Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[lapsedhibee]

Stewart Regan, Guy Fawkes. All infidels probably seem the same to Huns.

[hibsbollah]

If he'd have used the word 'prejudice' he could have claimed he was talking about anti-club bias. But the B word leaves no room for doubt. Hes bashing the bead-rattlers. Disgusting and disgraceful.

[HibbiesandtheBaddies]

looks like sandy jardine smiling in the row behind(RHS)

The boy at the top left is praying!! Must be a "tarrier" infiltrator....... :duck:

[The Green Goblin]

The boy at the top left is praying!! Must be a "tarrier" infiltrator....... :duck:

I dont know who he is, but to be fair to him, he looks totally embarrassed about it.

[LeighLoyal]

Spot on! This guy has just parked his bum in the Ibrox hot seat and starts complaining about bigotry. Maybe he should've spent a little bit longer reading up on the old Rangers history and their 'traditions'. Alternatively, if he'd spent 5 minutes in the company of Ian Durrant he would've been left in no doubt just what he's let himself in for.


I suspect he's following Sally's latest dummy spitting routine with one of his own to endear himself to the Orc legions. No doubt they will lap it up and forget he fronts a consortium no more credible than Craig Whyte. Reality is he's not got a pot to pish in and his tainted brand are going to struggle to survive in Div 3. I suspect that's the real reason for his outbursts: that he knows his whole corrupt to the core newco edifice, minus any credit line, could collapse again very quickly especially if the Orcs don't buy enough newco books. We also still don't know if BDO are going to object to the Sevco transaction and neither does he. I hope they do and pull the rug from the chancer and the whole rotten lot.

[HibbiesandtheBaddies]

I dont know who he is, but to be fair to him, he looks totally embarrassed about it.


:agree:

[johnrebus]

I suspect he's following Sally's latest dummy spitting routine with one of his own to endear himself to the Orc legions. No doubt they will lap it up and forget he fronts a consortium no more credible than Craig Whyte. Reality is he's not got a pot to pish in and his tainted brand are going to struggle to survive in Div 3. I suspect that's the real reason for his outbursts: that he knows his whole corrupt to the core newco edifice, minus any credit line, could collapse again very quickly especially if the Orcs don't buy enough newco books. We also still don't know if BDO are going to object to the Sevco transaction and neither does he. I hope they do and pull the rug from the chancer and the whole rotten lot.


Agree with everything you say, but why get upset about Green? He is brilliant, exactly the sort of character you want in charge of the Hun.

All he wants is money for himself, no morals, no scruples, he would sell his granny for a few bob and then steal her back to sell again. The mouldering corpse of Rangers is lying in the grave, all we are waiting for is for someone or something to ram the stake right through its putrid heart and be done with it all.

By Christmas they will be gone forever.

[delbert]

Bigotry. Absolutely unbelievable. The bad catholics did it and ran away.
You have to admit that Charles Green does irony better than most, only outdone yesterday at the game when the knuckle draggers belted out the old, 'No-one likes us, we don't care!', mantra, after spending the last five months bleating about how they've finally noticed that no-one likes them!

It wasn't all bad news for Sevco yesterday though, credit where credit is due, I thought they did very well against higher league opposition and acquitted themselves very well on the day. Have to say I don't think the media have given them nearly enough credit for yesterdays giant killing result, and I think they will be an asset to the SFL Div 3. They could be the surprise package in that division this year, and it was good to see players of the calibre of Lee McCulloch and Kirk Broadfoot looking as if they had played at that level all their careers.

[EskbankHibby]

Just listened to the Green 'bigotry' interview on the BBC website, genuinely think a large part of the problem with him is that he is just not very intelligent.

Listen to the interview, struggling to find the vocabulary to express himself and flying of at tangents when the interviewer specifically asks him to expand upon the bigotry chat.

Every time i listen to him he reminds me more and more of George Bush, i look forward to his "fool me once shame on me/you" speech following the next Hampden meeting.

[Kaiser1962]

Aye you're right - getting my bigots in a twist.

You're right as well. Thats Smith in the blonde wig. Its what he wears when not on official duty.

[Kaiser1962]

Also many Rangers fans not taking up season tickets as they don't trust Green and are not sure where their money will end up.

Will Rangers be able to afford paying their players and the upkeep of Ibrox & Murray Park in the coming months, I very much doubt it. :thumbsup:

Cant say I blame them tbh. Green has shown that he has very little knowledge of Scottish Football and that he does not possess the neccessary skills to be chairman of that club. Wrong words said in haste can have dire and bloody consequences.

The man is clearly a buffoon.

[Caversham Green]

You're right as well. Thats Smith in the blonde wig. Its what he wears when not on official duty.

And that's Green and McCoist's PR adviser to his/her right. She's been telling them both to grow up a bit.

[DarrenSQH]

I can't believe Green came out with the bigotry comments. It's shocking that Anyone in such a prominent position would make such a ludicrous statement.

I fail to see how Catholics are the reason for them being caught cheating for 15 years.

I hope the SFA or whoever throw the book at him.

[Sprouleflyer]

I can't believe Green came out with the bigotry comments. It's shocking that Anyone in such a prominent position would make such a ludicrous statement.

I fail to see how Catholics are the reason for them being caught cheating for 15 years.

I hope the SFA or whoever throw the book at him.

I heard a snipit on the STV news tonight with Greene trumpeting on about Rangers being debt free and self sustaining by the end of this season when every other SPL team will be in debt.

It's like WTF!!! Does he not understand how Rangers or what ever they are called these days have managed to off load around £130M worth of debt? Also Rangers are not an SPL team, so why is he making references to that league?

[Lungo--Drom]

Over the last few weeks I've increasingly heard him on the radio or watched him on the TV and he seems to have a built in ability to spout delusional utter bollocks :Ummm:

Now he is walking a dangerous line by involving the words 'bigotry' in his ramblings. In a previous post I did a bit of research and I think something like 15% of the population of Scotland consider themselves to be Roman Catholic. The SPL protest online poll website that had over 16000 people register their views as to whether the NewHuns should be allowed into the SPL had I think, IIRC, something an average 82.5% 'No' vote from fans of all the SPL teams.

For someone who has been a director of over 30 companies over the years you would think this guy could figure out that 15% is not 82.5%. With this in mind I can only think that:



Charles Green is thick as two short planks but thinks he's clever
or he thinks that 82.5% of Scottish football fans are Roman Catholics
or he deliberately used the bigotry word to inflame the very worst orc element into burning down the nearest football stadium


If it is the latter then he should be reported to the Racial Equality Commission and possibly the Police.:rules:
http://www.wicked-stuff.com.au/old/shop/images/stories/virtuemart/product/chucky_sideshow-15-l.jpg




I heard a snipit on the STV news tonight with Greene trumpeting on about Rangers being debt free and self sustaining by the end of this season when every other SPL team will be in debt.

It's like WTF!!! Does he not understand how Rangers or what ever they are called these days have managed to off load around £130M worth of debt? Also Rangers are not an SPL team, so why is he making references to that league?

[Jim44]

I can't believe Green came out with the bigotry comments. It's shocking that Anyone in such a prominent position would make such a ludicrous statement.

I fail to see how Catholics are the reason for them being caught cheating for 15 years.

I hope the SFA or whoever throw the book at him.

He is patronising and trying to ingratiate himself with the Hun bigot brigade and thinks this kind of behaviour will persuade the newco thickos to buy season tickets. His judgement is appalling.

[LeighLoyal]

I like how Green went to UEFA and claimed 'these are not my debts' in reference to the trail of unpaid football monies, but no sooner is he off the plane than he's telling the Orc feeding weegia that his newco Rangers are the same as the oldco Rangers and nobody can ever change it! So all the mountain of debt has nothing to do with him, but the trophy haul this ill gotten £140m bought the oldco are all his to keep. It's like a drugs dealer keeping his mansions and Ferrari's after being caught red handed with a mountain of dope. Proceeds of crime, Chucky, and you don't get to keep them. :agree:

[Seveno]

I think that we can assume that every utterance that comes out of the mouth of Greene or McCoist is purely designed to sell more STs, no matter how crass, inflammatory or delusional the words might be.

These really are vile people amd the sooner their vile institution finally dies, the better.

[The Falcon]

He is patronising and trying to ingratiate himself with the Hun bigot brigade and thinks this kind of behaviour will persuade the newco thickos to buy season tickets. His judgement is appalling.


They need to or they are in big trouble.

[johnbc70]

Do not hold your breath. http://twitpic.com/adm7a9 At least the media are picking up his stupid comments, lets hope the SFA follow this through.

[LeighLoyal]

Sad to see the Rangers Tax Case blogger has wrapped it up. Slightly annoyed given I think there is still more scandal on the EBT scam to emerge, but thanks for giving us all some facts that the shameful weegia were trying to cover up.

[matty_f]

Yesterday Super Ersehole was bemoaning the fact he couldn't play Little or Black as though they had signed they were ineligible so he played them as trialists. Surely you can't give a trial to players already on your books?

[Kaiser1962]

I heard a snipit on the STV news tonight with Greene trumpeting on about Rangers being debt free and self sustaining by the end of this season when every other SPL team will be in debt.



Was the £5.5m he used to purchase £131m worth of assetts not a loan which is repayable in full?

[Caversham Green]

Was the £5.5m he used to purchase £131m worth of assetts not a loan which is repayable in full?

Sevco 5088 has a share capital of £1 and Sevco Scotland's is £2, so unless there was a huge share premium (highly unlikely) the £5.5m has to be a loan. There are no debentures registered either so the loan is not fixed-term and is unlikely to be long-term.

[greenginger]

Yesterday Super Ersehole was bemoaning the fact he couldn't play Little or Black as though they had signed they were ineligible so he played them as trialists. Surely you can't give a trial to players already on your books?


I thought that myself but can't see anything in the rule book to define a trialist as a free agent or anything. Its certainly bending the rules in the extreme.

Perhaps the SFA could charge them with " not acting with the utmost good faith " like they were going to hit the Yams with for being a day late in paying wages back in January.

I won't hold my breath though, the poor wee lambs have been punished enough. :greengrin

[Jim44]

The SFA have called on Green to account for his 'bigot' remarks and if he doesn't respond by 7th August he will be fined. Good on them for that but the Scotsman article goes on to say that Celtic were asked to comment on Green's remarks but refused to comment. Why the hell were they approached? Was it because of their renowned expertise in bigotry?

[johnrebus]

Sad to see the Rangers Tax Case blogger has wrapped it up. Slightly annoyed given I think there is still more scandal on the EBT scam to emerge, but thanks for giving us all some facts that the shameful weegia were trying to cover up.


Do not despair.

Paul McConville is still in full flow at, 'Scotslawthoughts'.


:greengrin

[marinello59]

The SFA have called on Green to account for his 'bigot' remarks and if he doesn't respond by 7th August he will be fined. Good on them for that but the Scotsman article goes on to say that Celtic were asked to comment on Green's remarks but refused to comment. Why the hell were they approached? Was it because of their renowned expertise in bigotry?

As one of the most likely targets of Green's remarks probably. They are wise not to comment either as anything they do say will be jumped on by the blue hordes in another tit for tat slanging match. (We're not bigots you are, no we're not, you are etc etc etc. )

[Just Alf]

Do not hold your breath. http://twitpic.com/adm7a9 At least the media are picking up his stupid comments, lets hope the SFA follow this through.

Here's the Bears take on it.... it's US that are the bigots, not them!

"I'm pretty sure we could all find numerous instances to prove this from other clubs forums!....after all it was the mob rule of the fans that made the decision for the SPL club chairmen to no vote us into the SP Hell."

:lolrangers:

[lobster]

I like how Green went to UEFA and claimed 'these are not my debts' in reference to the trail of unpaid football monies, but no sooner is he off the plane than he's telling the Orc feeding weegia that his newco Rangers are the same as the oldco Rangers and nobody can ever change it! So all the mountain of debt has nothing to do with him, but the trophy haul this ill gotten £140m bought the oldco are all his to keep. It's like a drugs dealer keeping his mansions and Ferrari's after being caught red handed with a mountain of dope. Proceeds of crime, Chucky, and you don't get to keep them. :agree:

Spot on :agree:
However it seems the vast majority of the loyal don't make the same connection as the rest of the population and perhaps won't until there are some prosecutions of those who benefitted financially from the fraud. I'm not advocating that we should follow Iran's lead today by passing down the death penalty for fraud, not at all :turnevil:

[lapsedhibee]

Here's the Bears take on it.... it's US that are the bigots, not them!


:agree: Some of us call them Huns, so we must be the bigots.

[ScottB]

Sad to see the Rangers Tax Case blogger has wrapped it up. Slightly annoyed given I think there is still more scandal on the EBT scam to emerge, but thanks for giving us all some facts that the shameful weegia were trying to cover up.

Disappointing, given that it and its posters have been hinting at 'something nuclear' that was still to come...

[CropleyWasGod]

Disappointing, given that it and its posters have been hinting at 'something nuclear' that was still to come...

To be fair, the BTC is a bit of an irrelevance now. Whatever the outcome, it will have little (if any) effect on RFC or Sevco.

[ScottB]

To be fair, the BTC is a bit of an irrelevance now. Whatever the outcome, it will have little (if any) effect on RFC or Sevco.

There was much suggestion of potential criminal investigations and the like into various 'Rangers men' just seems strange to start hinting at that information, then pulling the plug.

Still, the blog did a solid job in getting us to where we are now.

[MB62]

Yesterday Super Ersehole was bemoaning the fact he couldn't play Little or Black as though they had signed they were ineligible so he played them as trialists. Surely you can't give a trial to players already on your books?

I have heard nothing about this and it seems increible that it happened.
Why were they ineligible and how did they manage to still play them?

[CropleyWasGod]

There was much suggestion of potential criminal investigations and the like into various 'Rangers men' just seems strange to start hinting at that information, then pulling the plug.

Still, the blog did a solid job in getting us to where we are now.

That may yet happen, but it would be as the result of BDO's investigation into the conduct of the directors of RFC. They, personally, would be liable for anything that comes out of that.... the companies themselves wouldn't be affected.

Where the BTC would have significance is in the dividend available to the other creditors.

[johnrebus]

It is now that I really despair of the Scottish press and media.

There are so many obvious questions that need to be asked,

1. If as Green says, the new Rangers is a debt free 'newco', then why are they even bothering to lay claim to the dead clubs history, titles, cups etc?

The SFA needs to come out and state categorically that this Rangers is a new Rangers and they have no history. They cannot have it both ways. Rangers must then issue a statement accepting this.

2. Why have the SFA ignored its own rules about any new club having three years audited accounts before being admitted?

3. One of the arguements, even from Hun fans, was a go at the SPL/SFA for not doing 'due dilligence' checks on Whyte before he took over from Murray.

Yet we do not know who these people in the Rangers consortium are! And there has never been - to my knowledge - any firm disclosure as to who really owns Ibrox and Murray Park!

Important fundimental issues are brushed aside in the race to get the Hun back into the game.



Why are these questions not being asked until answers are forthcoming?



The pressure has to be kept up.



:devil:

[H18sry]

Rangers, SFL, Third Division — July 31, 2012 5:31 pm
The tale of the inexplicable signing policyPosted by Guest Writer
What is going on at The Rangers FC now? Third Division football beckons yet the club is still signing players from the SPL. Commercially, this makes very little sense states Colin D. Young.
The club must already cost significantly more to operate than it can deliver in matchday revenues and sponsorship, therefore the question arises of where Charles Green’s remarkable consortium are finding the cash to finance SPL players playing in the depths of the third division.

Perhaps, just perhaps, their business model is based around winning the cups? This could be feasible with an SPL level squad, but would even the limited revenues from winning the Ramsdens Cup, or even the Scottish Cup, be enough to offset the wages of the likes of Lee McCulloch?

And what of the players?

Can anyone really tell me that Lee Wallace, Lee McCulloch, Dorin Goian or the rest of their ilk couldn’t stroll into contracts in the SPL and play competitive football?

Are these players content with the sporting challenge of competing against such luminaries of the third division as young Kyle Gillespie of East Stirlingshire, or Clyde’s Stefan McCluskey?

Perhaps they are? After all, none of the current The Rangers FC squad are internationals are they? Oops, it appears that some of them are….well, probably not for long unless they move to a competitive club or competition. I’ve got to be absolutely honest with everyone who reads this and state that if someone wanted to pay me SPL wages to go and kick a ball around Glebe Park on a Saturday afternoon, I’d probably jump at the chance too.

This smacks of money over sporting integrity, to drag up that old phrase that seems to have gone away since Rangers descended into the Third. Dean Shiels is one player who has personally turned my stomach. He walks away from a contract with his own father at Kilmarnock – an SPL side, of all things – and goes to The Rangers FC to play against part-timers, veterans at the end of their career and young boys who aren’t good enough to compete at a higher level. Such are the actions of a mercenary.

I apologise to Third Division players for any offence that the above comments may have caused.

It is so very disappointing to see Rangers taking this approach. The opportunity was, and still is, there for them to raise their own youngsters through the ranks and give them experience in preparation for their SPL return – if the SPL even exists by then.

Which brings me nicely to the possible conspiracy theory, namely, perhaps the death of the SPL is so imminent that it has already been agreed. Charles Green already KNOWS that there will be a new league formed, one way or another, in the near future and that The Rangers FC will be invited to play. Why else would he invest so heavily in SPL level playing staff to “compete” in the Third Division?

It wouldn’t be the first time that secret handshakes have been exchanged behind closed doors to decide on the direction of Scottish Football.

Motherwell, St. Johnstone and Dundee United could certainly have benefitted from players like McCulloch, or even Shiels, for their respective challenges in Europe. Sadly, these clubs are faced with a massive challenge (or have failed already) to proceed in Europe – but don’t worry, Rangers third division players are still apparently content that they are getting “competition”. Well, nobody in the SPL would pay a 34-year-old the same wages that Rangers would pay him, so I guess Lee McCulloch has a valid excuse – doesn’t he?

[Offside Trap]

Apologies if posted elsewhere already...but this STV interview with Stewart Regan in last 24 hours is worth a look:

http://t.co/CYugyvD8

It's long (40 mins) but for once it is actually an interview with some teeth - particularly in first 20 mins where Regan flounders. Credit to STV's Raman Bhardwaj for the interview.

Draw your own conclusions about the leader of Scottish football....

[Jim44]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, Regan has described Green's and McCoist's comments as undignified and irresponsible. Fair comment but only every bit as undignified and irresponsible as his own comments that Scottish football will suffer a slow lingering death and that social unrest would follow the demise of newco.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Which brings me nicely to the possible conspiracy theory, namely, perhaps the death of the SPL is so imminent that it has already been agreed. Charles Green already KNOWS that there will be a new league formed, one way or another, in the near future and that The Rangers FC will be invited to play. Why else would he invest so heavily in SPL level playing staff to “compete” in the Third Division?

That isn't the case. It's more to do with the fact that "Rangers" have to generate large income to cover their overheads. The only way to do that is to ensure large crowds every week. If they went and signed a bunch of SFL1 players, sure enough they would win SFL3, but their "loyal" fans would quickly tire of the standard of football. Signing good SPL players is an attempt to keep that fanbase intact.

[PatHead]

Notice The Rangers parent company have changed their name to Rangers something or other. Thought they weren't allowed to do that? Will that make it easier for BDO to prove anything?

[CropleyWasGod]

Notice The Rangers parent company have changed their name to Rangers something or other. Thought they weren't allowed to do that? Will that make it easier for BDO to prove anything?

IIRC, this was planned a while back. Effectively, RFC and Sevco are swapping names. It's another one of the boxes ticked before the liquidation kicks in.

Nothing wrong with it on the face of things.

It won't make any difference to BDO's work. It's the company they will be working on, regardless of its name.

[Onion]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, Regan has described Green's and McCoist's comments as undignified and irresponsible. Fair comment but only every bit as undignified and irresponsible as his own comments that Scottish football will suffer a slow lingering death and that social unrest would follow the demise of newco.

:agree: Regan, Green and McCoist - all chums one day and slagging each other off the next. Snakes the lot of them.

[Seveno]

Aside from signing a few expensive players, I find it quite incredible that Green has made no attempt to reduce the operating costs through redundances amongts the coaching or admin staff.

Either he does have backers with real money (unlikely) or he wants the Club to go bust again. This might suit him perfectly if their is a Sevco (Football Club) and a Sevco (Property).

' So Mr Brown/ Murray/ Kennedy, how much are you prepared to pay to rent my stadium and training facilities ?'

[PatHead]

IIRC, this was planned a while back. Effectively, RFC and Sevco are swapping names. It's another one of the boxes ticked before the liquidation kicks in.

Nothing wrong with it on the face of things.

It won't make any difference to BDO's work. It's the company they will be working on, regardless of its name.

Damn

[LeighLoyal]

Note it's "The Rangers Football Club Limited" So when it goes belly up, as it will going by the reported Orc season book total running at 3500 and crazy spending.. Green and his mysterons won't be losing any sleep or fingers over New Orcs demise when it happens.





Neither will I :aok:

[Ozyhibby]

According to a poster on Hun media Murray, Walter smith and Jim Trayner having lunch in Martin Wisharts at the shore.
Succulent lamb on the menu?

[johnrebus]

According to a poster on Hun media Murray, Walter smith and Jim Trayner having lunch in Martin Wisharts at the shore.
Succulent lamb on the menu?


:agree:


Roast Saddle of Dornoch Lamb.




I kid you not.


:tee hee:

[Just Alf]

:agree:


Roast Saddle of Dornoch Lamb.




I kid you not.


:tee hee:

bloody nice though .......... not for the succulant lamb obviously :greengrin

[CallumLaidlaw]

Interesting blog -
http://saintinasia.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/saints-without-rangers-so-no-armageddon-then/

[Kaff]

According to a poster on Hun media Murray, Walter smith and Jim Trayner having lunch in Martin Wisharts at the shore.
Succulent lamb on the menu?

David Murray or the new one?

[Ozyhibby]

David Murray or the new one?

David

[stoobs]

Killie chairman has changed his tune.


"The financial fall-out from that won't be nearly as great as it might have been," said Johnston, who is now on the league's board.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19087489

[McSwanky]

Killie chairman has changed his tune.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19087489

Surprise, surprise. At least he's admitted he was talking Tom Kite.

[Caversham Green]

Killie chairman has changed his tune.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19087489


"I've always felt that the SPL should be about full-time professional football, whatever the number of clubs that may be," Johnston added.


The basis of a plan to get Sevco into the SPL ASAP? Doesn't matter where they end up in the league, they're a full-time club so get to join the SPL....

[Moulin Yarns]

Interesting blog -
http://saintinasia.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/saints-without-rangers-so-no-armageddon-then/


There was a similar analysis a while ago, maybe on this thread, that suggested the number of fans required to make up the 'loss' :faf: of the Rangers fans, and I'm sure the Saints figure wasn't far from the one in this blog, and I also think our average attendance needed to rise by something like 80 fans per game to make up said loss. Surely not insurmountable.

[hibs0666]

Interesting blog -
http://saintinasia.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/saints-without-rangers-so-no-armageddon-then/

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. The SPL payouts include all sponsorship/TV incomes minus the cost of running the SPL - it's not simply a case of taking the TV deal and divvying it up to get the magic numbers. For a number of reasons I think he's underestimating the financial impact and, for example:


the league has lost an additional 2.7 million international TV rights deal
there will be an additional £1 million payment made to the SFL for TV rights


I'm not saying for a second that it's armageddon time, but I wouldn't be surprised if the financial impact is closer to (a more meaty) 10% of St. Johnstone revenues rather than (a marginal) 3%.

[DaveF]

Have they got approval for membership yet, or do they play on Saturday on a conditional basis?

[H18sry]

Have they got approval for membership yet, or do they play on Saturday on a conditional basis?

Paperwork should all be completed on Friday.:wink:

[CentreLine]

If only the people who run Scottish Football had showed the level of courage and integrity that the Olympic Badminton Committee showed with cheats then perhaps we would be celebrating the rebirth of Scottish Football right now instead of its slow death.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/disqualified-chinese-player-yu-quits-badminton-045549702.html

In the Olympics, World Champions, Olympic Champions and favourites for the event get no special treatment but the authorities show that their game is above any of the individuals involved regardless of their perceived status. No fudging the issue, changing the rules or down right corruption and they earn the respect of the sporting world. Furthermore, the Chinese Olympic Authorities come right in behind the Olympic Authorities and demand that their cheating players make a humbling public apology. Everyone is left in no doubt about integrity in the sport, the countries involved and the Olympic Authorities retain the respect of the world even if the individuals concerned must learn a stark and costly lesson.

Sadly we must contrast with the Scottish Football Authorities and the people running Rangers Football Club in Administration. Everything that they have done has been to the detriment of the game here and it may never recover.

The Football Authorities had to be forced in to making a decision and, even then, contrive to work with smoke and mirrors in an attempt to hide the fact that they have not actually punished Rangers Football Club in administration at all. What’s more, they have colluded in promoting a myth that the new club, now trading as The Rangers, is in fact the old club, soon to be liquidated, and all is well with the game.
Finally, throughout the whole process, the arguments for keeping a form of Rangers in the league has consisted of so much negativity about our national sport that it could only be a self fulfilling prophesy. Reagan tells the nutters there will be unrest and now we are told he requires protection from terrorists. Doncaster tells the media world that we cannot do without a Rangers, and opened the door to every sponsor and TV broadcaster inviting them to slash their contribution to this game because he has told them Scottish Football is inferior. Some business tactic that. Instead Reagan had an opportunity to advance the cause of common sense and decency while Doncaster had the most wonderful opportunity to promote our game in Scotland as the cleanest and best in the world to be associated with.

Somebody needs to tell the people running Scottish football that when you are in a dirty hole you need to stop digging. They have made a mess of every stage of this process. I fear that it is already too late but the licence thing is perhaps the last opportunity that they have to show some balls. Even then they have started by making an unconstitutional change to the rules and the fudge gets ever more sickly sweet.
I despair of our game and our society and I am sickened by Scottish Football in its failure to use the influence it has on society and culture in this country to make things better.

Perhaps we should ask the Olympic Badminton people to step in because right now it is Olympic Badminton 8 Scottish Football 0

[Paisley Hibby]

If only the people who run Scottish Football had showed the level of courage and integrity that the Olympic Badminton Committee showed with cheats then perhaps we would be celebrating the rebirth of Scottish Football right now instead of its slow death.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/disqualified-chinese-player-yu-quits-badminton-045549702.html

In the Olympics, World Champions, Olympic Champions and favourites for the event get no special treatment but the authorities show that their game is above any of the individuals involved regardless of their perceived status. No fudging the issue, changing the rules or down right corruption and they earn the respect of the sporting world. Furthermore, the Chinese Olympic Authorities come right in behind the Olympic Authorities and demand that their cheating players make a humbling public apology. Everyone is left in no doubt about integrity in the sport, the countries involved and the Olympic Authorities retain the respect of the world even if the individuals concerned must learn a stark and costly lesson.

Sadly we must contrast with the Scottish Football Authorities and the people running Rangers Football Club in Administration. Everything that they have done has been to the detriment of the game here and it may never recover.

The Football Authorities had to be forced in to making a decision and, even then, contrive to work with smoke and mirrors in an attempt to hide the fact that they have not actually punished Rangers Football Club in administration at all. What’s more, they have colluded in promoting a myth that the new club, now trading as The Rangers, is in fact the old club, soon to be liquidated, and all is well with the game.
Finally, throughout the whole process, the arguments for keeping a form of Rangers in the league has consisted of so much negativity about our national sport that it could only be a self fulfilling prophesy. Reagan tells the nutters there will be unrest and now we are told he requires protection from terrorists. Doncaster tells the media world that we cannot do without a Rangers, and opened the door to every sponsor and TV broadcaster inviting them to slash their contribution to this game because he has told them Scottish Football is inferior. Some business tactic that. Instead Reagan had an opportunity to advance the cause of common sense and decency while Doncaster had the most wonderful opportunity to promote our game in Scotland as the cleanest and best in the world to be associated with.

Somebody needs to tell the people running Scottish football that when you are in a dirty hole you need to stop digging. They have made a mess of every stage of this process. I fear that it is already too late but the licence thing is perhaps the last opportunity that they have to show some balls. Even then they have started by making an unconstitutional change to the rules and the fudge gets ever more sickly sweet.
I despair of our game and our society and I am sickened by Scottish Football in its failure to use the influence it has on society and culture in this country to make things better.

Perhaps we should ask the Olympic Badminton people to step in because right now it is Olympic Badminton 8 Scottish Football 0

Well said :top marks

[Part/Time Supporter]

Ridiculous overblown nonsense.

Rangers failed financially, therefore they have to start again at the bottom. That's what has happened. They are being fully punished for deliberate non-payment of tax and will be punished for dual contracts by removing the relevant trophies, if convicted.

Your motivation appears to be a desire to remove Rangers from the face of the earth (vengeance) rather than justice. By your analogy, the badminton players should be prevented from playing ever again. They won't.

[down-the-slope]

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. The SPL payouts include all sponsorship/TV incomes minus the cost of running the SPL - it's not simply a case of taking the TV deal and divvying it up to get the magic numbers. For a number of reasons I think he's underestimating the financial impact and, for example:

the league has lost an additional 2.7 million international TV rights deal
there will be an additional £1 million payment made to the SFL for TV rights

I'm not saying for a second that it's armageddon time, but I wouldn't be surprised if the financial impact is closer to (a more meaty) 10% of St. Johnstone revenues rather than (a marginal) 3%.

:agree: you are much closer to the reality than most...add to the fact that TV exposure / viewers is part of the calculation of all sponsorship of the league then the potential for reductions in all of those is also there

[The Green Goblin]

Ridiculous overblown nonsense.

Rangers failed financially, therefore they have to start again at the bottom. That's what has happened. They are being fully punished for deliberate non-payment of tax and will be punished for dual contracts by removing the relevant trophies, if convicted.

Your motivation appears to be a desire to remove Rangers from the face of the earth (vengeance) rather than justice. By your analogy, the badminton players should be prevented from playing ever again. They won't.


"Rangers" are starting at the bottom in spite of the efforts of the game's governing bodies to let them off. I think the op makes a good point: we are in no doubt that those whose job it is to protect the integrity of olympic badminton acted quickly and properly when they were called upon to do so. Can we say the same of the football authorities in Scotland?

[CentreLine]

Ridiculous overblown nonsense.

Rangers failed financially, therefore they have to start again at the bottom. That's what has happened. They are being fully punished for deliberate non-payment of tax and will be punished for dual contracts by removing the relevant trophies, if convicted.

Your motivation appears to be a desire to remove Rangers from the face of the earth (vengeance) rather than justice. By your analogy, the badminton players should be prevented from playing ever again. They won't.

You need to read my post over again. I have suggested none of the above.

Sadly Rangers Football Club no longer exists (or will no longer exisit after the liquidators are in place) and nowhere do I suggest that the disqualified players should never play again. In fact, my inference is that, by acting quickly and decisively, the Olympic Authorities have probably ensured that they can compete again with their credibility intact. This is something the Scottish Football Authorities failed to do with Rangers FC.

IMHO no punishment should be applied to the company emerging as The Rangers, they should simply have been allowed to work their way in to Scottish football within the rules and, as I have stated in previous posts, The Rangers will become anything their supporters wish them to become. My issue is with the failure of the Scottish Football authorities to act decisively and fairly within the rules and also the present Scottish Football in the best possible light.

Your own post is therefore ill-considered, ridiculous, overblown nonsense but that is only my opinion

[Kojock]

You need to read my post over again. I have suggested none of the above.

Sadly Rangers Football Club no longer exists and nowhere do I suggest that the disqualified players should never play again. In fact, my inference is that, by acting quickly and decisively, the Olympic Authorities have probably ensured that they can compete again with their credibility intact. This is something the Scottish Football Authorities failed to do with Rangers FC.

IMHO no punishment should be applied to the company emerging as The Rangers, they should simply have been allowed to work their way in to Scottish football within the rules and, as I have stated in previous posts, The Rangers will become anything their supporters wish them to become. My issue is with the failure of the Scottish Football authorities to act decisively and fairly within the rules and also the present Scottish Football in the best possible light.

Your own post is therefore ill-considered, ridiculous, overblown nonsense but that is only my opinion

Not according to the advert for the forthcoming game against East Fife. It ends RANGERS THEN-RANGERS NOW-RANGERS FOREVER. :confused:

[CentreLine]

Not according to the advert for the forthcoming game against East Fife. It ends RANGERS THEN-RANGERS NOW-RANGERS FOREVER. :confused:

Post amended. :agree: I have added "(or will no longer exisit after the liquidators are in place)"
Many thanks

[Lucius Apuleius]

Not according to the advert for the forthcoming game against East Fife. It ends RANGERS THEN-RANGERS NOW-RANGERS FOREVER. :confused:


Post amended. :agree: I have added "(or will no longer exisit after the liquidators are in place)"
Many thanks

Pretty sure they bought the name Rangers along with everything else. Get used to it, it is not going away.

[CropleyWasGod]

Pretty sure they bought the name Rangers along with everything else. Get used to it, it is not going away.

They did.:agree:

[Part/Time Supporter]

You need to read my post over again. I have suggested none of the above.

Sadly Rangers Football Club no longer exists (or will no longer exisit after the liquidators are in place) and nowhere do I suggest that the disqualified players should never play again. In fact, my inference is that, by acting quickly and decisively, the Olympic Authorities have probably ensured that they can compete again with their credibility intact. This is something the Scottish Football Authorities failed to do with Rangers FC.

IMHO no punishment should be applied to the company emerging as The Rangers, they should simply have been allowed to work their way in to Scottish football within the rules and, as I have stated in previous posts, The Rangers will become anything their supporters wish them to become. My issue is with the failure of the Scottish Football authorities to act decisively and fairly within the rules and also the present Scottish Football in the best possible light.

Your own post is therefore ill-considered, ridiculous, overblown nonsense but that is only my opinion

Which would have meant locking them out of the league structure, despite the SFL clubs voting 29-1 to admit them into their league at the bottom level.

[CentreLine]

Which would have meant locking them out of the league structure, despite the SFL clubs voting 29-1 to admit them into their league at the bottom level.

I don't get your point. You must understand that "The Rangers" are not and never can be "Rangers Football Club". Anything else that follows from that situation should have been and should still be done within the rules. The Olympic Committe showed integrity and balanced leadership whilst the Scottish Football Authorities have failed at every turn to do so. Their failure has done irreparable damage to Scottish Football.

[Part/Time Supporter]

I don't get your point. You must understand that "The Rangers" are not and never can be "Rangers Football Club". Anything else that follows from that situation should have been and should still be done within the rules. The Olympic Committe showed integrity and balanced leadership whilst the Scottish Football Authorities have failed at every turn to do so. Their failure has done irreparable damage to Scottish Football.

Green bought the business and assets from Rangers FC plc, which is Rangers Football Club. This included their memberships of the SFA and SPL. I think you're attaching too great an importance to the survival of the body corporate. By that logic, Hibernian FC could no longer have existed if Mercer had bought a 75% majority and liquidated the operating company.

[VickMackie]

Would it surprise anyone of Johnston votes with Celtic to keep the tv rights the same for when his beloved get back to the top?

[CentreLine]

Green bought the business and assets from Rangers FC plc, which is Rangers Football Club. This included their memberships of the SFA and SPL. I think you're attaching too great an importance to the survival of the body corporate. By that logic, Hibernian FC could no longer have existed if Mercer had bought a 75% majority and liquidated the operating company.

Nope. But I am attaching a great deal of importance to the survival of Scottish football. That was and is the point of my post. I think you have attached to great an importance to Rangers Football Club which, for me, is what the governing body has done. It has been nice chatting but we are in danger of getting one of these :hijack: and I think we are going to have to agree to differ

[StevieC]

Would it surprise anyone of Johnston votes with Celtic to keep the tv rights the same for when his beloved get back to the top?

It would surprise me, because Killie are a team that will desperately need a bigger share of TV money and getting that, to the detriment of Celtic, is something he'll be aiming for.

[VickMackie]

It would surprise me, because Killie are a team that will desperately need a bigger share of TV money and getting that, to the detriment of Celtic, is something he'll be aiming for.

Good point.

I do have a suspicion though that if it's not done and dusted early in the season, even if it starts next season, then those nearer the top end might vote to keep it the same.

[jgl07]

Which would have meant locking them out of the league structure, despite the SFL clubs voting 29-1 to admit them into their league at the bottom level.

If 'Rangers' were trated as a completely new entity they would escape all punishments.

However they would only be able to play outside the SFL - probably in the East of Scotland Seniors - for three years while they accumulated the necessary set of account before they could apply for SFA membership. Then they would be eligible to apply for any vacancy that arose in the SFL.

The fact that they have been admitted to SFL3 and been viewed as a continuation of the 'old' Rangers suggested that the should be made responsible for football debts as well as any punishments handed down regading dual contracts and other malpractice.

[Hibs Class]

Not sure how new this news is but it was posted on the BBc last evening - the commission to investigate the EBTs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19102870

[Part/Time Supporter]

Good point.

I do have a suspicion though that if it's not done and dusted early in the season, even if it starts next season, then those nearer the top end might vote to keep it the same.

The funny thing is, without Rangers in the SPL, having a disproportionate amount of prize money for finishing second kind of makes sense. It (in all likelihood) rewards the team that finishes best of the rest. Whereas before it was just guaranteed income for whichever OF team was losing.

[Steve-O]

You need to read my post over again. I have suggested none of the above.

Sadly Rangers Football Club no longer exists (or will no longer exisit after the liquidators are in place) and nowhere do I suggest that the disqualified players should never play again. In fact, my inference is that, by acting quickly and decisively, the Olympic Authorities have probably ensured that they can compete again with their credibility intact. This is something the Scottish Football Authorities failed to do with Rangers FC.

IMHO no punishment should be applied to the company emerging as The Rangers, they should simply have been allowed to work their way in to Scottish football within the rules and, as I have stated in previous posts, The Rangers will become anything their supporters wish them to become. My issue is with the failure of the Scottish Football authorities to act decisively and fairly within the rules and also the present Scottish Football in the best possible light.

Your own post is therefore ill-considered, ridiculous, overblown nonsense but that is only my opinion

So what do you think about the fact they've basically kept the name, the badge, the strips, the stadium, the training ground, the manager, the coaching staff, a number of players and the history? And that they are openly stating 'Rangers will always be Rangers' etc. They had the chance to start afresh IMO, and they've blown it. They can also face the consequences of even being associated with the cheats of 2001-2011.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not sure how new this news is but it was posted on the BBc last evening - the commission to investigate the EBTs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19102870

Yeah, I saw that.

A few points:-

1. I am not sure how the commission differs from the legal firm that were appointed in the first place. Perhaps the lawyers have assembled the evidence, and it will be up to the commission to hear that, and to hear counter-arguments from the other side.

2. who are "the other side"? Is it NewHun or OldHun?

3. like the SFA tribunal, I am pleased to see that the commission will be independent. Although the anti-Doncaster lobby might see this as him washing his hands of any responsibility for a nasty verdict for Rangers, I think it is a sign of transparency.

[CentreLine]

So what do you think about the fact they've basically kept the name, the badge, the strips, the stadium, the training ground, the manager, the coaching staff, a number of players and the history? And that they are openly stating 'Rangers will always be Rangers' etc. They had the chance to start afresh IMO, and they've blown it. They can also face the consequences of even being associated with the cheats of 2001-2011.

I think this is a symptom of the failure of the Scottish Football Authorities to apply the rules properly and clear steps in creating the myth that Rangers FC still exist. But everyone knows that is not the case. The new club will become whatever its followers want it to become but it is not and never can be Rangers FC. But what we have is a completely new entity that has purchased the good will and assets of a soon to be defunct company. There will always be people living in denial and thinking it is the same thing and there is nothing wrong with that. Lots of people put a great deal of importance on football clubs and live their lives through the success or failure of those clubs. Rangers fans are as entitled to that as any other.

After the failure of the CVA nobody could prevent the end of Rangers Football Club and when it folded everything about it was consigned to history. It is the memory of that club and not the club itself that will survive. People will do everything they can to pretend that the club brings with it its history and past successes and the Scottish Football Authorities and media are working hard to that end.

Opinions eh?

[Hibs Class]

Yeah, I saw that.

A few points:-

1. I am not sure how the commission differs from the legal firm that were appointed in the first place. Perhaps the lawyers have assembled the evidence, and it will be up to the commission to hear that, and to hear counter-arguments from the other side.

2. who are "the other side"? Is it NewHun or OldHun?

3. like the SFA tribunal, I am pleased to see that the commission will be independent. Although the anti-Doncaster lobby might see this as him washing his hands of any responsibility for a nasty verdict for Rangers, I think it is a sign of transparency.

Agree. The article doesn't name the members and I haven't done any digging, but it can only be a matter of time before there are calls for their identities to be disclosed "in the interests of full transparency" :rolleyes:

[Caversham Green]

The funny thing is, without Rangers in the SPL, having a disproportionate amount of prize money for finishing second kind of makes sense. It (in all likelihood) rewards the team that finishes best of the rest. Whereas before it was just guaranteed income for whichever OF team was losing.

I was thinking the same thing. While Rangers are out of the SPL, keeping the current shares will help some clubs from the bottom 11 to survive the armageddon that will surely be upon us in the next few days. Also, the clubs that aspire to second place might elect to keep thing the way they are.

They should be changing the voting structure though, that's the first step to changing the income-sharing but one doesn't have to follow the other immediately. Maybe they should also be looking at gate-sharing before the distribution of TV money as well.

[s.a.m]

Chris Musson‏@camusson SPL:"At eight minutes past ten this morning, the member clubs unanimously approved the transfer of Rangers’ SPL share to Dundee" #ohthedrama (http://www.hibs.net/#!/search/%23ohthedrama)

[Caversham Green]

I think this is a symptom of the failure of the Scottish Football Authorities to apply the rules properly and clear steps in creating the myth that Rangers FC still exist. But everyone knows that is not the case. The new club will become whatever its followers want it to become but it is not and never can be Rangers FC. But what we have is a completely new entity that has purchased the good will and assets of a soon to be defunct company. There will always be people living in denial and thinking it is the same thing and there is nothing wrong with that. Lots of people put a great deal of importance on football clubs and live their lives through the success or failure of those clubs. Rangers fans are as entitled to that as any other.

After the failure of the CVA nobody could prevent the end of Rangers Football Club and when it folded everything about it was consigned to history. It is the memory of that club and not the club itself that will survive. People will do everything they can to pretend that the club brings with it its history and past successes and the Scottish Football Authorities and media are working hard to that end.

Opinions eh?

The SFA and SPL rules could be interpreted as giving a club a separate identity from the company that operates it, so it's arguable that Rangers Football Club survived the demise of The Rangers Football Club plc - it's not an interpretation I would agree with, but the possibility is there. That being the case though, the SPL had no grounds for refusing the transfer of the share and Sevco should still be in the SPL subject to sanctions arising from the SFA hearing and potential sanctions from the EBT investigation. There's no doubt that in civil law they have avoided their financial obligations through administration/liquidation.

The alternative as you suggest is treating them as a completely new club with no obligations carrying over from the old one, but concessions have already been made by allowing that club to enter the league structure several steps higher than they should have and allowing them to use the name 'Rangers'. This means that Sevco are now neither one thing nor the other as a result of weak management by the authorities, but they seem to be gravitating more towards the continuation side, so they need to face the charges raised against the club when it was operated by the company that is now approaching liquidation. They would be allowed to keep the club's history though, subject to amendment for seasons where the old company fielded ineligible players.

[Jim44]

Chris Musson‏@camusson SPL:"At eight minutes past ten this morning, the member clubs unanimously approved the transfer of Rangers’ SPL share to Dundee" #ohthedrama (http://www.hibs.net/#!/search/%23ohthedrama)

Presumably from the same meeting, Doncaster saying that the loss of cash to SPL clubs from TV deals could be a 7 figure sum. That could be £9.9M or it could be £1M. Why the vagueness from this balloon? He's only happy when he's painting pictures of doom and gloom.

[green glory]

Just back from hols, did the Currents get their full SFA membership in time for this weekend's glamour clash with Peterhead?

[Spike Mandela]

Just back from hols, did the Currents get their full SFA membership in time for this weekend's glamour clash with Peterhead?

Full membership just announced official.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19120224

[hibs0666]

Full membership just announced official.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19120224

That's everyothing done and dusted then. Can we close this thread, get on with the fitba and ignore the huns until such times as we play then again?

[CropleyWasGod]

That's everyothing done and dusted then. Can we close this thread, get on with the fitba and ignore the huns until such times as we play then again?


You really think so? :greengrin

[Spike Mandela]

That's everyothing done and dusted then. Can we close this thread, get on with the fitba and ignore the huns until such times as we play then again?

Still got the actual liquidation process and the EBT investigation to come. This thread will run and run.

[hibs0666]

You really think so? :greengrin

Everything that's significant, yes. It's been a good distraction and I'm gratified to see the huns get their just desserts but it's time to move on and concern ourselves with our own team again.

[hibs0666]

Still got the actual liquidation process and the EBT investigation to come. This thread will run and run.

They will have no material impact on the huns going forward, everything outstanding is for the historians.

[CropleyWasGod]

They will have no material impact on the huns going forward, everything outstanding is for the historians.

Disagree completely.

If BDO decide that the transfer of the assets to Sevco was significantly below Market Value, then that could have serious implications. If the property goes back to RFC for sale on the open market, what then for the football club? If , alternatively, Sevco have to stump up the full value, can they afford it?

As for the EBT commission, the penalties that may be imposed on Sevco could be substantial as well.

[down-the-slope]

They will have no material impact on the huns going forward, everything outstanding is for the historians.

Oh but it will if they are held responsible (given they now have OldCo licence) for the 'sins of the Fathers':greengrin

[blackpoolhibs]

Oh but it will if they are held responsible (given they now have OldCo licence) for the 'sins of the Fathers':greengrin

So they could be punished, i hate using that phrase, for the cash their father whored? :wink:

[Kaiser1962]

Disagree completely.

If BDO decide that the transfer of the assets to Sevco was significantly below Market Value, then that could have serious implications. If the property goes back to RFC for sale on the open market, what then for the football club? If , alternatively, Sevco have to stump up the full value, can they afford it?

As for the EBT commission, the penalties that may be imposed on Sevco could be substantial as well.


Hard to argue that it wasnt IMO. D+P could/will say that was the best offer available but they will have to show, will they not, that other avenues were explored including selling the assetts independent of each other and that Greens offer was most beneficial for the creditors. Given that Davis alone has "moved" for £800k it might be a difficult gig.

[Jack]

They will have no material impact on the huns going forward, everything outstanding is for the historians.

Maybe not but the deplorable behavior of most of their club officials over the bit has still to be answered for. Just wait until the titles and cups go, Sally'll go silly.

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19112996

Five men have been arrested over alleged offensive singing at last weekend's Brechin v Rangers match.


i'l be much happier when 45,000+ are finally arrested for the singing at the hun v killie game last febuary :greengrin

[LeighLoyal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19112996

Five men have been arrested over alleged offensive singing at last weekend's Brechin v Rangers match.


i'l be much happier when 45,000+ are finally arrested for the singing at the hun v killie game last febuary :greengrin



It will be a long wait, but this is Sevco and not Rangers. Rangers died. :agree: Hopefully the police will be better at enforcing public order on Sevco in SFL3 than they were with Rangers in the SPL. Those indulging in discriminatory chants are there to be lifted in these small grounds, even if it's just lifting the ring leaders.

[Eyrie]

Billy Dodds has now issued a denial (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19122299)that he had a side contract at Ibrox and says that no-one else did either.

Reading through the article, he seems to think that giving up the money he was entitled to under his contract and then receiving the same sum through an EBT doesn't count. Are we honestly expected to believe that he gave up £190k in his hand on the off chance that at some point he might successfully apply for a loan from the EBT? Far more likely that this was agreed to in advance, in which case it's surely a contractual entitlement which would mean that it should be taxable in HMRC's eyes (based on what I've read here).

And even allowing for him pleading he's only a thick footballer, the question remains of whether this contractual payment was notified to the SPL as required.

PS: Why have the BBC listed this story as a lead item on their SPL page and not on their Third Division page? It's got sweet FA to do with an SPL club and everything to do with a Division Three team.

[Geo_1875]

Billy Dodds has now issued a denial (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19122299)that he had a side contract at Ibrox and says that no-one else did either.

Reading through the article, he seems to think that giving up the money he was entitled to under his contract and then receiving the same sum through an EBT doesn't count. Are we honestly expected to believe that he gave up £190k in his hand on the off chance that at some point he might successfully apply for a loan from the EBT? Far more likely that this was agreed to in advance, in which case it's surely a contractual entitlement which would mean that it should be taxable in HMRC's eyes (based on what I've read here).

And even allowing for him pleading he's only a thick footballer, the question remains of whether this contractual payment was notified to the SPL as required.

PS: Why have the BBC listed this story as a lead item on their SPL page and not on their Third Division page? It's got sweet FA to do with an SPL club and everything to do with a Division Three team.

Nothing to do with Sevco apparently. Everything to do with the ex-SPL team called Rangers.

[whiskyhibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19112996

Five men have been arrested over alleged offensive singing at last weekend's Brechin v Rangers match.


i'l be much happier when 45,000+ are finally arrested for the singing at the hun v killie game last febuary :greengrin

Glad to see that the polis are hopefully getting to grips with this

[Kaiser1962]

There is apparently a line of thinking that if HMRC cant recover the tax from Rangers then those that DO have a "side letter" knew what they were doing and were party to a fraud, therefore HMRC may go after the beneficiaries (I doubt they will though) should Rangers be unable to pay, which they cant.

I am told its a bit like taking advice that it's ok to batter James Traynor because he's a twat when, fundamentally it turns out, despite doing a public service, it would be against the law and you would be charged. Claiming umpteen thousand guys said it would be fine is not a defence.

Despite all this Dodds, as a UK national, should have a P45 from that period which would detail the payment, failing that the minimum he should have is a P60 which would detail money recieved and tax paid. His accountants will have this, the same ones that persuaded him to invest (for tax purposes) in film companies, so they just produce them and he has nothing to worry about.





Billy Dodds has now issued a denial (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19122299)that he had a side contract at Ibrox and says that no-one else did either.

[grunt]

Billy Dodds has now issued a denial (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19122299)that he had a side contract at Ibrox and says that no-one else did either.



"I can see that there was maybe a small advantage for the club but as players and coaches you don't think about it."

It'd be interesting to know why he thinks that avoiding £24m tax amounted to "a small advantage". Something approaching six times our annual wage bill.

[Caversham Green]

There is apparently a line of thinking that if HMRC cant recover the tax from Rangers then those that DO have a "side letter" knew what they were doing and were party to a fraud, therefore HMRC may go after the beneficiaries (I doubt they will though) should Rangers be unable to pay, which they cant.

I am told its a bit like taking advice that it's ok to batter James Traynor because he's a twat when, fundamentally it turns out, despite doing a public service, it would be against the law and you would be charged. Claiming umpteen thousand guys said it would be fine is not a defence.

Despite all this Dodds, as a UK national, should have a P45 from that period which would detail the payment, failing that the minimum he should have is a P60 which would detail money recieved and tax paid. His accountants will have this, the same ones that persuaded him to invest (for tax purposes) in film companies, so they just produce them and he has nothing to worry about.

Dodds would be well-advised to keep his mouth shut on this subject (and any other subject to be fair). His story changes every time he tells it, but he consistently confirms that the EBT scheme was not being operated properly and he makes it clear that he never considered the payment to be a loan. The implication there is that he or his advisers knew full well what the arrangements were and, as you say that lays him open to attack from HMRC.

On your point about Jim Traynor, no jury in the country would convict. In fact they'd probably insist you do it again.

[lapsedhibee]

Dodds would be well-advised to keep his mouth shut on this subject (and any other subject to be fair). His story changes every time he tells it, but he consistently confirms that the EBT scheme was not being operated properly and he makes it clear that he never considered the payment to be a loan. The implication there is that he or his advisers knew full well what the arrangements were and, as you say that lays him open to attack from HMRC.

I am struggling - really struggling - to decide which of Dodds and McCoist is the thicker. :dunno:

[The Falcon]

Dodds would be well-advised to keep his mouth shut on this subject (and any other subject to be fair). His story changes every time he tells it, but he consistently confirms that the EBT scheme was not being operated properly and he makes it clear that he never considered the payment to be a loan. The implication there is that he or his advisers knew full well what the arrangements were and, as you say that lays him open to attack from HMRC.

On your point about Jim Traynor, no jury in the country would convict. In fact they'd probably insist you do it again.


As Billy Dodds has said, again, that the tax was already paid on the £190k he received am I right in thinking that the amount of the Big Tax Case is, or should be, the higher amount? The debate appeared to be that (over the amount owed) was that the tax had already been deducted, or the lower amount if tax had not been taken. Surely both Dodds and Bomsong have now confirmed that this was a method of paying wages and that the payments were already net of the taxes liable, which Rangers did not pass to the exchequer.

Such activity is a crime, is it not?

[jgl07]

Billy Dodds has now issued a denial (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19122299)that he had a side contract at Ibrox and says that no-one else did either.

Reading through the article, he seems to think that giving up the money he was entitled to under his contract and then receiving the same sum through an EBT doesn't count. Are we honestly expected to believe that he gave up £190k in his hand on the off chance that at some point he might successfully apply for a loan from the EBT? Far more likely that this was agreed to in advance, in which case it's surely a contractual entitlement which would mean that it should be taxable in HMRC's eyes (based on what I've read here).

And even allowing for him pleading he's only a thick footballer, the question remains of whether this contractual payment was notified to the SPL as required.

PS: Why have the BBC listed this story as a lead item on their SPL page and not on their Third Division page? It's got sweet FA to do with an SPL club and everything to do with a Division Three team.

Fairly obvious answer. Because the SPL are running the enquiry!

Where else would it be filed? The General Assembly of the United Nations?

[Caversham Green]

As Billy Dodds has said, again, that the tax was already paid on the £190k he received am I right in thinking that the amount of the Big Tax Case is, or should be, the higher amount? The debate appeared to be that (over the amount owed) was that the tax had already been deducted, or the lower amount if tax had not been taken. Surely both Dodds and Bomsong have now confirmed that this was a method of paying wages and that the payments were already net of the taxes liable, which Rangers did not pass to the exchequer.

Such activity is a crime, is it not?

That's right. IIRC Dodds said in one of his stories that the payment was to cover the amount due to the end of his contract, which means it should have been taxed in the normal way. If the £190k was net of tax, the gross amount would be well over £300k and the tax would be £120k+. In this case RFC have effectively defrauded Dodds by telling him that his tax was paid over to HMRC as well as defrauding HMRC itself. Given the apparent frequency and the extended period over which these type of payments occurred that has to be criminal behaviour. If the payment was gross (i.e. before tax) the tax element would be about £80k, but the payment should not have been made gross under UK rules.

Dodds' problem now is that he has stated that he knew the payment came from an EBT but was never considered to be a loan. He or his advisers would be expected to know that this was a scheme for evading tax and so they become accomplices in the fraud. In short, if the tax is payable by Dodds the amount would be £80k, if it's payable by RFC - which would be HMRC's argument - it would be over £120k.

[Bostonhibby]

I am struggling - really struggling - to decide which of Dodds and McCoist is the thicker. :dunno:

You could probably blast them both through the Hadron collider a couple of times to establish who has the greater density but a quick analysis might be to say that Dodds is marginally thicker but Sally is the wider of the two?

[CropleyWasGod]

That's right. IIRC Dodds said in one of his stories that the payment was to cover the amount due to the end of his contract, which means it should have been taxed in the normal way. If the £190k was net of tax, the gross amount would be well over £300k and the tax would be £120k+. In this case RFC have effectively defrauded Dodds by telling him that his tax was paid over to HMRC as well as defrauding HMRC itself. Given the apparent frequency and the extended period over which these type of payments occurred that has to be criminal behaviour. If the payment was gross (i.e. before tax) the tax element would be about £80k, but the payment should not have been made gross under UK rules.

Dodds' problem now is that he has stated that he knew the payment came from an EBT but was never considered to be a loan. He or his advisers would be expected to know that this was a scheme for evading tax and so they become accomplices in the fraud. In short, if the tax is payable by Dodds the amount would be £80k, if it's payable by RFC - which would be HMRC's argument - it would be over £120k.

As we both know, Cav, HMRC are very good at getting some of their evidence from the media. It wouldn't surprise me if Dodds gets a wee letter from them. :agree:

[H18sry]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19137624?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19137624?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Given that Harper Macleod were appointed weeks ago; they have taken their time .

[calmac12000]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19137624?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I ddo hope the SFL, take full cognizance of this information from the ever compliant hordes of Mordor and then treat it with the utter contempt it deserves.
The one good thing about the travails of SEVCO and their supporters is that at least it stops you being totally suicidal thinking about Hibs(mind, I hope I'm not tempting fate saying that before next weekend!)
:flag:

[StevieC]

Given that Harper Macleod were appointed weeks ago; they have taken their time .

They are only collecting the evidence though, it's someone else that will actually make the decision.

To be honest, I'd be wary of ANY Glasgow based organisation being able to carry out any task unbiased when it comes to Rangers. I reckon they'd be too worried about potential repurcussions to carry out a full and proper investigation and present all the facts. It is guaranteed to be skewed in favour of The Rangers.

[LeighLoyal]

They are only collecting the evidence though, it's someone else that will actually make the decision.

To be honest, I'd be wary of ANY Glasgow based organisation being able to carry out any task unbiased when it comes to Rangers. I reckon they'd be too worried about potential repurcussions to carry out a full and proper investigation and present all the facts. It is guaranteed to be skewed in favour of The Rangers.



All they are doing is gathering information, but it's still a Catholic/Celtic conspiracy according to the usual hun sources.

[green glory]

David Murray making a statement on EBT's shortly. This could be very interesting.

https://twitter.com/stv_andy/status/232443991940014081

[CropleyWasGod]

They are only collecting the evidence though, it's someone else that will actually make the decision.

To be honest, I'd be wary of ANY Glasgow based organisation being able to carry out any task unbiased when it comes to Rangers. I reckon they'd be too worried about potential repurcussions to carry out a full and proper investigation and present all the facts. It is guaranteed to be skewed in favour of The Rangers.

My point, badly put, is that I am surprised the Huns have taken this long to complain, given that HM were in post weeks ago.

[Famous5forever]

David Murray making a statement on EBT's shortly. This could be very interesting.

https://twitter.com/stv_andy/status/232443991940014081

im sure he was Duped will what the Spin will be.:confused:

[PatHead]

Re-arrange these words

Did, it, wiznae me, that, ran away, it was a, big man.-

or

Anyone for lamb?

[Famous5forever]

Re-arrange these words

Did, it, wiznae me, that, ran away, it was a, big man.-

or

Anyone for lamb?

And it was partly to blame because of excessive consumption of Fine Wine at lunch time which imparred his judgement its all Jim Traynors fault Guv nowt to do wi me.:confused:

[H18sry]

Murray's full statement:



I have decided to issue this statement because of the concerns which I have at the continuing attempts to inflict further punishment on Rangers Football Club.
While the "Newco" Rangers was rejected for membership of the SPL on the publicly stated grounds of sporting integrity, I would question whether this was the underlying motive for many who took this decision.

I am not totally convinced by the explanation that they were reacting to the opinions of the supporters of their individual clubs.
This, in my opinion, is a suitable answer to cover many other agendas.

I applaud the decision of the SFL to accept Rangers for membership and respect the decision of the member clubs of the SFL to admit Rangers to its Third Division.

The problems at Rangers have brought no credit to Scottish football and are a tragedy for the Club and for all those connected with it and who support it. They cannot be condoned and it is appropriate that there should be a proportionate penalty for the Club for the events over the last year.
However, I urge all those connected with Scottish football to bring this sad affair to a close - now. Bayoneting the wounded is neither justified nor proportionate.

Nevertheless, I cannot be anything other than angered at the suggestion that Rangers should be stripped of titles or other competition victories.
This suggestion is an insult to the staff and players who achieved these successes thanks to skill, hard work and commitment and for no other reason.

It is also an insult to the thousands of Rangers supporters who spent their hard-earned money to support the Club they love.
I hope that those presently in charge of Rangers show sufficient resolve when it comes to resisting this move, despite the incentives being offered to do otherwise.

I believe that there is a misconception which may lie behind this suggested penalty and accordingly it is my duty to clarify certain matters.
During my stewardship of Rangers no rules were breached or circumvented and I reject and resent any suggestion that anything was done which amounted to cheating.

As was required of a PLC, all accounts were fully audited and made available to all entitled parties. All football rules were complied with. All enquiries from entitled parties or organisations were answered.

To those who criticise certain actions undertaken on behalf of the Club, I suggest that they familiarise themselves with all relevant rules before they come to any conclusions or express any opinions.
This is particularly relevant to the SPL rules where it would appear that there are efforts to retrospectively rewrite laws to incorporate items not previously covered.

The SPL rules variously required disclosure of all contract of service matters and all payments from a club to a player.
It would now appear that these are to be rewritten to incorporate non-contractual loans from independent third parties and other non-contractual matters.

If this is the case then press comment over the past few years would appear to indicate that several clubs other than Rangers may well have fallen foul of the soon to be changed historic laws.

It would also appear that the SPL is once again seeking to invest itself with a power of retrospective penalty beyond that prescribed in its own rules.
Much has been said and written about EBTs.

It should be noted that the tax treatment of these is an issue as yet unresolved and it is wrong to prejudge the outcome.
It must be stressed that the tax tribunal will determine the appropriate tax treatment in respect of the arrangements operated.

This is not a criminal matter and there is presently no question as to the legality of these schemes.
Rangers agreed contracts of employment with its players (and staff). The EBT scheme involved the contribution of funds into an offshore discretionary trust managed by independent trustees.
The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates.

There was no contractual or beneficial entitlement to the funds on the part of any individual and the monies paid to EBTs were not "remuneration" in terms of any rules applying to the Club.
Since 2001 when the EBT scheme was introduced, the amounts contributed were disclosed in the audited financial statements of the Club. These audited accounts were provided to the SFA and SPL as required.

As the law stands, it is the right of every taxpayer to minimise his tax liability.
For example, taxpayers are entitled to maximise contributions to pension funds and benefit from the resultant tax allowances. Tax AVOIDANCE is a right. It is tax EVASION which is a crime.

In December 2010, as a result of legislation changes introduced by HMRC, EBTs were rendered tax inefficient. Thereafter the Club made no further contributions to EBTs.
For the avoidance of doubt, many thousands of employees in many areas of business and commerce have benefited from EBTs.
Rangers sought only to provide financial security for players (and staff) within the rules of law and football. To suggest that this amounted to cheating in the sporting context is an allegation which is without any foundation.

I, of course, wish the "new" Rangers every success for the future. I have no doubt that the present generation of players and staff will make a positive and beneficial contribution to the SPL and, in due course, return the Club to a position of pre-eminence in Scottish football.
However, I am determined to support those who served the Club with such dignity and integrity during my stewardship.

[Andy74]

Murray's full statement:



I have decided to issue this statement because of the concerns which I have at the continuing attempts to inflict further punishment on Rangers Football Club.
While the "Newco" Rangers was rejected for membership of the SPL on the publicly stated grounds of sporting integrity, I would question whether this was the underlying motive for many who took this decision.

I am not totally convinced by the explanation that they were reacting to the opinions of the supporters of their individual clubs.
This, in my opinion, is a suitable answer to cover many other agendas.

I applaud the decision of the SFL to accept Rangers for membership and respect the decision of the member clubs of the SFL to admit Rangers to its Third Division.

The problems at Rangers have brought no credit to Scottish football and are a tragedy for the Club and for all those connected with it and who support it. They cannot be condoned and it is appropriate that there should be a proportionate penalty for the Club for the events over the last year.
However, I urge all those connected with Scottish football to bring this sad affair to a close - now. Bayoneting the wounded is neither justified nor proportionate.

Nevertheless, I cannot be anything other than angered at the suggestion that Rangers should be stripped of titles or other competition victories.
This suggestion is an insult to the staff and players who achieved these successes thanks to skill, hard work and commitment and for no other reason.

It is also an insult to the thousands of Rangers supporters who spent their hard-earned money to support the Club they love.
I hope that those presently in charge of Rangers show sufficient resolve when it comes to resisting this move, despite the incentives being offered to do otherwise.

I believe that there is a misconception which may lie behind this suggested penalty and accordingly it is my duty to clarify certain matters.
During my stewardship of Rangers no rules were breached or circumvented and I reject and resent any suggestion that anything was done which amounted to cheating.

As was required of a PLC, all accounts were fully audited and made available to all entitled parties. All football rules were complied with. All enquiries from entitled parties or organisations were answered.

To those who criticise certain actions undertaken on behalf of the Club, I suggest that they familiarise themselves with all relevant rules before they come to any conclusions or express any opinions.
This is particularly relevant to the SPL rules where it would appear that there are efforts to retrospectively rewrite laws to incorporate items not previously covered.

The SPL rules variously required disclosure of all contract of service matters and all payments from a club to a player.
It would now appear that these are to be rewritten to incorporate non-contractual loans from independent third parties and other non-contractual matters.

If this is the case then press comment over the past few years would appear to indicate that several clubs other than Rangers may well have fallen foul of the soon to be changed historic laws.

It would also appear that the SPL is once again seeking to invest itself with a power of retrospective penalty beyond that prescribed in its own rules.
Much has been said and written about EBTs.

It should be noted that the tax treatment of these is an issue as yet unresolved and it is wrong to prejudge the outcome.
It must be stressed that the tax tribunal will determine the appropriate tax treatment in respect of the arrangements operated.

This is not a criminal matter and there is presently no question as to the legality of these schemes.
Rangers agreed contracts of employment with its players (and staff). The EBT scheme involved the contribution of funds into an offshore discretionary trust managed by independent trustees.
The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates.

There was no contractual or beneficial entitlement to the funds on the part of any individual and the monies paid to EBTs were not "remuneration" in terms of any rules applying to the Club.
Since 2001 when the EBT scheme was introduced, the amounts contributed were disclosed in the audited financial statements of the Club. These audited accounts were provided to the SFA and SPL as required.

As the law stands, it is the right of every taxpayer to minimise his tax liability.
For example, taxpayers are entitled to maximise contributions to pension funds and benefit from the resultant tax allowances. Tax AVOIDANCE is a right. It is tax EVASION which is a crime.

In December 2010, as a result of legislation changes introduced by HMRC, EBTs were rendered tax inefficient. Thereafter the Club made no further contributions to EBTs.
For the avoidance of doubt, many thousands of employees in many areas of business and commerce have benefited from EBTs.
Rangers sought only to provide financial security for players (and staff) within the rules of law and football. To suggest that this amounted to cheating in the sporting context is an allegation which is without any foundation.

I, of course, wish the "new" Rangers every success for the future. I have no doubt that the present generation of players and staff will make a positive and beneficial contribution to the SPL and, in due course, return the Club to a position of pre-eminence in Scottish football.
However, I am determined to support those who served the Club with such dignity and integrity during my stewardship.

Yet again it's everyone else's fault for wishing to punish Rangers.

[StevieC]

The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates.


Billy Dodds is going to be gutted, he was convinced it was money due to him rather than an interest gathering loan!!

[CropleyWasGod]

Billy Dodds is going to be gutted, he was convinced it was money due to him rather than an interest gathering loan!!

SDM has said a lot of the right things, IMO. From an RFC point of view, the payments to the trusts were legitimate. It is what happened to that money once it was in the control of the trust that is important from the tax point of view.

However, it is this phrase that it is crucial. "There was no contractual or beneficial entitlement to the funds on the part of any individual".

Is that true? That will, IMO, be the central argument in the SPL investigation.

Of course, it could all be cleared up nicely if all of the recipients of the loans paid them back at the agreed times. :cb

[CraigHibee]

stv news reporting that sandaza is close to agreeing a £5k a week contract, hope the huns are back in administration by Christmas

[LeighLoyal]

Murray: desperate words from a desperate man that knows he's very likely going to jail, an outcome that would be a just one for his £700m debt mountain, part of which funded his wild excesses at RFC 1872-2012.

[Col2]

and yet not an apology, an apology to the rest of Scottish Football, Rangers fans, Scottish football supporters, the wide range of small creditors and anyone else impacted by his and Whyte's actions. Yes Whyte was the fraudster who pushed them over the edge but David Murray created the total mess that exited before.

Despite hiding for months, avoiding all publicity he comes out at this stage and yet still no remorse or apology. Me thinks SPL verdict or EBT tax case decision is imminent.

[Spike Mandela]

and yet not an apology, an apology to the rest of Scottish Football, Rangers fans, Scottish football supporters, the wide range of small creditors and anyone else impacted by his and Whyte's actions. Yes Whyte was the fraudster who pushed them over the edge but David Murray created the total mess that exited before.

Despite hiding for months, avoiding all publicity he comes out at this stage and yet still no remorse or apology. Me thinks SPL verdict or EBT tax case decision is imminent.

:agree: My first thought on hearing he had made a statement was that the Big tax case appeal result must be imminent and Murray has got wind of it.

[Ozyhibby]

Murray offers no new evidence for the defence other than 'we did nothing wrong, how dare you suggest we did'.
A weak statement.

[LeighLoyal]

Anyone know how they managed to have their Wiki page reinstated to make it look like Sevco 2012 = RFC 1872 :confused: The filth also still have the five stars above their Sevco badge according to the training clip I saw at Sevco Park. How is that allowed? :confused: They have no history to claim.

[Jack]

Murray's full statement:



I have decided to issue this statement because of the concerns which I have at the continuing attempts to inflict further punishment on Rangers Football Club.
While the "Newco" Rangers was rejected for membership of the SPL on the publicly stated grounds of sporting integrity, I would question whether this was the underlying motive for many who took this decision.

I am not totally convinced by the explanation that they were reacting to the opinions of the supporters of their individual clubs.
This, in my opinion, is a suitable answer to cover many other agendas.

I applaud the decision of the SFL to accept Rangers for membership and respect the decision of the member clubs of the SFL to admit Rangers to its Third Division.

The problems at Rangers have brought no credit to Scottish football and are a tragedy for the Club and for all those connected with it and who support it. They cannot be condoned and it is appropriate that there should be a proportionate penalty for the Club for the events over the last year.
However, I urge all those connected with Scottish football to bring this sad affair to a close - now. Bayoneting the wounded is neither justified nor proportionate.

Nevertheless, I cannot be anything other than angered at the suggestion that Rangers should be stripped of titles or other competition victories.
This suggestion is an insult to the staff and players who achieved these successes thanks to skill, hard work and commitment and for no other reason.

It is also an insult to the thousands of Rangers supporters who spent their hard-earned money to support the Club they love.
I hope that those presently in charge of Rangers show sufficient resolve when it comes to resisting this move, despite the incentives being offered to do otherwise.

I believe that there is a misconception which may lie behind this suggested penalty and accordingly it is my duty to clarify certain matters.
During my stewardship of Rangers no rules were breached or circumvented and I reject and resent any suggestion that anything was done which amounted to cheating.

As was required of a PLC, all accounts were fully audited and made available to all entitled parties. All football rules were complied with. All enquiries from entitled parties or organisations were answered.

To those who criticise certain actions undertaken on behalf of the Club, I suggest that they familiarise themselves with all relevant rules before they come to any conclusions or express any opinions.
This is particularly relevant to the SPL rules where it would appear that there are efforts to retrospectively rewrite laws to incorporate items not previously covered.

The SPL rules variously required disclosure of all contract of service matters and all payments from a club to a player.
It would now appear that these are to be rewritten to incorporate non-contractual loans from independent third parties and other non-contractual matters.

If this is the case then press comment over the past few years would appear to indicate that several clubs other than Rangers may well have fallen foul of the soon to be changed historic laws.

It would also appear that the SPL is once again seeking to invest itself with a power of retrospective penalty beyond that prescribed in its own rules.
Much has been said and written about EBTs.

It should be noted that the tax treatment of these is an issue as yet unresolved and it is wrong to prejudge the outcome.
It must be stressed that the tax tribunal will determine the appropriate tax treatment in respect of the arrangements operated.

This is not a criminal matter and there is presently no question as to the legality of these schemes.
Rangers agreed contracts of employment with its players (and staff). The EBT scheme involved the contribution of funds into an offshore discretionary trust managed by independent trustees.
The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates.

There was no contractual or beneficial entitlement to the funds on the part of any individual and the monies paid to EBTs were not "remuneration" in terms of any rules applying to the Club.
Since 2001 when the EBT scheme was introduced, the amounts contributed were disclosed in the audited financial statements of the Club. These audited accounts were provided to the SFA and SPL as required.

As the law stands, it is the right of every taxpayer to minimise his tax liability.
For example, taxpayers are entitled to maximise contributions to pension funds and benefit from the resultant tax allowances. Tax AVOIDANCE is a right. It is tax EVASION which is a crime.

In December 2010, as a result of legislation changes introduced by HMRC, EBTs were rendered tax inefficient. Thereafter the Club made no further contributions to EBTs.
For the avoidance of doubt, many thousands of employees in many areas of business and commerce have benefited from EBTs.
Rangers sought only to provide financial security for players (and staff) within the rules of law and football. To suggest that this amounted to cheating in the sporting context is an allegation which is without any foundation.

I, of course, wish the "new" Rangers every success for the future. I have no doubt that the present generation of players and staff will make a positive and beneficial contribution to the SPL and, in due course, return the Club to a position of pre-eminence in Scottish football.
However, I am determined to support those who served the Club with such dignity and integrity during my stewardship.

Thank you for clearing that up Sir David.

Would you mind awfully passing the mint sauce?

[blackpoolhibs]

Murray must be crapping his pants, he offloaded the club and thought that he'd got rid of the mess he created, but its going to come back and kick him right in the baws.

If anyone at sevco thought they would win the EBT case, they would never have put the club into liquidation? :thumbsup:

[CropleyWasGod]

Murray must be crapping his pants, he offloaded the club and thought that he'd got rid of the mess he created, but its going to come back and kick him right in the baws.

If anyone at sevco thought they would win the EBT case, they would never have put the club into liquidation? :thumbsup:

Nah. It would have still gone into administration, and liquidation would have followed. Even without the EBT debt, the company was insolvent. If the owners hadn't put it under, HMRC would have.

[Famous5forever]

Nah. It would have still gone into administration, and liquidation would have followed. Even without the EBT debt, the company was insolvent. If the owners hadn't put it under, HMRC would have.


Which would have been the best thing to happen as they would have appointed proper Admins that D&P mob were at it from day 1.

[LeighLoyal]

Which would have been the best thing to happen as they would have appointed proper Admins that D&P mob were at it from day 1.




Hopefully BDO will unravel the whole rotten lot.


So Murray now claims the EBT "loans" were all repayable, he owes BDO a cool 6m, and wee Doddsy has a call on a 190k IOU. Parcel of rogues!

[CropleyWasGod]

Which would have been the best thing to happen as they would have appointed proper Admins that D&P mob were at it from day 1.

In what way?

[Famous5forever]

In what way?

They have been all in facour of Rangers interests if HMRC Had appointed these BDO Boys who have a reputation for being ruthless my guess is they would be donald ducked by now.

[CropleyWasGod]

They have been all in facour of Rangers interests if HMRC Had appointed these BDO Boys who have a reputation for being ruthless my guess is they would be donald ducked by now.

But they are. The company is about to go into liquidation.

As for D&P's management of the administration, the jury is still out for me. BDO would have gone through the same process of trying to find a buyer for the club as a going concern. It's easy to be wise in hindsight, but back in February that was the obvious first step.

[CropleyWasGod]

Hopefully BDO will unravel the whole rotten lot.


So Murray now claims the EBT "loans" were all repayable, he owes BDO a cool 6m, and wee Doddsy has a call on a 190k IOU. Parcel of rogues!

He doesn't, though. The loans were from the Trusts, so if anyone is getting the money back it's them. RFC have no call on them...unless BDO can prove some sort of fraudulent activity involving RFC, the Trusts and the recipients of the loans.

That could take years, and I'm not sure there are enough funds left in RFC to pay for that sort of action.

[Bill Milne]

Murray's comments, together wither Dodds & McCoist, seem to be an attempt to forestall the inevitable hammer coming from BDO when Duff & Phelps finally put the oldco into liquidation. I understand that HMRC, via BDO, will be pursuing individuals to recover money for creditors. All those concerned from the relevant era, including Campbell Ogilvie, should, I feel, be very afraid.

[Onion]

But they are. The company is about to go into liquidation.

As for D&P's management of the administration, the jury is still out for me. BDO would have gone through the same process of trying to find a buyer for the club as a going concern. It's easy to be wise in hindsight, but back in February that was the obvious first step.

A going concern would normally involve immediate downsizing the company and quick assessment of its future prospects. D&P laid off less than handful of staff and facilitated the gift of the assets for a song, when a break up and sell off would clearly have brought better returns for creditors. I agree with many others, that had a dispassionate Administrator been allowed in, they would have stripped the club right down and squeezed as much a possible out of the process for the creditors. Rangers knew that too.

[Just Alf]

A going concern would normally involve immediate downsizing the company and quick assessment of its future prospects. D&P laid off less than handful of staff and facilitated the gift of the assets for a song, when a break up and sell off would clearly have brought better returns for creditors. I agree with many others, that had a dispassionate Administrator been allowed in, they would have stripped the club right down and squeezed as much a possible out of the process for the creditors. Rangers knew that too.

I've wondered this as well.....

Oldco should have been selling players during the last 2 windows and maybe, just maybe they would have survived all be it in a less succesful team for a while.... their problem was that they continued to chase Celtic when they knew they couldn't afford to.

When D&P came in I'm not sure what they could have done with the playing staff but I still believe they should have done something, pre-contract agreements or if agreeable to the player, sell to other leagues that were not closed for transfers etc. While downsizing the club, again, this might have been enough to keep Oldco's history inarguably intact (EBT's pending of course!) and may have made enough to get a CVA agreed.

[Hibs Class]

Which would have been the best thing to happen as they would have appointed proper Admins that D&P mob were at it from day 1.


In what way?


I posted early in the administration that it seemed D&P were not acting in the interests of the creditors. From memory the first sign was their approval of the attempt to sign Daniel Cousin which IIRC was blocked by the SFA/SPL. They did minimal lay-offs and even if they were trying to preserve value by holding on to players who could attract a fee in the summer they could have laid off players who would have been out of contract. Not only did they not reduce the staff (playing or non-playing) by any meaningful degree, they continued to run the club for the remainder of the season at a significant loss which, coupled with the speed at which they racked up their own fees further reduced the amount available to the creditors.

Lastly, if they were then given the benefit of the doubt for trying to keep the club going to preserve value, they then shattered that argument by practically giving it away to Green for a value well below its break-up value. Once it was clear that they were not going to attract a decent sale price as a going concern then they should have allowed it to be broken up to maximise the creditors' return. That wouldn't have been popular with Rangers' support but that really shouldn't have been a consideration for D&P. IMHO.

[Kaiser1962]

A going concern would normally involve immediate downsizing the company and quick assessment of its future prospects. D&P laid off less than handful of staff and facilitated the gift of the assets for a song, when a break up and sell off would clearly have brought better returns for creditors. I agree with many others, that had a dispassionate Administrator been allowed in, they would have stripped the club right down and squeezed as much a possible out of the process for the creditors. Rangers knew that too.

This was all down to timing and this part of the [cough "alledged"] plan appears to have went well. Rangers, as they were, entered administration on 14th of February, two weeks after the transfer window closed meaning that none of the players could feasibly be sold even if D+P had wanted to. Fast forward and there is a bit of a stramash to get all the assetts transferred to Sevco and this is done on, or about, 15th June which, spookily, is two weeks before the next transfer window opens.

When the SPFA state that players registrations do not neccessarily transfer to Sevco Chuckie boy has something akin to a fit and threatens legal action. Even the players that were lined up by other clubs had their moves obstructed by the SFA and Southampton had/have to pay a fee for Steve Davis which, in reality, amounts to more than half the overall combined purchase price of Old Rangers Stadium and training complex. All this despite the company that held their contracts not in a position to field a team and have nowhere to play.

Dodds and Boumsong have confirmed, in Dodds case twice, that they recieved payment from Rangers football club, via an EBT trust fund, for their services as professional football players. Dodds even said, twice, that the tax was already deducted from the payment he recieved and, as Dodds appears appears too stupid to making this up, I tend to believe him.

That, Dave my man, is Tax Evasion and as such you will do well to avoid prison, I doubt it though. Mind the lube.

[Famous5forever]

Murray's comments, together wither Dodds & McCoist, seem to be an attempt to forestall the inevitable hammer coming from BDO when Duff & Phelps finally put the oldco into liquidation. I understand that HMRC, via BDO, will be pursuing individuals to recover money for creditors. All those concerned from the relevant era, including Campbell Ogilvie, should, I feel, be very afraid.

This is good news if true however they have had so long to cover there tracks that i fear even BDO Will be lead on a wild goose chase.

[CropleyWasGod]

A going concern would normally involve immediate downsizing the company and quick assessment of its future prospects. D&P laid off less than handful of staff and facilitated the gift of the assets for a song, when a break up and sell off would clearly have brought better returns for creditors. I agree with many others, that had a dispassionate Administrator been allowed in, they would have stripped the club right down and squeezed as much a possible out of the process for the creditors. Rangers knew that too.

The value of the company as a GC, though, lay in its playing staff. That was their opinion at the time, and mine as well. The administrators attempted to preserve that value by keeping the squad together, whilst at the same time reducing the costs substantially.

Where they went wrong, though, was in not recognising the extent to which they were to be mucked about by time-wasters. That is why, IMO, they were backed into the corner of the derisory offers for the CVA and the assets.

[blindsummit]

Anyone know how they managed to have their Wiki page reinstated to make it look like Sevco 2012 = RFC 1872 :confused: The filth also still have the five stars above their Sevco badge according to the training clip I saw at Sevco Park. How is that allowed? :confused: They have no history to claim.

Indeed. The fix is well in.

Phoenix is the word that springs to mind again and again. If only someone with legal standing was willing to get them in court on this one. A creditor perhaps. It's amazed me how supine the creditors have been. If I was one of them and saw this phoenixism I would be lawyering up and getting sevco in court.

Of course if our so called governing body in the SFA, told them they couldn't do it, then that would help. Oh, I forgot, their purpose seems to be to fellate anything with the name 'rangers' attached. Silly me for thinking they might do the right thing.....

[CropleyWasGod]

Indeed. The fix is well in.

Phoenix is the word that springs to mind again and again. If only someone with legal standing was willing to get them in court on this one. A creditor perhaps. It's amazed me how supine the creditors have been. If I was one of them and saw this phoenixism I would be lawyering up and getting sevco in court.

Of course if our so called governing body in the SFA, told them they couldn't do it, then that would help. Oh, I forgot, their purpose seems to be to fellate anything with the name 'rangers' attached. Silly me for thinking they might do the right thing.....

On what grounds, though? There is nothing illegal in the way that has happened. It's a fairly common business occurrence. That might not sit well morally, but as the law stands there's nothing wrong with it. That's particularly true in tthis case where the owners and directors of the two companies are completely different.

[Hibs Class]

On what grounds, though? There is nothing illegal in the way that has happened. It's a fairly common business occurrence. That might not sit well morally, but as the law stands there's nothing wrong with it. That's particularly true in tthis case where the owners and directors of the two companies are completely different.


:hmmm: I don't think they are completely different - I can see a fair number of similarities. :devil:

[lucky]

Kevin Kyle has now signed up for a year with sevco

[blindsummit]

On what grounds, though? There is nothing illegal in the way that has happened. It's a fairly common business occurrence. That might not sit well morally, but as the law stands there's nothing wrong with it. That's particularly true in tthis case where the owners and directors of the two companies are completely different.

CWG will you please stop applying logic and reason onto my ill-informed rants :greengrin.

[CropleyWasGod]

CWG will you please stop applying logic and reason onto my ill-informed rants :greengrin.

I'm a hoot at parties. :greengrin

[Famous5forever]

On what grounds, though? There is nothing illegal in the way that has happened. It's a fairly common business occurrence. That might not sit well morally, but as the law stands there's nothing wrong with it. That's particularly true in tthis case where the owners and directors of the two companies are completely different.

This is the problem sevco seem to know what they are doing and as long as there are none of the directors of oldco involved with newco then there is no Phoenix

[blindsummit]

I'm a hoot at parties. :greengrin

I only get invited to them now if I sign in blood not to talk about Rangers, as my hockey loving Canadian pals are thoroughly sick of the subject now! So I just bore them with cosmology, multiverse theory and how we are all really living in a virtual universe. Serves them right :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I only get invited to them now if I sign in blood not to talk about Rangers, as my hockey loving Canadian pals are thoroughly sick of the subject now! So I just bore them with cosmology, multiverse theory and how we are all really living in a virtual universe. Serves them right :greengrin

Which universe do Hibs win the SC in? Or is that beyond any cosmological reason?

[MrSmith]

Which universe do Hibs win the SC in? Or is that beyond any cosmological reason?


Well deep thought enabled me to answer this: 42

[CropleyWasGod]

Well deep thought enabled me to answer this: 42

This thread really does have it all.

Now that we have the meaning of life, is it time to close it?

[blindsummit]

Which universe do Hibs win the SC in? Or is that beyond any cosmological reason?

it's probably the same one where I'm a tall, god like, rich, talented rock star surrounded by a bevvie of gorgeous swimwear models. And wherever that is, it's long long way from this universe........

[VickMackie]

What would happen if the trust asked for their money back and the recipients paid it?

I know that won't happen but would that money just sit around waiting for people to request loans from it?

Also, on dodds. If people had to request funds in the form of a loan them how could he not have known it was a loan?

[The Falcon]

On what grounds, though? There is nothing illegal in the way that has happened. It's a fairly common business occurrence. That might not sit well morally, but as the law stands there's nothing wrong with it. That's particularly true in tthis case where the owners and directors of the two companies are completely different.

I think this is what gets a lot of folk CWG in that highly paid footballers evade paying taxes with apparent impunity and millionaires like Murray comes out with nonsense like "As the law stands, it is the right of every taxpayer to minimise his tax liability". I am sure Bob Mugabe is operating "as the law stands"

If a guy paints an elderly neighbours house for £20 he is expected to pay tax on it, yet millionaires are not? Not only do they not pay they think its their "right" not to pay.


And Rangers continue on more or less as before.

[Caversham Green]

What would happen if the trust asked for their money back and the recipients paid it?

I know that won't happen but would that money just sit around waiting for people to request loans from it?

Also, on dodds. If people had to request funds in the form of a loan them how could he not have known it was a loan?

That was something that crossed my mind too. According to Murray the trust has a massive debtor asset which is recoverable, no liabilities and the purpose of its existence has gone. In those circumstances I can only imagine that it would have to return the cash to RFC (IA) as it is collected.

I wonder when he's due to repay his £6.3m loan.

[LeighLoyal]

That was something that crossed my mind too. According to Murray the trust has a massive debtor asset which is recoverable, no liabilities and the purpose of its existence has gone. In those circumstances I can only imagine that it would have to return the cash to RFC (IA) as it is collected.

I wonder when he's due to repay his £6.3m loan.



This is a man whose business empire, including Rangers FC 1872-2012 (RIP) was built on £700m worth of chummy loans from Bank Of Scotland, including the acquisition of Rangers in 1988. Too bad his easy money clique were cleaned out by the Halifax merger or he could have written another IOU. I hope he is jailed.

[The Falcon]

What would happen if the trust asked for their money back and the recipients paid it?

I know that won't happen but would that money just sit around waiting for people to request loans from it?

Also, on dodds. If people had to request funds in the form of a loan them how could he not have known it was a loan?


Murray's statement also contained the following line;

"The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates."

If this is correct Rangers paid £47.65 into a scheme that loaned money to people, with interest, but none of this is either repayable or recoverable by Rangers. Was the £47.65m therefore a "gift" to the scheme? There are surely tax and financial regulatory issues involved in just "giving" that sum of money away, particularly to a commercial concern.

I am not up on the finer points of this but has Murray's statement helped Rangers at all or made it worse? Either Dodds and Boumsong are lying or Murray is. Time for Plodd I think.

[Kaiser1962]

What would happen if the trust asked for their money back and the recipients paid it?

I know that won't happen but would that money just sit around waiting for people to request loans from it?

Also, on dodds. If people had to request funds in the form of a loan them how could he not have known it was a loan?

Dodds, in the Herald article on 27th May was pretty unequivocal;

"The full story is that David Murray came to me and asked if I would receive a payment that was due to me, after tax, through the EBT trust. And I said that I would. It was money that was owing to me when I had six months left on my contract and I moved to Dundee United. After the tax was deducted, that money was put in the trust fund."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/i-refuse-to-believe-major-players-evaded-paying-millions-in-tax.17704904

[Billy Whizz]

The crowd for the game last night against East Fife was given as just over 38,000. Everyone on Radio Scotland last night disputed that as they thought it was a full house of around 50,000.
I wonder if The Rangers are starting off how the old Rangers ended. I hope East Fife get their full share of this!

[CropleyWasGod]

Murray's statement also contained the following line;

"The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates."

If this is correct Rangers paid £47.65 into a scheme that loaned money to people, with interest, but none of this is either repayable or recoverable by Rangers. Was the £47.65m therefore a "gift" to the scheme? There are surely tax and financial regulatory issues involved in just "giving" that sum of money away, particularly to a commercial concern.

I am not up on the finer points of this but has Murray's statement helped Rangers at all or made it worse? Either Dodds and Boumsong are lying or Murray is. Time for Plodd I think.

I can't see any problem with this at all. Individuals and businesses often pay money into trusts, for a variety of reasons.

[Caversham Green]

I can't see any problem with this at all. Individuals and businesses often pay money into trusts, for a variety of reasons.

But what happens when the trust has an excess of liquid assets and the reason it was set up no longer exists? That's what Murray is claiming has happened here.

[CropleyWasGod]

But what happens when the trust has an excess of liquid assets and the reason it was set up no longer exists? That's what Murray is claiming has happened here.

Would that not be governed by the terms of the Trust? Into areas here that I'm not very good at, so I don't know.....

[Caversham Green]

Would that not be governed by the terms of the Trust? Into areas here that I'm not very good at, so I don't know.....

It was a rhetorical question really, but you're right. If there really was a repayment schedule as Murray claims I would guess that the cash would eventually have to be returned to the club (or its successor?). I suspect there's a bit of truth economy in Minty's statement though.

[StevieC]

It was a rhetorical question really, but you're right. If there really was a repayment schedule as Murray claims I would guess that the cash would eventually have to be returned to the club (or its successor?). I suspect there's a bit of truth economy in Minty's statement though.

So when BDO get started they can approach Dodds for the return of the £190k loan, as per the loan agreement, so it can be put into the pot for the creditors. :wink:

Let's see Mr Dodds squirm his way out of that one. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

It was a rhetorical question really, but you're right. If there really was a repayment schedule as Murray claims I would guess that the cash would eventually have to be returned to the club (or its successor?). I suspect there's a bit of truth economy in Minty's statement though.

Would it, though? Once the club had made its payments into the Trust, would that not be the end of it for them? I know that, again, this would depend on the Trust set-up... but, given that that the payments were expensed rather than set up as a debtor, it suggests that RFC didn't expect them back.

I am, of course, assuming that the RFC auditors did their job properly on this bit.... :cb

[CropleyWasGod]

So when BDO get started they can approach Dodds for the return of the £190k loan, as per the loan agreement, so it can be put into the pot for the creditors. :wink:

Let's see Mr Dodds squirm his way out of that one. :greengrin

That's what Cav and I are debating, Stevie.

For me, that's not RFC's money. The "loan" was from the Trust. It's what happens to the Trust funds that we're not sure about.

Don't tell Dodds that, though... let him squirm... :greengrin

[Caversham Green]

Would it, though? Once the club had made its payments into the Trust, would that not be the end of it for them? I know that, again, this would depend on the Trust set-up... but, given that that the payments were expensed rather than set up as a debtor, it suggests that RFC didn't expect them back.

I am, of course, assuming that the RFC auditors did their job properly on this bit.... :cb

The club wouldn't expect the cash back in the normal course of events so, as a going concern it would treat them as an expense and the recovery when the EBT scheme came to an end as windfall income. If the EBT was genuinely operating as a lender I would expect it to recycle recovered loans as new employee requirements arose. Writing the loans off now would be unfair to all those employees who have already repaid their loans (pause for laughter to die down).

All that isn't really borne out by the apparent facts though, and that suggests to me that Murray is talking nonsense.

Edit: Just to clarify in the light of StevieC's post, I don't think BDO will be able to pursue the employees, I'm just examining the holes in Murray's claims.

[CropleyWasGod]

The club wouldn't expect the cash back in the normal course of events so, as a going concern it would treat them as an expense and the recovery when the EBT scheme came to an end as windfall income. If the EBT was genuinely operating as a lender I would expect it to recycle recovered loans as new employee requirements arose. Writing the loans off now would be unfair to all those employees who have already repaid their loans (pause for laughter to die down).

All that isn't really borne out by the apparent facts though, and that suggests to me that Murray is talking nonsense.

:greengrin

Do we know who the Trustees are?

[greenginger]

Would it, though? Once the club had made its payments into the Trust, would that not be the end of it for them? I know that, again, this would depend on the Trust set-up... but, given that that the payments were expensed rather than set up as a debtor, it suggests that RFC didn't expect them back.

I am, of course, assuming that the RFC auditors did their job properly on this bit.... :cb



Trust Deeds are usually recorded in Books of Council and Session and are available for public inspection.

[Caversham Green]

:greengrin

Do we know who the Trustees are?

No, but I'm sure they were independent and didn't pay up Billy Dodds contract under instruction from RFC - that would be illegal. They simply loaned him an amount that happened to be the the same as he would have got on severance and he will no doubt repay it all plus interest in the fullness of time.

[CropleyWasGod]

No, but I'm sure they were independent and didn't pay up Billy Dodds contract under instruction from RFC - that would be illegal. They simply loaned him an amount that happened to be the the same as he would have got on severance and he will no doubt repay it all plus interest in the fullness of time.

What time does your Festival show start?

:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Trust Deeds are usually recorded in Books of Council and Session and are available for public inspection.

Which would mean, of course, that H.M. Press would be having a look to see how the Trust is really set up.


Cav's jokes are catching...:greengrin

[s.a.m]

http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/digging-the-hole-ever-deeper/

[RyeSloan]

http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/digging-the-hole-ever-deeper/

Sums up perfectly what in the end is a rather straight forward case.

The EBT's were used to pay player wages

Rangers are obliged to provide the SFA of all wage payments to players

Failure to do so makes the player ineligible for competing in any SFA approved competition (SPL, Scottish Cup)

All players who received wages via the EBT are therefore ineligible


The only action can therefore be the retrospective stripping of all honours won using ineligible players...what other action can be taken that would be considered appropriate?

Minty's protestations are worthless and I hope he is held to account for not only knowingly bringing the game into disrepute but also knowingly avoiding £45m of tax payments.

[JeMeSouviens]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19058945

"Nearly 40,000 fans packed Ibrox" says BBC Scotland correspondent Billy McGoebbels. :rolleyes:

Unless one of the stands has fallen down recently, this seems unlikely.

Actual crowd, 38160 = ~75% of capacity. This was their first home game and therefore the poster child for NewHun defiance, £15 a head and pay at the gate. I'm not so sure it will have Charlie and his investors sleeping much easier. :wink:

[lapsedhibee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19058945

"Nearly 40,000 fans packed Ibrox" says BBC Scotland correspondent Billy McGoebbels. :rolleyes:

Unless one of the stands has fallen down recently, this seems unlikely.

Actual crowd, 38160

:tsk tsk: A good 12,000 of that crowd would be two-seater jobs, though (see avatar to left), so McGoebbels could be right that 38,000 packed the stadium. :wink:

[Famous5forever]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19058945

"Nearly 40,000 fans packed Ibrox" says BBC Scotland correspondent Billy McGoebbels. :rolleyes:

Unless one of the stands has fallen down recently, this seems unlikely.

Actual crowd, 38160 = ~75% of capacity. This was their first home game and therefore the poster child for NewHun defiance, £15 a head and pay at the gate. I'm not so sure it will have Charlie and his investors sleeping much easier. :wink:

it was only a fiver for hun runts to get in as well cant see them making much out of that plus they had to split the gate receipts for the game with the wadges there players are on that would be a loss.:na na:

[LeighLoyal]

Sums up perfectly what in the end is a rather straight forward case.

The EBT's were used to pay player wages

Rangers are obliged to provide the SFA of all wage payments to players

Failure to do so makes the player ineligible for competing in any SFA approved competition (SPL, Scottish Cup)

All players who received wages via the EBT are therefore ineligible


The only action can therefore be the retrospective stripping of all honours won using ineligible players...what other action can be taken that would be considered appropriate?

Minty's protestations are worthless and I hope he is held to account for not only knowingly bringing the game into disrepute but also knowingly avoiding £45m of tax payments.


Nice blog by RTC that torpedoes Murray's sham statement. Skinty should be jailed along with the carrot politico who okayed his shameful knighthood. Awarded, I assume, for services to tax evasion and bank fraud! :agree:

[Ozyhibby]

Is there an SPL meeting this Friday? I seem to remember that the vote on changes to the voting system was put of till Aug 10th but I'm not sure. There have that many meetings, votes and deadlines I'm not sure of anything anymore.

[Smidge]

Trust Deeds are usually recorded in Books of Council and Session and are available for public inspection.

It's an offshore trust - Jersey or Guernsey I think - so that wouldn't be the case.

[Famous5forever]

Nice blog by RTC that torpedoes Murray's sham statement. Skinty should be jailed along with the carrot politico who okayed his shameful knighthood. Awarded, I assume, for services to tax evasion and bank fraud! :agree:

Knighthood should be stripped this guy has done worse than Fred Goodwin.

[CropleyWasGod]

Knighthood should be stripped this guy has done worse than Fred Goodwin.

Much as I don't care for SDM, I don't think that being (allegedly, remember) responsible for cheating in a footballing backwater compares in any way to being party to the biggest financial crisis in 80 years.

[johnrebus]

Much as I don't care for SDM, I don't think that being (allegedly, remember) responsible for cheating in a footballing backwater compares in any way to being party to the biggest financial crisis in 80 years.



Yes CWG, they don't really compare.


'Sir' Fred, was guilty of uneccessary risk taking and incompetence - he did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.


Minty stands accused of deliberate tax evasion - which is illegal.



Big, big difference.



:cb

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes CWG, they don't really compare.


'Sir' Fred, was guilty of uneccessary risk taking and incompetence - he did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.


Minty stands accused of deliberate tax evasion - which is illegal.



Big, big difference.



:cb

To be fair, it was the morality of the comparative situations that I was commenting on.

[johnrebus]

To be fair, it was the morality of the comparative situations that I was commenting on.


Point taken.



Maybe we should compare Minty to 'Sir' Lester Piggott then?


Same crime (allegedly), same punishment?

:devil:

[Famous5forever]

Yes CWG, they don't really compare.


'Sir' Fred, was guilty of uneccessary risk taking and incompetence - he did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.


Minty stands accused of deliberate tax evasion - which is illegal.



Big, big difference.



:cb

Could a Criminal charge by brought against SDM If found guilty of these tax evasions ? or is it only moraly wrong not criminal ?

[LeighLoyal]

Could a Criminal charge by brought against SDM If found guilty of these tax evasions ? or is it only moraly wrong not criminal ?



Definitely could be charges against him and all former directors of oldco, the liquidator BDO has far reaching powers. He'll be sweating as will Craigie boy. Would like to know how much of the 700m his pals in BOS handed out since 1988 is still tangible. The knighthood is the least of his worries, but it should be removed.

[Famous5forever]

Definitely could be charges against him and all former directors of oldco, the liquidator BDO has far reaching powers. He'll be sweating as will Craigie boy. Would like to know how much of the 700m his pals in BOS handed out since 1988 is still tangible. The knighthood is the least of his worries, but it should be removed.

Any idea of a timeframe when the BDO Move in ? this could be the icing on the cake of this entire sorry mess:na na:

[PatHead]

Interesting thread from St Johnstone fan re Rangers "sums" for the year.

http://saintinasia.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/how-are-sevco-affording-sandaza/

Cav, CWG, etc get your gums round that. Know there is a fair number of assumptions made though

[CropleyWasGod]

Interesting thread from St Johnstone fan re Rangers "sums" for the year.

http://saintinasia.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/how-are-sevco-affording-sandaza/

Cav, CWG, etc get your gums round that. Know there is a fair number of assumptions made though

I lost confidence as soon as he said that Sevco are 4 divisions below the Saints. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Any idea of a timeframe when the BDO Move in ? this could be the icing on the cake of this entire sorry mess:na na:

BDO (not "the" BDO... they do darts:greengrin.. This is Binder, Dijke, Otte) will be in place within the next month or so. There are a few things D&P will need to do to wind up their work.... shredding of important papers, silencing of key witnesses, that sort of thing... and then BDO will be appointed.

I wouldn't expect overnight results, by the way. The first thing BDO will do is check how much funds are available, which fact may define their own work.

[Seveno]

BDO (not "the" BDO... they do darts:greengrin.. This is Binder, Dijke, Otte) will be in place within the next month or so. There are a few things D&P will need to do to wind up their work.... shredding of important papers, silencing of key witnesses, that sort of thing... and then BDO will be appointed.

I wouldn't expect overnight results, by the way. The first thing BDO will do is check how much funds are available, which fact may define their own work.

Why so long until they move in ? Surely this is just reducing the creditors pot even more.

[CropleyWasGod]

Why so long until they move in ? Surely this is just reducing the creditors pot even more.

The answer is in my post :greengrin

[Seveno]

The answer is in my post :greengrin

Ah ! And hear was me thinking you were just joking about the shredding etc. I feel so stupid now.

Just as well we have you jump up bookkeepers on board. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Ah ! And hear was me thinking you were just joking about the shredding etc. I feel so stupid now.

Just as well we have you jump up bookkeepers on board. :greengrin

To be honest, though, there can't be that much work left for D&P to do. That said, there was talk a while back that Green hadn't paid the £5.5m.... maybe they are waiting for that?

[Famous5forever]

BDO (not "the" BDO... they do darts:greengrin.. This is Binder, Dijke, Otte) will be in place within the next month or so. There are a few things D&P will need to do to wind up their work.... shredding of important papers, silencing of key witnesses, that sort of thing... and then BDO will be appointed.

I wouldn't expect overnight results, by the way. The first thing BDO will do is check how much funds are available, which fact may define their own work.

I Take it D&P will be aware of this and the more money thery leave in the pot for BDO To play with will lengthen and deepen there enquiries this makes me think that most if not all of the 5.6 million will be gone by the time BDO Get in there.

[CropleyWasGod]

I Take it D&P will be aware of this and the more money thery leave in the pot for BDO To play with will lengthen and deepen there enquiries this makes me think that most if not all of the 5.6 million will be gone by the time BDO Get in there.

The second thing they will do is ask D&P to justify the sale price. If they can't, then the recovery actions will begin. If they can, I can't honestly see the liquidation lasting too long.

[Famous5forever]

The second thing they will do is ask D&P to justify the sale price. If they can't, then the recovery actions will begin. If they can, I can't honestly see the liquidation lasting too long.

I Cant see D&P Having a problem with that as Greens lot were the highest bidders at 5.6 million as to wheather they would have got more by pure liquidation and selling off the assets is another matter. But as Ibrox is a listed building it is no use to anyone Bar Rangers same goes for Murray Park.

[CropleyWasGod]

I Cant see D&P Having a problem with that as Greens lot were the highest bidders at 5.6 million as to wheather they would have got more by pure liquidation and selling off the assets is another matter. But as Ibrox is a listed building it is no use to anyone Bar Rangers same goes for Murray Park.

That's an argument that has been done to death on here, for and against, so I won't go into it.

However, if it pans out that way, then Sevco are in the clear. It's then down to BDO to investigate the manner of the administration, and the conduct of the directors. They could end up spending a fair chunk of the £5.5m in doing that, which would further erode the dividend to creditors, with no guarantee of recovering anything extra

[Onion]

I Cant see D&P Having a problem with that as Greens lot were the highest bidders at 5.6 million as to wheather they would have got more by pure liquidation and selling off the assets is another matter. But as Ibrox is a listed building it is no use to anyone Bar Rangers same goes for Murray Park.

Ibrox = much better than Hamdump. SFA pick up Ibrox for a couple of mill, level Hamdump and sell it to Tesco for a few more mill. Everyone's happy :greengrin

[VickMackie]

Ibrox = much better than Hamdump. SFA pick up Ibrox for a couple of mill, level Hamdump and sell it to Tesco for a few more mill. Everyone's happy :greengrin

It would be funny but they would say the whole episode had alterior motives.

[Jim44]

Now that public charade of 'punishing' newco is effectively over (in footballing terms at least) are we now witnessing an attempt to cowtow to that mob and bend over backwards for having the temerity to stand up to them? Longmuir of the SFL has announced that Rangers' Scottish League Cup record will not be deleted irrespective of the outcome of the investigation into payments made to players via EBTs.

In the same article, we are informed that , while the SFL is not just about Rangers, he revealed that Rangers matches shown on TV will be given special treatment. For the first time, a fourth official will be used 'as a useful addition'.

On the subject of sectarian singing, Longmuir says there will be no plans to have observers at games involving the Ibrox club. "we rely on the referee and on certain occasions, the fourth official.". But you have never used fourth officials Mr Longmuir!!!

"We are very comfortable with the position we have adopted."

Welcome back, Rangers, we apologise for the inconvenience. Pathetic.

[StevieC]

In the same article, we are informed that , while the SFL is not just about Rangers, he revealed that Rangers matches shown on TV will be given special treatment. For the first time, a fourth official will be used 'as a useful addition'.

This is good. The fourth official is usually used to report offences missed by the referee so more chance of them getting hauled over the coals, especially at the smaller grounds where supporters will be more likely to "misbehave".

[JeMeSouviens]

Longmuir of the SFL has announced that Rangers' Scottish League Cup record will not be deleted irrespective of the outcome of the investigation into payments made to players via EBTs.

The quotes in the article don't say anything of the sort.

“We are very comfortable with the position we have adopted,” said Longmuir. “The history of Rangers is appropriately described on the SFL website.” Asked to clarify this, he added: “We are quite comfortable with the way we are treating the history of Rangers.”

In other words, that the OldHuns history is transferred to NewHuns. They can't strip league cups before the player registrations investigation completes. Can't see how they can avoid it if they're found guilty.

[Sylar]

No mention of Mike Ashely investing into Rangers yet?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chief-charles-green-hopeful-1245487

[Paisley Hibby]

Only 144 posts to go :cb

[Just Alf]

Rangers Pair Charged Over Media Comments

Rangers manager Ally McCoist and chief executive Charles Green have been issued with notices of complaint by the Scottish Football Association over comments made in the media.

Green faces a charge of bringing the game into disrepute for claiming "bigotry" was one of the reasons behind his club being denied entry to the Clydesdale Bank Premier League.

McCoist has allegedly breached disciplinary rules as a result of comments he made about the SFA's Judicial Panel in April, when he demanded the panel members be named publicly.

Rangers and McCoist have until August 17 to respond, with a principal hearing date of August 30 set for both cases to be heard.

http://www.clyde1.com/on-air/rangers-pair-charged-over-media-comments/#.UCUumomaSZQ.twitter

:cb

[speedy_gonzales]

No mention of Mike Ashely investing into Rangers yet?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chief-charles-green-hopeful-1245487
Have the old Rangers and Necastle not been involved in dodgy dealings before, something about a false appraisal and price for Boumsong?

[LeighLoyal]

That complete clown Green claiming he didn't know the meaning of the word 'bigotry' and quoting some obscure French definition. He also appears to be confused that the word Rangers means Sevco 2012. Two bit Arthur Daley.

[Jim44]

The quotes in the article don't say anything of the sort.

“We are very comfortable with the position we have adopted,” said Longmuir. “The history of Rangers is appropriately described on the SFL website.” Asked to clarify this, he added: “We are quite comfortable with the way we are treating the history of Rangers.”

In other words, that the OldHuns history is transferred to NewHuns. They can't strip league cups before the player registrations investigation completes. Can't see how they can avoid it if they're found guilty.

Irrespective of your interpretation of the Longmuir quotes, I still think the article clearly states that Rangers will not lose any of their League Cup titles. For example, the headline says, " League Cup wins remain with Rangers." It then has a secondary headline that says "Longmuir confirms proud record will stand." The article includes "........ the SFL chief executive David Longmuir confirmed that he was "comfortable " with the stance they have chosen to adopt, which is that Rangers' history remains intact whether they are found guilty or not." What can't you see about them avoiding it if they're found guilty? If found guilty, I think it will go something along the lines of ' Yes Rangers are guilty but the SFL has chosen not to delete thei League Cup wins from the records.' :dunno:

[Caversham Green]

Have the old Rangers and Necastle not been involved in dodgy dealings before, something about a false appraisal and price for Boumsong?

The Boumsong thing was a bit strange.

Not sure if I've got the details right, but it went something like: Newcastle and Rangers were both alerted to Boumsong's avaiability. The Newcastle manager (Gullitt?) wasn't interested but Rangers snapped him up for little or nothing. Six months later Newcastle paid Rangers an enormous amount of money for Boumsong - their old manager had been sacked and replaced by Graeme Souness.

According to the BBC report, Souness received a 'loan' from the Rangers EBT scheme a long time after he ceased to be an employee of Rangers. Unconnected I'm sure :fibber:.

[LeighLoyal]

Irrespective of your interpretation of the Longmuir quotes, I still think the article clearly states that Rangers will not lose any of their League Cup titles. For example, the headline says, " League Cup wins remain with Rangers." It then has a secondary headline that says "Longmuir confirms proud record will stand." The article includes "........ the SFL chief executive David Longmuir confirmed that he was "comfortable " with the stance they have chosen to adopt, which is that Rangers' history remains intact whether they are found guilty or not." What can't you see about them avoiding it if they're found guilty? If founf guilty, I think it will go something along the lines of ' Yes Rangers are guilty but the SFL has chosen not to delete thei League Cup wins from the records.' :dunno:



Absolute scandal if true. So they're going to engrave "Rangers FC" on the League Cup is the Sevco zombies win it? :confused: They are NOT Rangers FC. Would like to know the BDO/creditor view on that possibility. Trading as a liquidated company with an unpaid £140m debt mountain!? The £140m and the millions more that Bank of Scotland subsidised RFC with through the financial back door via their tinpot charlatan David Murray. I suspect the real debt is closer to £250m and that means many more titles are tainted than 2001-2011.

[CropleyWasGod]

Absolute scandal if true. So they're going to engrave "Rangers FC" on the League Cup is the Sevco zombies win it? :confused: They are NOT Rangers FC. Would like to know the BDO/creditor view on that possibility. Trading as a liquidated company with an unpaid £140m debt mountain!? The £140m and the millions more that Bank of Scotland subsidised RFC with through the financial back door via their tinpot charlatan David Murray. I suspect the real debt is closer to £250m and that means many more titles are tainted than 2001-2011.

Yes they are. Sevco bought the name from RFC, and also had RFC's SFA licence transferred to them.

[Leithenhibby]

Yes they are. Sevco bought the name from RFC, and also had RFC's SFA licence transferred to them.

I always thought that a licence was non-transferable :confused:

[LeighLoyal]

Yes they are. Sevco bought the name from RFC, and also had RFC's SFA licence transferred to them.



Why are they not called Rangers Football Club then? They are not Rangers Football Club.

[marinello59]

Why are they not called Rangers Football Club then? They are not Rangers Football Club.

Look at their strips, look at their stadium but more importantly look at their fans. No matter how much you don't want it to be true they are Rangers. The Rangers, Rangers Football Club etc etc..............it doesn't matter.....it's Rangers.

[CropleyWasGod]

Why are they not called Rangers Football Club then? They are not Rangers Football Club.

The company can't be called that by law. However , the trading name....the brand....was bought from RFC and they have adopted that, as is their right.

[CropleyWasGod]

I always thought that a licence was non-transferable :confused:

They applied for a licence in their own name , sure; but had to take on some of the responsibilities of RFC . Effectively ; it was a transfer .

[LeighLoyal]

The company can't be called that by law. However , the trading name....the brand....was bought from RFC and they have adopted that, as is their right.



Their trading name is The Rangers FC, not Rangers FC. The company was incorporated into the club, Rangers FC, in 1899, it died along with the club in 2012. It wasn't bought, it liquidated and therefore cannot be used, by law, as you state, therefore they are not the same club. It's also a conditional membership, it's not been transferred as yet. They scribe Rangers FC onto the League Cup, if they win, and they should expect a knock at the door from hector.

[Kaiser1962]

BDO (not "the" BDO... they do darts:greengrin.. This is Binder, Dijke, Otte) will be in place within the next month or so. There are a few things D&P will need to do to wind up their work.... shredding of important papers, silencing of key witnesses, that sort of thing... and then BDO will be appointed.

I wouldn't expect overnight results, by the way. The first thing BDO will do is check how much funds are available, which fact may define their own work.


So when they run out of money the sting is a fait accompli?

If I was cynical I would be suspicious that the surprisingly low amount that D+P realised on disposal of Rangers assetts could be construed as being a step towards the outcome described above. But I'm not. So I dont.

[marinello59]

Their trading name is The Rangers FC, not Rangers FC. The company was incorporated into the club, Rangers FC, in 1899, it died along with the club in 2012. It wasn't bought, it liquidated and therefore cannot be used, by law, as you state, therefore they are not the same club. It's also a conditional membership, it's not been transferred as yet.They scribe Rangers FC onto the League Cup, if they win, and they should expect a knock at the door from hector.

I don't think the authorities would waste any more of our money on something as petty as missing out 'The' on a fitba bauble. There are far more important things to worry about. Go and throw darts at a picture of Ally McCoist to let some of that stress out. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Their trading name is The Rangers FC, not Rangers FC. The company was incorporated into the club, Rangers FC, in 1899, it died along with the club in 2012. It wasn't bought, it liquidated and therefore cannot be used, by law, as you state, therefore they are not the same club. It's also a conditional membership, it's not been transferred as yet. They scribe Rangers FC onto the League Cup, if they win, and they should expect a knock at the door from hector.

As I said, they bought the brand. The brand, and trading name, is not The Rangers Football Club Limited; that is their legal name. The brand is "Rangers". They can use that if they want.

[CropleyWasGod]

So when they run out of money the sting is a fait accompli?

If I was cynical I would be suspicious that the surprisingly low amount that D+P realised on disposal of Rangers assetts could be construed as being a step towards the outcome described above. But I'm not. So I dont.

That low amount, though, will have to be justified by D&P. If I understand it correctly, D&P will bear the cost of that.

[Leithenhibby]

They applied for a licence in their own name , sure; but had to take on some of the responsibilities of RFC . Effectively ; it was a transfer .


Some would claim a "loophole", is it not the fact that UEFA rules do not permit any transfer of a clubs licence? Still :confused: or just being thick :wink:

I've been away from the Hibs.net for the last few weeks and it is proving hard to catch up on this thread, can't take your eye off the ball for a minute :greengrin

Like you and many others have stated on a number of occasions, this ain't going away any time soon.....

[CropleyWasGod]

[/B]

Some would claim a "loophole", is it not the fact that UEFA rules do not permit any transfer of a clubs licence? Still :confused: or just being thick :wink:

I've been away from the Hibs.net for the last few weeks and it is proving hard to catch up on this thread, can't take your eye off the ball for a minute :greengrin

Like you and many others have stated on a number of occasions, this ain't going away any time soon.....

In the terms of the rules, I would say it was a new application. However, in spirit, of course it feels like a transfer.

[LeighLoyal]

Why are they in division three then, Cropley? Because they are a new club and have to start at the bottom of the structure perchance? They should not even be there given they don't have audited accounts, a complete flouting of the admission rules. But if they are the same club, or have full claim to 140 years of unbroken bigoted RFC history, then that also means they are also still in administration and should be be docked ten SFL3 points. Why hasn't this happened, Cropley? Because they are a new entity, with no history or connection to Rangers Football Club, incorporated 1899. RIP.

[YehButNoBut]

http://i.imgur.com/lhZby.jpg

:lolrangers:

[CropleyWasGod]

Why are they in division three then, Cropley? Because they are a new club and have to start at the bottom of the structure perchance? They should not even be there given they don't have audited accounts, a complete flouting of the admission rules. But if they are the same club, or have full claim to 140 years of unbroken bigoted RFC history, then that also means they are also still in administration and should be be docked ten SFL3 points. Why hasn't this happened, Cropley? Because they are a new entity, with no history or connection to Rangers Football Club, incorporated 1899. RIP.

You are missing the point.

The company that formerly ran Rangers ceased trading. That company sold some of its assets to a new company. One of the assets that it sold was its "goodwill".... ironic term, of course. That goodwill includes its trading name, the brand by which it is known.

A new company was set up, which changed its name to one similar to the old company. That company bought the goodwill from the old company, and as such is perfectly entitled to use the trading name of the old company.

As an analogy, if I had set up a company to buy the goodwill of Woolworths... let's say I called it THE FW Woolworth Company.....and then traded on the same sites, with the same staff, and had the name "Woolworths" above the door, there is nothing to stop anyone referring to me by that name. Because I bought the name. That is what Sevco did.

[Kaiser1962]

That low amount, though, will have to be justified by D&P. If I understand it correctly, D&P will bear the cost of that.

I have no doubt they will be able to justify the price.

£1.5m for Murray Park, Ibrox and the car park which was valued at £110m. Seems fair to me.

[Leithenhibby]

You are missing the point.

The company that formerly ran Rangers ceased trading. That company sold some of its assets to a new company. One of the assets that it sold was its "goodwill".... ironic term, of course. That goodwill includes its trading name, the brand by which it is known.

A new company was set up, which changed its name to one similar to the old company. That company bought the goodwill from the old company, and as such is perfectly entitled to use the trading name of the old company.

As an analogy, if I had set up a company to buy the goodwill of Woolworths... let's say I called it THE FW Woolworth Company.....and then traded on the same sites, with the same staff, and had the name "Woolworths" above the door, there is nothing to stop anyone referring to me by that name. Because I bought the name. That is what Sevco did.

Now I get it! :greengrin

Still loads of areas that you haven't explained, re: the points by FH ... Or has the sfa, spl and the sfl bent over to accommodate and just thrown the rule book out the window!!!...

[CropleyWasGod]

I have no doubt they will be able to justify the price.

£1.5m for Murray Park, Ibrox and the car park which was valued at £110m. Seems fair to me.

Yeah, throw in the players and the brand for nowt..... seems perfect. :greengrin

[PatHead]

Are Duff and Phelps still doing "tidying up" work for Rangers or have they left the building? If so are they still running up fees?

[CropleyWasGod]

Are Duff and Phelps still doing "tidying up" work for Rangers or have they left the building? If so are they still running up fees?

They are. I would have thought that, once the old company's name was changed (which I think it has been now), that would have been it.

However, clearly those shredding machines are a b*ggar to work. :greengrin

[Caversham Green]

I have no doubt they will be able to justify the price.

£1.5m for Murray Park, Ibrox and the car park which was valued at £110m. Seems fair to me.

And a quid for the goodwill - i.e. the 'Rangers' brand that attracted 40,000 season ticket holders last year and is 'one of the most successful and renowned football clubs in the world' to quote Duff & Phelps.

[VickMackie]

I have no doubt they will be able to justify the price.

£1.5m for Murray Park, Ibrox and the car park which was valued at £110m. Seems fair to me.

It's a joke. If I was a multi millionaire I would have publicly made a bid of a few million for the assets at the time they were tryin to offload the club and they'd have been ****ed for selling at that price. :greengrin:

[VickMackie]

And a quid for the goodwill - i.e. the 'Rangers' brand that attracted 40,000 season ticket holders last year and is 'one of the most successful and renowned football clubs in the world' to quote Duff & Phelps.

I'd have bid 2 quid for that and gave it to my pizza delivery guy is a tip!

[Caversham Green]

Now I get it! :greengrin

Still loads of areas that you haven't explained, re: the points by FH ... Or has the sfa, spl and the sfl bent over to accommodate and just thrown the rule book out the window!!!...

There's some muddying of the waters re the transfer of membership etc. As I understand it an SFA licence is a different thing from SFA membership - membership can be and was transferred, the licence can't and was not. Oldco's accounts covered the financial reporting requirements for the membership and I believe the licence only needs a financial summary for the last three years, not audited accounts. A financial summary of Sevco's last three years is 'Nil' because they weren't in existence.

I think the only thing that needs audited accounts is a EUFA licence, which of course, Sevco haven't got.

[Kaiser1962]

Now I get it! :greengrin

Still loads of areas that you haven't explained, re: the points by FH ... Or has the sfa, spl and the sfl bent over to accommodate and just thrown the rule book out the window!!!...


I dont think the "football" side of this has gone according to plan as I dont expect that Sevco ever thought they would end up in Div3.

The financial side s a different matter though. From the timing of the entering of administration to the sale, a couple of weeks before the players could be sold on the open market to the amount of the debt that they have, literally, dumped means the financial planners have delivered their end.

Even that a bigger offer was recieved verbally by D+P when the CVA failed to stick, but D+P already claimed "binding, contractual agreement" with Sevco, therefore could not accept the higher offer.

D+Ps defence is/will be that "best and final offers" were to be recieved by April 4th despite the club not actually being sold for a further two and a half months.

[CropleyWasGod]

And a quid for the goodwill - i.e. the 'Rangers' brand that attracted 40,000 season ticket holders last year and is 'one of the most successful and renowned football clubs in the world' to quote Duff & Phelps.

Ken.

I had a giggle at the Sevco director that put a price on the new club. Whilst most of us on here were saying "that's BDO's work done for them", Green was slapping his own forehead and saying "Prat. I want ten times as much as that!" :greengrin

[LeighLoyal]

Let's not forget they have a new registration at companies house, that's why they can't use the oldco name. The company registration is more important than the SFA registration. They are a new entity, and are registered at company house as such. :aok: Sevco 5088.