA are appeals body...and going on recent you can be sure (if found guilty) Rangers will appeal...particularly as the sanction could be removal of licence

[down-the-slope]

Thinking about the BBC programme, one issue that emerged that doesn't seem to have been discussed much (unless I've missed it) was Sir David Murray's 'loan' from the EBTs.

Murray has effectively taken £6.3m tax-free out of RFC and disguised it through the EBT vehicle - this from a man who it would seem has put little if any of his own money into the club. I don't see how that can possibly be seen to be a correct use of EBTs. While the players were entitled to assume that their tax liabilities were being dealt with correctly by their employers, the directors are better able to control the use of EBTs and are expected to understand the rules and operate them correctly. I could see HMRC going after SDM and the other directors for tax on their own EBTs if they can't recover it from RFC (IA).


Cav - I may be wrong, but my understanding was that overarching trust covered MIM & Rangers with both companies paying into it and employees of both having individual trusts within that?

[CropleyWasGod]

Thinking about the BBC programme, one issue that emerged that doesn't seem to have been discussed much (unless I've missed it) was Sir David Murray's 'loan' from the EBTs.

Murray has effectively taken £6.3m tax-free out of RFC and disguised it through the EBT vehicle - this from a man who it would seem has put little if any of his own money into the club. I don't see how that can possibly be seen to be a correct use of EBTs. While the players were entitled to assume that their tax liabilities were being dealt with correctly by their employers, the directors are better able to control the use of EBTs and are expected to understand the rules and operate them correctly. I could see HMRC going after SDM and the other directors for tax on their own EBTs if they can't recover it from RFC (IA).

I've been throwing this one around in my head, Cav.

Although I have said before that the basic principle is that it's almost always the employer's fault.... hence why RFC are being chased and not the players...... it could be argued that the payments came from the Trust(s), which of course is not the employer.

From the players' perspectives, of course they would see it as "employment income", and they are probably justified in doing so. Could the directors (having a clearer picture of what was happening) be accused of wilful avoidance? That would be an interesting argument. Of course, as was suggested in the programme, they will probably blame it on their advisors.:rolleyes:

[Caversham Green]

His defence, though, (and I am not siding with him, merely assuming what he would say) is that it is not the SFA who are conducting the investigation.

But the SFA is closely associated to the SPL and will hear any appeal relating to the investigation. They have also carried out their own investigation into RFC's misdemeanours - CO was rightly kept out of that, but it goes beyond just the investigations. My view is that CO's position is compromised in general by his financial association with RFC, which goes beyond payment for employment whichever way the BTC falls.

[CropleyWasGod]

Correct - but as I pointed out previously SFA are appeals body...and going on recent you can be sure (if found guilty) Rangers will appeal...particularly as the sanction could be removal of licence

If it comes to an appeal, the SFA would at the very least need to be transparent, and either (as Cav says) suspend him, or declare that he has no part in the process.

[Caversham Green]

What if, and I dont think it is, but what if the info the BBC has is wrong? Surely their evidence needs to be tested?

The man that knows for certain if its true or not is Ogilvie and if he is remaining in post on a lie then it reflects very badly on him and, one can hope, this will also have implications for the Yams.

Campbell Ogilvie has himself stated that he received £95,000 from RFC's EBTs. While that may turn out to be completely legitimate, right now there are serious questions being raised and until these are answered his position is IMO compromised.

[calmac12000]

The farce that is Rangers rumbles on regardless of how reality impinges upon it. We have D+P's insisting on presenting a CVA, which in all likelihood even they know is unlikely to be accepted. They, D+P's themselves are in a sticky position themselves and it would be a surprise to no one if a significant creditor e.g. HMRC moved to have them removed as administrators. HMRC, even if they don't move to remove D+P from their role, will at some point apply the coup de grace to the present company by not allowing the appeal from Rangers over the EBT's etc. The football authorities whilst no doubt anxious to ingratiate themselves with UEFA by hammering the Huns for their breach of sporting ethics are no doubt bricking themselves over the prospect of their product losing a substantial amount of its revenue from that well known philanthropic body owned by good ol'e Rupe' Murdoch. The admixture is completed by a supporting cast of characters, a script writer for festive entertainment would baulk as being too far fetched to add as pantomime villains. Confused, you will be after the next episode of Rangers!

[The Falcon]

Thinking about the BBC programme, one issue that emerged that doesn't seem to have been discussed much (unless I've missed it) was Sir David Murray's 'loan' from the EBTs.

Murray has effectively taken £6.3m tax-free out of RFC and disguised it through the EBT vehicle - this from a man who it would seem has put little if any of his own money into the club. I don't see how that can possibly be seen to be a correct use of EBTs. While the players were entitled to assume that their tax liabilities were being dealt with correctly by their employers, the directors are better able to control the use of EBTs and are expected to understand the rules and operate them correctly. I could see HMRC going after SDM and the other directors for tax on their own EBTs if they can't recover it from RFC (IA).

Was the EBT sheme not Murray Groups as opposed to RFC's?

[Just Alf]

I've been throwing this one around in my head, Cav.

Although I have said before that the basic principle is that it's almost always the employer's fault.... hence why RFC are being chased and not the players...... it could be argued that the payments came from the Trust(s), which of course is not the employer.

From the players' perspectives, of course they would see it as "employment income", and they are probably justified in doing so. Could the directors (having a clearer picture of what was happening) be accused of wilful avoidance? That would be an interesting argument. Of course, as was suggested in the programme, they will probably blame it on their advisors.:rolleyes:

That would be the porn guy then!?

:cb

[WindyMiller]

The farce that is Rangers rumbles on regardless of how reality impinges upon it. We have D+P's insisting on presenting a CVA, which in all likelihood even they know is unlikely to be accepted. They, D+P's themselves are in a sticky position themselves and it would be a surprise to no one if a significant creditor e.g. HMRC moved to have them removed as administrators. HMRC, even if they don't move to remove D+P from their role, will at some point apply the coup de grace to the present company by not allowing the appeal from Rangers over the EBT's etc. The football authorities whilst no doubt anxious to ingratiate themselves with UEFA by hammering the Huns for their breach of sporting ethics are no doubt bricking themselves over the prospect of their product losing a substantial amount of its revenue from that well known philanthropic body owned by good ol'e Rupe' Murdoch. The admixture is completed by a supporting cast of characters, a script writer for festive entertainment would baulk as being too far fetched to add as pantomime villains. Confused, you will be after the next episode of Rangers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwDbd4jQpkA

:not worth

[Macaroon]

300th page! :party:

[WindyMiller]

Was the EBT sheme not Murray Groups as opposed to RFC's?

More than 70% of the funds came from Rangers.

Although most of that money seems to have come from (H)BOS!

[JeMeSouviens]

Campbell Ogilvie has himself stated that he received £95,000 from RFC's EBTs. While that may turn out to be completely legitimate, right now there are serious questions being raised and until these are answered his position is IMO compromised.

Exactly. It's difficult to think of anybody more conflicted than a guy who benefited from the scheme under investigation, was responsible for dealing with his club's player registrations at the time and is now the President of the organisation that will hear any appeal!

Fwiw, Alex Thomson agrees ...



alex thomson ‏@alextomo

Ha! Guys I get it! SFA don't get it. Allowing Ogilvie to hand out cups and remain unsuspended is an affront to all known norms of governance

alex thomson alex thomson ‏@alextomo

So Miller's lawyers come up against the "heavily conflicted" Campbell Ogilvie. Still, astonishingly, not on gardening leave. #justdontgetit

[CropleyWasGod]

That would be the porn guy then!?

:cb

I am not getting the s******ing about the porn guy. To me, accountancy and porn are a perfect fit (missus).

Remember that accountants do it with double entry and, as Cav will tell you, auditors do it with internal control.

[The Falcon]

Campbell Ogilvie has himself stated that he received £95,000 from RFC's EBTs. While that may turn out to be completely legitimate, right now there are serious questions being raised and until these are answered his position is IMO compromised.


I must have missed that bit!


Then he goes. If he had any dignity or integrity he would do walking away. If the SFA had a set of gonads they would remove him. His post is tainted and his position untenable.

[ScottB]

I must have missed that bit!


Then he goes. If he had any dignity or integrity he would do walking away. If the SFA had a set of gonads they would remove him. His post is tainted and his position untenable.

Rampant tax fraud, multiple violations of the rules of the game, questionable business practices and who knows what else at the two clubs he was a financial director at.

He should be facing a criminal investigation, never mind gardening leave!

[cad]

I wouldnt be surprised if the SFA/SPL offer some sort of EBT amnesty in that if everybody fizzes up to having done so wont be punished as long as they stop it now and dont do it again. That would get the SFA/SPL and the perps off the hook. Not really fair on those who have abided by the rules but fairness flew out the window a long time ago.




Thats an awful lot of forgiving Falcon ,I know your not saying its right, I just dont think the fans would stand for it no matter what there respective chairmans say .

[CropleyWasGod]

I must have missed that bit!


Then he goes. If he had any dignity or integrity he would do walking away. If the SFA had a set of gonads they would remove him. His post is tainted and his position untenable.

As Cav says, the payments may turn out to be legitimate. So, until the full facts are known, they can't remove him.

[PatHead]

According to SSN Bocanegra will not take another wage cut. Is he the first of many and did anyone ever find out if it was a wage deferral or sacrafice?

[The Falcon]

More than 70% of the funds came from Rangers.

Although most of that money seems to have come from (H)BOS!

Thanks Windy.

Did Murray not say he had never taken a penny out of RFC? That may be open to question but, it would appear, he has been proven as never putting a penny of his own money into Rangers.

[WindyMiller]

I must have missed that bit!


Then he goes. If he had any dignity or integrity he would do walking away. If the SFA had a set of gonads they would remove him. His post is tainted and his position untenable.


Can you see the flaw there?
:cb

[PatHead]

As Cav says, the payments may turn out to be legitimate. So, until the full facts are known, they can't remove him.

Surely should be on gardening leave though and outwith a position of influence?

[The Falcon]

As Cav says, the payments may turn out to be legitimate. So, until the full facts are known, they can't remove him.

Legitimate or not how can the man head an organisation which takes government money, and requests more, when the president of said organisation benefits from a tax avoidance (read evasion) scheme. If he thinks he should retain his job then he must have had a morality bypass.

[CropleyWasGod]

Surely should be on gardening leave though and outwith a position of influence?

You know I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but he has no direct influence on the SPL enquiry (which is being carried out by a firm of solicitors). If he has influence on that, he will have as much influence on it sitting at home with a phone in his hand.

[JimBHibees]

What if, and I dont think it is, but what if the info the BBC has is wrong? Surely their evidence needs to be tested?

The man that knows for certain if its true or not is Ogilvie and if he is remaining in post on a lie then it reflects very badly on him and, one can hope, this will also have implications for the Yams.

Ogilvie's position is a huge conflict of interest. Any self respecting organisation would have stood him down pending the current investigations. The fact it hasnt happened shows up the complete joke that Scottish football is especially with regard to anything Rangers linked.

We have had newspapers (Daily Record principally) basically being Rangers news in all but name in their shameless support of Rangers (honourable men, Whyte baddie, club goodie nonsense), BBC Sportsound doing the same with Young, Traynor and Dodds principally with Dodds in particular been proven to have lied and should be removed pronto. Only in a small country like Scotland would this level of influence across football authorities, media, press be allowed to happen and continue to happen with little or no argument allowed. Spiers and Alex Thompson aside.

This situation has IMO proven what we all kind of suspected anyway that Rangers influence is far and wide in our society. By the way when is the Jackson/Collins court case taking place?

[Caversham Green]

Cav - I may be wrong, but my understanding was that overarching trust covered MIM & Rangers with both companies paying into it and employees of both having individual trusts within that?

According to the BBC report linked - which may of course be wrong - RFC paid £47m into the EBTs and MIM paid £10. If that is right it strikes me as primarily an RFC-related operation, with MIM simply topping it up.


I've been throwing this one around in my head, Cav.

Although I have said before that the basic principle is that it's almost always the employer's fault.... hence why RFC are being chased and not the players...... it could be argued that the payments came from the Trust(s), which of course is not the employer.

From the players' perspectives, of course they would see it as "employment income", and they are probably justified in doing so. Could the directors (having a clearer picture of what was happening) be accused of wilful avoidance? That would be an interesting argument. Of course, as was suggested in the programme, they will probably blame it on their advisors.:rolleyes:

From what I gather the way these trusts should operate is that the employee applies to the Trust for a loan having first discussed it with the employer, giving reasons why he needs the cash and the employer gives recommendations to the Trustees as to whether they should accept the application or not. The Trustees will then consider all the circumstances before coming to their own independent decision. The employer always has a great deal of influence over the decision, but can't order the Trust to make the payment.

Now when you place Sir David Murray in that scenario, he is effectively both the employer and employee. As a director (and owner) of the club he is in a position to close the Trust down if they do not comply so the application becomes more of an order than a request. Besides which, £6.3m including a single payment of £1m seems to me to be way beyond the scope of a legitimate EBT if such a thing ever existed.

There's also the question of disclosure in the accounts (I know, auditing again). The directors need to disclose any benefits arising from their positions whether it be from the company or third parties - and that includes loans. The RFC accounts don't appear to have carried any such disclosures.

If they do blame the advisors they always have recourse to sue them - I don't expect that to happen.

[JimBHibees]

As Cav says, the payments may turn out to be legitimate. So, until the full facts are known, they can't remove him.

He isnt removed, he should be stood down on full pay until the investigations are complete.

[CropleyWasGod]

There's also the question of disclosure in the accounts (I know, auditing again). The directors need to disclose any benefits arising from their positions whether it be from the company or third parties - and that includes loans. The RFC accounts don't appear to have carried any such disclosures.


You saying he repaid the loans then? :greengrin

[calmac12000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwDbd4jQpkA

:not worth

Ah sweet nostalgia! When I was a lad and Sunday evenings were for laughing(and not just at the Yam's).

[WindyMiller]

From about 3:50. You can smell his trousers smouldering.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9cEWV_CPh4&feature=related

[down-the-slope]

If it comes to an appeal, the SFA would at the very least need to be transparent, and either (as Cav says) suspend him, or declare that he has no part in the process.

:agree:

What i really don't get in all this is how any one can believe that these EBT's are anything other than 'remuneration' related to employment? (now I realise that proving such is the issue)

Think about this. You earn £20000 k pa...another employer comes along and says we want you and you will be better off....

You think great! and then get your contract saying salary £18000....:confused: when you query this you are told don't worry at the end of the year you will be better off...ah well thats fine then....NO CHANCE

You will want an explination of how that is possible and something more that a hand shake to confirm..(letter of 'comfort' or some such)


Or maybe i'm deluded - maybe there are employers out there who just randomly give large ex gracia payments to its staff without having any obligation to do so :rolleyes:

[greenginger]

He isnt removed, he should be stood down on full pay until the investigations are complete.



He dos'nt get paid but I think he benefits from the SFA's EBT scheme. :wink:

[Caversham Green]

You know I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but he has no direct influence on the SPL enquiry (which is being carried out by a firm of solicitors). If he has influence on that, he will have as much influence on it sitting at home with a phone in his hand.

I think it's about appearances as well though. In the same way that D&P arguably should not have taken on the apppointment because there was an apparent conflict of interest event if not a real one, so the SFA should not be seen to be headed by someone who appears to seriously implicated with this ongoing scandal. The quote from Alex Thomson says it all.

[JimBHibees]

He dos'nt get paid but I think he benefits from the SFA's EBT scheme. :wink:

Nothing would surprise me to be honest.

[JimBHibees]

I think it's about appearances as well though. In the same way that D&P arguably should not have taken on the apppointment because there was an apparent conflict of interest event if not a real one, so the SFA should not be seen to be headed by someone who appears to seriously implicated with this ongoing scandal. The quote from Alex Thomson says it all.

Absolutely he may be totally innocent however it is the perception of the organisation by others so he should be put on gardening leave until the investigations are complete.

[ancienthibby]

At the moment, it is only one side of the story, Stevie. We all want it to be true, of course, but the BBC have got things wrong in the past, so CO (and D&P) do have the right to put their side of things.

I watched the whole of the documentary and I came to the conclusion that Mark Daly (BBC reporter) clearly had/or has a mole deep inside RFC with access to confidential, sensitive and ultimately crucial evidence.

Two examples.

Just look at how extensive the data on the EBT payments has been. Could that have been assembled by Day hounding 25 (say) agents and they all rolled over and coughed up the info in all its detail?? Don't think so.

Then, look at the evidence about Mr. Grier who has claimed not to know about the Ticketus deal at a certain point. Yet one of the documents shown in the documentary was the first page of a set of Board Minutes of RFC which showed all the attendees at the Meeting included Grier. Could only come from someone with access to Board papers.

I thought the documentary was filled with quite sound and damaging evidence that a lot of people won't be able to wriggle away from.

[green glory]

The Rangerstaxcase blog has had the side letter evidence for some time, and have been ahead of the curve at every turn. They say they will go public with this info upon the announcement of FTTT verdict. It's possible Mark Daly and the RTC are working together. I'm pretty sure I remember RTC and Phil Macgiollabain offering the same info to Alex Thomson a couple of months back.

[Paisley Hibby]

I watched the whole of the documentary and I came to the conclusion that Mark Daly (BBC reporter) clearly had/or has a mole deep inside RFC with access to confidential, sensitive and ultimately crucial evidence.

Two examples.

Just look at how extensive the data on the EBT payments has been. Could that have been assembled by Day hounding 25 (say) agents and they all rolled over and coughed up the info in all its detail?? Don't think so.

Then, look at the evidence about Mr. Grier who has claimed not to know about the Ticketus deal at a certain point. Yet one of the documents shown in the documentary was the first page of a set of Board Minutes of RFC which showed all the attendees at the Meeting included Grier. Could only come from someone with access to Board papers.

I thought the documentary was filled with quite sound and damaging evidence that a lot of people won't be able to wriggle away from.

Oh they're wriggling alright. I thought the programme was a great bit of investigative journalism. Lots of potentially dodgy stuff was unearthed but none of it quite provided the killer blow needed in my view.

[CropleyWasGod]

I watched the whole of the documentary and I came to the conclusion that Mark Daly (BBC reporter) clearly had/or has a mole deep inside RFC with access to confidential, sensitive and ultimately crucial evidence.

Two examples.

Just look at how extensive the data on the EBT payments has been. Could that have been assembled by Day hounding 25 (say) agents and they all rolled over and coughed up the info in all its detail?? Don't think so.

Then, look at the evidence about Mr. Grier who has claimed not to know about the Ticketus deal at a certain point. Yet one of the documents shown in the documentary was the first page of a set of Board Minutes of RFC which showed all the attendees at the Meeting included Grier. Could only come from someone with access to Board papers.

I thought the documentary was filled with quite sound and damaging evidence that a lot of people won't be able to wriggle away from.

From the point of view of protecting HMRC's integrity, I would "prefer" that the mole was, as you say, someone inside RFC.

I did have similar thoughts myself, and one name did come to mind. And then another.... and then another..... Of course, it would be wrong to name them on here. :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

From the point of view of protecting HMRC's integrity, I would "prefer" that the mole was, as you say, someone inside RFC.

What, a covert timmy? :dunno:

[Gettin' Auld]

What, a covert timmy? :dunno:

Or an ex-director.

[JeMeSouviens]

Couple of interesting herald articles today. The first somewhat laughably reckons the Huns will have a go at overturning the transfer ban in the Court of Session (because obviously Lord Carloway, a senator of the inner house of said court would never have noticed if the ban was on dodgy ground legally :rolleyes: ).

The second however ...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/caught-on-camera-contract-issues-at-heart-of-tax-case.17694754

... suggests that, despite hopeful misleading noise from D&P, the SPL/SFA are on the case after all.



David Roberts, of the legal firm, Olswang, that represented Bill Miller during his bid for the Ibrox side and held discussions with the SPL. "What Duff & Phelps said to us was that there may be some reticence pushing the investigation forward because a beneficiary of the EBT payments [Campbell Ogilvie] was now on the SFA board, but we saw no evidence of that. My genuine belief was that this was an issue that gave rise to a potential breach of the rules and the SPL were discharging their governing body duties by looking at it. It may also breach the SFA rules as well. It was something being taken very seriously by the authorities."

[jgl07]

The Herald suggested that Duff and Phelphs are considering taking the transfer ban to the Court of Session:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/exclusive-rangers-consider-challenging-transfer-ban-in-court-of-session-as-duff-phelps-strike-back.17694700

This must be pure desperation. The idea is that if they start a legal action (which almost certainly will be lost) they can get the ban lifted during the lengthy legal proceedings by which time the window will be shut anyway and they will have the players they want.

This raises the near certainty of FIFA/UEFA intervening as they did with Sion. Switzerland were threatened with bans from European competition if Sion were not penalized for taking the authorities through the Swiss civil courts.

That could lead to Celtic, Motherwell, Dundee United, Hearts and St Johnstone being excluded from the CL/EL next season and Scotland missing out on the World Cup Qualifications.

[johnrebus]

Couple of interesting herald articles today. The first somewhat laughably reckons the Huns will have a go at overturning the transfer ban in the Court of Session (because obviously Lord Carloway, a senator of the inner house of said court would never have noticed if the ban was on dodgy ground legally :rolleyes: ).

The second however ...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/caught-on-camera-contract-issues-at-heart-of-tax-case.17694754

... suggests that, despite hopeful misleading noise from D&P, the SPL/SFA are on the case after all.


Lets hope so, because this is when UEFA will step in and throw the book at them.

:cb

[The Falcon]

Lets hope so, because this is when UEFA will step in and throw the book at them.

:cb

Is there not some sort of agreement that the clubs sign up to that, in order to be allowed to compete, they agree to abide by any decisions and obey the rules of the governing body?

[Geo_1875]

The Herald suggested that Duff and Phelphs are considering taking the transfer ban to the Court of Session:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/exclusive-rangers-consider-challenging-transfer-ban-in-court-of-session-as-duff-phelps-strike-back.17694700

This must be pure desperation. The idea is that if they start a legal action (which almost certainly will be lost) they can get the ban lifted during the lengthy legal proceedings by which time the window will be shut anyway and they will have the players they want.

This raises the near certainty of FIFA/UEFA intervening as they did with Sion. Switzerland were threatened with bans from European competition if Sion were not penalized for taking the authorities through the Swiss civil courts.

That could lead to Celtic, Motherwell, Dundee United, Hearts and St Johnstone being excluded from the CL/EL next season and Scotland missing out on the World Cup Qualifications.

And if they lose the appeal do they have to dismiss any players signed during that now closed window? Who would sign for them under those circumstances?

[Benny Brazil]

The Herald suggested that Duff and Phelphs are considering taking the transfer ban to the Court of Session:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/exclusive-rangers-consider-challenging-transfer-ban-in-court-of-session-as-duff-phelps-strike-back.17694700

This must be pure desperation. The idea is that if they start a legal action (which almost certainly will be lost) they can get the ban lifted during the lengthy legal proceedings by which time the window will be shut anyway and they will have the players they want.

This raises the near certainty of FIFA/UEFA intervening as they did with Sion. Switzerland were threatened with bans from European competition if Sion were not penalized for taking the authorities through the Swiss civil courts.

That could lead to Celtic, Motherwell, Dundee United, Hearts and St Johnstone being excluded from the CL/EL next season and Scotland missing out on the World Cup Qualifications.

So they have been punished for cheating - but still want to continue to cheat the system with an appeal that has no chance of success to allow themselves time to buy new players- does it never end with this lot.
Please god put them out of their misery and end their sorry existence. Now.

[JeMeSouviens]

Some pro-Hun noises from HMFC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18205927

Another good reason to hammer the cheats hard: precedent. :wink:

[Jack]

The Herald suggested that Duff and Phelphs are considering taking the transfer ban to the Court of Session:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/exclusive-rangers-consider-challenging-transfer-ban-in-court-of-session-as-duff-phelps-strike-back.17694700

This must be pure desperation. The idea is that if they start a legal action (which almost certainly will be lost) they can get the ban lifted during the lengthy legal proceedings by which time the window will be shut anyway and they will have the players they want.

This raises the near certainty of FIFA/UEFA intervening as they did with Sion. Switzerland were threatened with bans from European competition if Sion were not penalized for taking the authorities through the Swiss civil courts.

That could lead to Celtic, Motherwell, Dundee United, Hearts and St Johnstone being excluded from the CL/EL next season and Scotland missing out on the World Cup Qualifications.

If such a ban was put in place it would even cover schools and youths playing in their wee mini tournaments around Europe.

I suspect the wee Hibs teams would be affected too as they do quite a bit of travelling do they not?

[Newry Hibs]

Some pro-Hun noises from HMFC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18205927

Another good reason to hammer the cheats hard: precedent. :wink:

What an arse. Maybe they could 'learn' not to cheat because the punishment actually received is so severe.

[Hexham Hibee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18205927

Thats because they know they have also lived beyond their means and got two Scottish cups because of it. What a cheap dig at the tache too,they have made it abundantly clear they will be supporting the Huns when the SPL vote on sanctions. They are putting down a marker when their use of EBTs comes out. They are well suited together - a pair of cheating bar stewards.

[Just Alf]

I know this came out a couple of days ago.....

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/what-if-celtic-accept-wrong-doing-re-juninhos-ebt-aberdeen-spl-winners-2005/#more-1191

and was discussed in the "we won the league in 2004/5" or something

BUT

The wee bit about the 'Tic accepting the error of their ways and taking their "punishment like a man" (as opposed to some low lifes' that have been mentioned around here) is quite interesting....

OK celtic loose one title...... on the other hand.... :worms:... it pushes the SFA/SPL/Huns down the only road they can take

All titles gone!

:lolrangers:

[poolman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18205927

Thats because they know they have also lived beyond their means and got two Scottish cups because of it. What a cheap dig at the tache too,they have made it abundantly clear they will be supporting the Huns when the SPL vote on sanctions. They are putting down a marker when their use of EBTs comes out. They are well suited together - a pair of cheating bar stewards.


"Address the roots of the problem" :wtf:


We all know the roots of the problem FFS

They stole, cheated, lied and every other adjective you can think off over the past 10 or 12 years or so.

We are trying to addresss the problem ya numpty by the majority of fans wanting the Huns booted out the SPL

[Kato]

So Rangers problem, getting caught cheating, should brushed aside in favour solving the errrm problem rather than punishing them, ??:rolleyes:

[Hibs7]

Two sides of the same coin, both cheating bar stewards. Hate them both just about ad much as I do Craig (bent barsteward ) Thomson.

[HibbyAndy]

2 Peas in a pod, Both cheating hun barstewards.

[Bishop Hibee]

Some pro-Hun noises from HMFC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18205927

Another good reason to hammer the cheats hard: precedent. :wink:

Something to hide perhaps :wink:

Vlad has more faces then the town clock if he votes for a newco to be let in. Given our recent record at Tiny I'll be only too glad for an excuse to boycott games there!

[Paisley Hibby]

Two sides of the same coin, both cheating bar stewards. Hate them both just about ad much as I do Craig (bent barsteward ) Thomson.

Don't know if anyone else picked up on this. Last Saturday's Times had a piece in the main news section (page 6) by Mike Ward (don't know if he's a football journalist). It was about the fans of both sides preparing for the cup final. This bit, about a Yam, was very telling

"Mr Saltoun wears his passion on the sleeve and under it too. "Hearts Loyal" is tattooed on his arm, complete with a Saltire, a Union Jack and a Red Hand of Ulster."

Hmmm - what's the Red Hand of Ulster's got to do with Hearts? Just shows that at least some of their fans are Diet Huns right enough.

[Jim44]

They've got the nerve to have a thread like ours, ripping Rangers to shreds but in their case it is mere lip-service because they will go along with the pro Rangers line that their corrupt management is now beginning to show support for. Hypocritical s.c.u.m.

[greenginger]

Something to hide perhaps :wink:

Vlad has more faces then the town clock if he votes for a newco to be let in. Given our recent record at Tiny I'll be only too glad for an excuse to boycott games there!

I would guess they know the size of their own tax liability now and will follow Rangers on a New CLUB route as they have all the real assets salted well away. :agree:

[ScottB]

I would guess they know the size of their own tax liability now and will follow Rangers on a New CLUB route as they have all the real assets salted well away. :agree:

Can't see how that would work for them, as the bulk of their debt is owed to Vlad's bank, he'd be screwing himself. Unless he just wanted to liquidate them, sell the assets and bail, in which case why would he give a crap if the new resulting club got to stay in the SPL? Suppose it might get him a better price for the stadium, but that's debatable...

[green glory]

According to someone here HOMFC's latest (2011) accounts included information about an ongoing issue with HMRC. Do we know any specifics?

[ScottB]

According to someone here HOMFC's latest (2011) accounts included information about an ongoing issue with HMRC. Do we know any specifics?

Presumably both their continued inability to pay on time, and some of Mr Ogilvie's magic EBT's.

[jgl07]

Can't see how that would work for them, as the bulk of their debt is owed to Vlad's bank, he'd be screwing himself. Unless he just wanted to liquidate them, sell the assets and bail, in which case why would he give a crap if the new resulting club got to stay in the SPL? Suppose it might get him a better price for the stadium, but that's debatable...

It all depends on the size of the Tax liability.

I thought that Hearts' debts were down to UBIG rather than UKIO?

The ownership of stadium has presumably already been transferred. Any player contracts of any value could also be transferred. He could then liquidate the shell form a Newco and sell it on to someone else (including the SPL franchaise and the 'history') and lease them the stadium. That would stiff HMRC.

[Caversham Green]

According to someone here HOMFC's latest (2011) accounts included information about an ongoing issue with HMRC. Do we know any specifics?

It's been there for the last three years, but this one goes a bit further than previously. This is what the note in the accounts under the heading 'Contingent liabilities' says:


At the date of sign off of the financial statements, the company is the subject of an ongoing investigation by HMRC. At this stage, HMRC have raised assessments of the amounts they believe the company may be liable to pay. However, having taken legal advice, the directors believe that there are a number of legal arguments that could significantly reduce any potential liability under these asessments. The directors therefore believe that it is not possible to quantify the extent of any potential unrecorded tax liabilities.


Pretty much an admission that there is a liability, but they're trying to get it reduced and aren't prepared to disclose how much the assessments are for (I think they should have done this). It's also not dissimilar to the note that appeared in Rangers' 2010 accounts.

[MyJo]

I would guess they know the size of their own tax liability now and will follow Rangers on a New CLUB route as they have all the real assets salted well away. :agree:

Debt for equity swaps ensuring that hearts as a business don't actually own tynecastle and therefore cannot be sold off as part of administration or liquidation?? :hmmm:

[PatHead]

On BBC news 24 that Rangers have gone to court over the transfer embargo. How to win friends and influence people. (And attract Uefa's attention)

[jgl07]

On BBC news 24 that Rangers have gone to court over the transfer embargo. How to win friends and influence people. (And attract Uefa)

This is brilliant.

I hope that UEFA have been informed.

I suspect that Green has told them that the deal is off if the transfer ban remains.

Liquidation here we come!

[lapsedhibee]

On BBC news 24 that Rangers have gone to court over the transfer embargo. How to win friends and influence people. (And attract Uefa)

Huns must know this might attract UEFA. Why would they want them involved? :hmmm:

[Just Alf]

On BBC news 24 that Rangers have gone to court over the transfer embargo. How to win friends and influence people. (And attract Uefa's attention)

STV picked up on it too now... http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/103248-rangers-launch-legal-challenge-to-sfa-registration-embargo/

Just as we were talking about the mini-Huns shifting around to back the bigger Huns.... they do this..... brilliant..... IF there's a vote on the 30th then every team that's in Europe is defo gonna vote for RFC to be booted.... and they'll be lucky it's just the 3rd Div!

It's a bit like standing on top of a house of cards and kicking the guys that are holding you up!

:greengrin

[cad]

Just looked on RM they seem to think the fight backs now on

[GreenPJ]

Just looked on RM they seem to think the fight backs now on

I am guessing the transfer embargo is having serious impact on Greene getting his consortium financing in place and is desperate role of the dice. Wait for Kennedy and Murray with their tinpot to be back in play next week.

[JeMeSouviens]

Lawyers acting for the financially stricken Ibrox club said the ban would cause them "utterly irretrievable" prejudice if it was upheld.

Even after all the revelations, they (club and fans and media cheerleaders) have still not accepted that they don't have a God given right to be at the top end of the league again next season. Utterly incredible.

[Just Alf]

Couldn't help mesel...... checked out Hun Media

------------------------
Jonok
Posted Today, 02:03 PM

Does this screw Scottish teams in Europe?
------------------------

I SOOOOOOO wish I could reply......

"yes, but only if they vote to keep you in the SPL"



:lolrangers:


:flag:

[ScottB]

Well given that UEFA threatened to expel the Swiss from, well everything really for Scion pulling this sort of act, Rangers have just given themselves a spectacularly long bit of rope ready to be tied into a noose...

[green glory]

Couldn't help mesel...... checked out Hun Media

------------------------
Jonok
Posted Today, 02:03 PM

Does this screw Scottish teams in Europe?
------------------------

I SOOOOOOO wish I could reply......

"yes, but only if they vote to keep you in the SPL"

:lolrangers:

:flag:

So basically if the court action is successful every other Scottish club could lose the right to play in Europe if the forgive Der Hun and keep them in the SPL? Cue Uefa and the other SPL clubs kicking them into touch? I hope so.

[Sergio sledge]

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/103248-rangers-launch-legal-challenge-to-sfa-registration-embargo/


In court on Friday, Richard Keen QC represented Rangers and said that the punishment was particularly severe when Rangers players who had taken a pay cut this season would be able to leave for "knockdown prices".


With a registration embargo in place, Rangers would not be able to replace departing players adequately, Keen argued.


"In reality they could not just draw on a junior team to replace their senior players for the Scottish Premier League," he said.
He asked for a suspension of the ban while the case was heard.


"If the additional sanction was to be suspended they would be able to sign replacement players for those who are in all probability leaving ," Keen said.


Emm... Duh, that is why it is a punishment, it is meant to act as a deterrent. It's not much of a deterrent for anyone if you get to sign replacement players for the players that are leaving because you got yourself into such a mess..... What a stupid argument. :confused:

[PatHead]

How many court cases are Duff and Duffer now involved in?

I'm sure there are more but can only think of
Bristow Collier
Transfer embargo
Craig Whyte?

[magpie1892]

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=9934&newsCategoryID=1

Very non-committal statement from the SFA. They're probably bricking it that they'll have to expel rangers from Scottish Football as well as face the wrath of UEFA.

I simply don't understand the mindset of rangers when - the punishment element aside - they think it's OK to be allowed to sign players when they've not even paid for the ones they've not only got, but one in particular they've sold on. Beggars belief, it really does.

[Brando7]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18211947

There ****in lucky they were even allowed to sign under 18's i would have hit them with a total ban like other clubs throughout the world has been given for far less footballing crimes

[Just Alf]

So basically it's this?


Mr Hun....

" Please sirs..... we need to have new players for next season or we might not be competitive in the SPL (coz we really, really want to get into Europe ASAP for all that dosh.... oh and coz we rigged the winners pot we need to be in the top 2 to get 25% of the whole pot)"

That it?

So if they're booted to the 3rd Divison that argument then goes out the window?


Hmmmmm if I was an SPL chairman not 100% sure which way to vote, well today, I've just made up my mind! :turnevil:

[jgl07]

How many court cases are Duff and Duffer now involved in?

I'm sure there are more but can only think of
Bristow Collier
Transfer embargo
Craig Whyte?

Especially as the cash is liable to run out next Thursday!

[green glory]

Especially as the cash is liable to run out next Thursday!

The admins did say the pot runs dry on the 31st May didn't they?

Next Friday could be the end.

[Dashing Bob S]

So basically it's this?


Mr Hun....

" Please sirs..... we need to have new players for next season or we might not be competitive in the SPL (coz we really, really want to get into Europe ASAP for all that dosh)"

That it?

So if they're booted to the 3rd Divison that argument then goes out the window?


Hmmmmm if I was an SPL chairman not 100% sure which way to vote, well today, I've just made up my mind! :turnevil:

Surely they could be 'be competitive' in the 3rd division?

The real issue it that they have a warped view of their own importance, which has been encouraged by craven administrators and brown-nosing 'succulent lamb' journalists.

Why should the rest of Scottish football care whether a bunch of thieves 'remain competitive' or not?

This idea of 'needing a strong Rangers' is completely flawed. Why? So that they can continue to steal, then strangle Scottish football to death and waltz off into a European league?

The main problem is that there are too many buffoons in Scottish Football and the media who are completely unemployable in any other context, and will be happy to keep the OF circus ticking along until they retire. They are horrified that this has been unearthed on their watch and will do anything to get back to the quiet life. They aren't up to dealing with this, indeed, evidence seems to be suggesting that many were complicit in it.

It can't be swept under the carpet, not with EUFA, HMRC, and now, one must assume, the Fraud Squad, eagerly watching developments.

Missing out on Sky money because Rangers might not be in the SPL is very least of Scottish Football's worries at the moment.

[PatHead]

[QUOTE=Dashing Bob S;3246049]
The real issue it that they have a warped view of their own importance, which has been encouraged by craven administrators and brown-nosing 'succulent lamb' journalists.


The main problem is that there are too many buffoons in Scottish Football and the media who are completely unemployable in any other context, and will be happy to keep the OF circus ticking along until they retire. They are horrified that this has been unearthed on their watch and will do anything to get back to the quiet life. They aren't up to dealing with this, indeed, evidence seems to be suggesting that many were complicit in it.


I was at Hampden Park for a meeting on Tuesday. On coming down the steps I saw Chick Young standing there in a bright red tee shirt, white trousers and Rangers blue trainers. Odd outfit for a St Mirren supporter!

[ScottB]

At this stage, anyone involved with a half a brain would see only 2 options as a way forward.

1. Liquidate the club. It's gone, dead, worm food, bye bye etc. Set up a totally new company, make no claims of wanting Rangers history or anything else, buy the ground and Murray Park, apply to SFL3. Begin again.

2. Liquidate the club. Buy the ground and Murray Park, buy an existing club, rename it and move it to Ibrox.


I honestly can't see any other option that has them in a league next season. This current farce is either going to see them expelled before UEFA weighs in (needing them to pick one of those 2 options), run out of money and have to be liquidated anyway (again, see those 2 options), or start the season still in admin with a bunch of kids and probably get liquidated mid season.

The point being that those potential situations will likely happen at a point where it will be too late to create a newco and get it into the league in time for season start...

[Hibrandenburg]

Don't have access to the Scottish press here so could someone enlighten me to whether the newspapers have changed their stance on Rankers since the BBC documentary was aired or not?

[lapsedhibee]

Don't have access to the Scottish press here so could someone enlighten me to whether the newspapers have changed their stance on Rankers since the BBC documentary was aired or not?

Not much. Fatty "Jim" Traynor complaining that the programme should have had a "proper newspaperman" on instead of Graham Spiers. :faf:

[Gus Fring]

BBC Journos saying on Twitter that Duff and Phelps are now under investigaton by the Insolvency Practitioners Association.

I hope they revoke their license to trade. if that happens surely that would be the end for Rangers? the

[snooky]

"They claim the embargo is unlawful and outside the powers of the SFA tribunal."

What an odd word for RFC to use at this stage of the game. :rolleyes:

[ancienthibby]

Beeb Radio just reporting that the Insolvency Practitioners Association are to investigate Duff & Duffer re Hunco.

Don'tcha just love this!:greengrin

[Haymaker]

In a way, I don't want this to end!

[green glory]

In a way, I don't want this to end!

It's been fun but it's time to close the coffin lid.

[Treadstone]

BBC Journos saying on Twitter that Duff and Phelps are now under investigaton by the Insolvency Practitioners Association.

I hope they revoke their license to trade. if that happens surely that would be the end for Rangers? the

Duff and Phelps doing a bit of grandstanding now to try and get the fans back on board after the documentary.

[Hibrandenburg]

Not much. Fatty "Jim" Traynor complaining that the programme should have had a "proper newspaperman" on instead of Graham Spiers. :faf:

Thanks, says it all really. Fannies still can't see the woods for the trees.

[down-the-slope]

It's been fun but it's time to close the coffin lid.

No No No...a decent Wake is called for..let the corpse lie in state (or is that the corpse is a state :confused:) for a while...

[green glory]

No No No...a decent Wake is called for..let the corpse lie in state (or is that the corpse is a state :confused:) for a while...

The supporters of every other club could file past Ibrox on liquidation day, laying wreaths at the entrance to the Big Hoose.

[Ozyhibby]

Does challenging sporting decisions in civil courts not bring about automatic relegation? I'm sure FIFA have insisted on this before.

[calmac12000]

"They claim the embargo is unlawful and outside the powers of the SFA tribunal."

What an odd word for RFC to use at this stage of the game. :rolleyes:

Just where did a company that can't inter alia pay for it's papers, fund a legal challenge to the SFA. Or is this simply another installment in D+P's version of competence?

[ac1]

Gordon Smith on STV news - never heard so many lies out of one person's mouth. Unbelievable!

Lets feel sorry for cheating Rangers.......

[Dashing Bob S]

Beeb Radio just reporting that the Insolvency Practitioners Association are to investigate Duff & Duffer re Hunco.

Don'tcha just love this!:greengrin

Not in the slightest bit surprised by this news, and I'm sure the HMRC and other authorities are looking into the role of D&P in this sorry affair. Their behavior has gone way beyond trying to get the best deal deal for creditors. It has even gone beyond trying preserve RFC in its current form, with minimal damage, though this seems a key part of their strategy. They were appointed by the Craig Whyte, who was defacto appointed by SDM (one pound sale).

It seems to me that the people responsible for getting the club into this fraudulent mess, are using it as a battered shield to protect themselves.