Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Bishop Hibee]

Just finished watching Newsnight Scotland with the Ian Davidson, the Labour MP for the constituency Ibrox is in, the journalist Tom English and some guy from Ernst and Young. Well worth looking up on IPlayer if you've been following the case.

Ernst and Young guy looked like he was about to start laughing at the verdict! Davidson obv a bluenose and not happy about how long the whole case took but having a pop at Murray and immoral tax avoidance in general.

Nothing to stop Hibs setting up legal EBT schemes for our players. Might not be moral but if it meant we kept Griffiths would it be worth looking into :stirrer::tin hat::devil:

[Part/Time Supporter]

Just finished watching Newsnight Scotland with the Ian Davidson, the Labour MP for the constituency Ibrox is in, the journalist Tom English and some guy from Ernst and Young. Well worth looking up on IPlayer if you've been following the case.

Ernst and Young guy looked like he was about to start laughing at the verdict! Davidson obv a bluenose and not happy about how long the whole case took but having a pop at Murray and immoral tax avoidance in general.

Nothing to stop Hibs setting up legal EBT schemes for our players. Might not be moral but if it meant we kept Griffiths would it be worth looking into :stirrer::tin hat::devil:

Outlawed by 2011 Finance Bill (Budget).

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employers/employee-benefit-trusts.htm

The thing is, Rangers would have got away with a massive tax saving and no HMRC investigation, assessment and tribunal if they hadn't made a mess of administering their EBT scheme. Shame (not).

[LeighLoyal]

That, for me, doesn't prove anything.

If the side-letters refer to payments that were deemed by the FTT to be loans, then there is no problem.All that is required to be lodged with the SPL/SFA is the contract that sets out the player's wages. They are not interested in anything else.

If, however, they refer to those payments that were deemed to be wages, then there is a problem.



Surely the spirit of the rule is they have to lodge players contracts, and they clearly had two, or dual, contracts for a decade. So they misled the SFA, tried and succeeded in destroying evidence, obstructed investigation at every turn, cheated the other SPL clubs who paid their taxes. Punishment on oldco has to be meted out. If not then no member club need take any heed of association rules again as they will be proven optional.

[Spike Mandela]

I can't see HMRC letting this go too easily :wink: Still a few miles left in this one, Me thinks...

HMRC might not be of a mind to go for a costly appeal when there is no chance of recouping any more money from Oldco.

[Kaiser1962]

Just a wee reminder of what Dodds stated in the Herald article;

"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."


Now how the **** is that a loan? :confused:

[Part/Time Supporter]

HMRC might not be of a mind to go for a costly appeal when there is no chance of recouping any more money from Oldco.

Although most of the trust payments were made from Rangers (£36M), over £10M was paid from Murray's other companies. An appeal to upper tribunal wouldn't fully re-open the case, basically a new set of judges would consider the same evidence.

[ballengeich]

On reflection, the front page of the verdict is both inaccurate and unhelpful. It suggests that Rangers have unreservedly won the case. They haven't as the details show that there are over 30 individuals who did receive remuneration via EBTs and are due tax. If I was in court facing 110 charges and was found guilty on 35 of them I wouldn't see that as a triumph. It probably means that HMRC were still due £20-30 million in unpaid income tax.

The MSM don't seem to have picked up on the subtleties of the judgment. As might be expected the "Rangers were innocent and it's all Craig Whyte's fault" campaign is in full swing. Never mind the facts when a fresh supply of succelent lamb is on the horizon.

I hope that both BDO and Lord Nimmo-Smith possess a greater degree of intellectual subtlety than our sports journalists. It's not much to hope for.

[CropleyWasGod]

Surely the spirit of the rule is they have to lodge players contracts, and they clearly had two, or dual, contracts for a decade. So they misled the SFA, tried and succeeded in destroying evidence, obstructed investigation at every turn, cheated the other SPL clubs who paid their taxes. Punishment on oldco has to be meted out. If not then no member club need take any heed of association rules again as they will be proven optional.

It's not just the spirit, it's the letter.

However, my point is that, as I understand it, it's only "contracts for wages" that have to be lodged. "Contracts for loans" don't have to be.

From my reading of the 145 pages (admittedly very broadly), RFC did purposely not lodge those side-letters. However, given that most of those have been held to be "loans", they may have inadvertently got themselves off the hook.

It comes back, though, to a point I have made a few times. The judgement isn't clear which payments have been held to be "wages". If any of these relate to players (ie not directors) wages, then they are in trouble. But... at this stage we cannot tell.

[CropleyWasGod]

HMRC might not be of a mind to go for a costly appeal when there is no chance of recouping any more money from Oldco.

Fair point but, IIRC, there are other cases waiting in the wings which might be worth the outlay; HMRC's success in them may depend on their getting a positive result in the RFC case.

[CropleyWasGod]

Just a wee reminder of what Dodds stated in the Herald article;

"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."


Now how the **** is that a loan? :confused:

Dodds' payment may be one of those that has been deemed to be wages.

[CropleyWasGod]

On reflection, the front page of the verdict is both inaccurate and unhelpful. It suggests that Rangers have unreservedly won the case. They haven't as the details show that there are over 30 individuals who did receive remuneration via EBTs and are due tax. If I was in court facing 110 charges and was found guilty on 35 of them I wouldn't see that as a triumph. It probably means that HMRC were still due £20-30 million in unpaid income tax.

The MSM don't seem to have picked up on the subtleties of the judgment. As might be expected the "Rangers were innocent and it's all Craig Whyte's fault" campaign is in full swing. Never mind the facts when a fresh supply of succelent lamb is on the horizon.

I hope that both BDO and Lord Nimmo-Smith possess a greater degree of intellectual subtlety than our sports journalists. It's not much to hope for.

It did tickle me last night to see and hear so many people speaking knowledgeably about a case which took 2 years to complete, whose judgement runs to 145 pages, and whose verdict had only been known a few hours.

[EuanH78]

Watching the penny drop (Admittedly with a little nudging from me) with the huns at my work that they may not have needed to be liquidated is ****in amazing :thumbsup:

[JeMeSouviens]

Watching the penny drop (Admittedly with a little nudging from me) with the huns at my work that they may not have needed to be liquidated is ****in amazing :thumbsup:

:agree:

I don't get the disappointment with the decision. The Huns (original) are dead. The Huns (new) are consigned to the lower divisions with a total chancer at the helm ... and it might all have been avoided. :greengrin

What's not to like? :aok:

[euansdad]

Priceless! Still them and green are a perfect match, they will feed off his paranoia for years to come

[Bishop Hibee]

Outlawed by 2011 Finance Bill (Budget).

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employers/employee-benefit-trusts.htm

The thing is, Rangers would have got away with a massive tax saving and no HMRC investigation, assessment and tribunal if they hadn't made a mess of administering their EBT scheme. Shame (not).

Thanks for that. Strange that the Ernst and Young rep seemed to be talking about future legislation to close this loophole. I can only assume he was meaning other existing methods of tax avoidance :confused:

The whole judgement smacks of the rich looking after the rich.

[cabbageandribs1875]

just shows you how difficult it is to stop the tax avoiders...the ****s

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20417221


The National Audit Office said HMRC was dealing with a backlog of 41,000 cases involving individuals and small companies, with up to £10.2bn at stake

But according to the NAO, between 2004 and 2011 about 2,300 avoidance schemes were disclosed to the tax authorities, with more than 100 new schemes emerging in each of the past four years.

[Ozyhibby]

:agree:

I don't get the disappointment with the decision. The Huns (original) are dead. The Huns (new) are consigned to the lower divisions with a total chancer at the helm ... and it might all have been avoided. :greengrin

What's not to like? :aok:

And FTTT make it clear that they were deliberately deceiving the football authorities by hiding payments to players.
Should make Lord Nimmo Smiths job a lot easier.

[Eyrie]

Was at the supermarket and today's headline in the Scottish Sun was "Rangers died for nothing".

Untrue. Think of all the joy their demise has brought to fans of other teams.

But there are some interesting snippets. Had a quick look at the judgement (http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j6851/TC02372.pdf) and I noticed this in s28 about our old friend Ginger Judas
..... had advised Mr Violet to seek a tax indemnity from Rangers in
respect of trust benefits, which was granted.
Now if I'm reading that correctly, then if 35 individuals are due tax to HMRC they will have to pay up in full and then join the ordinary creditors of OldHuns to try to claim some money back under the indemnities.

[oregonhibby]

I suppose it all depends if the EBT still exists and has funds. As an independent trust it is separate from Rangers. Generally rules exist that do not allow any more than 50% of an individuals allocation to be withdrawn to ensure that any loan is paid back on death etc. If that is the case then the tax man cannot seek tax from the individual because they have complied with the rules of the trust which would have to have been approved by HMRC in the first place.

In effect this is how these trusts actually get HMRC approval:

1 It is a loan that has to be paid back in the lifetime of the employee/former employee
2 The employee can only ever see 50% of it in his/her lifetime
3 The loan coupon is based on a commercial rate
4 The balance of the trust allocation is used to pay off any loan on death and any surplus is subject to inheritance tax, if appropriate.

There are simple EBT's like the above and more racy ones that HMRC go over with a fine tooth comb. If it were approved in the first place then any action would be for a breach of the rules of the trust. This initial judgement appears to suggest there has been no breach - subject to appeal. We have seen HMRC waste money on other appeals and ultimately lost.

If they lose an appeal then Rangers are vindicated and they in effect have not cheated and used a legal vehicle to fund their various campaigns. That is that!

THEN we move onto what actually brought them down:

1 They ran out of money and owed the Bank a shed load
2 They failed to pay HMRC tax on salaries paid - HMRC took their time bringing this to light as a normal employer only gets 42 days
3 They couldn't get creditors to agree a voluntary arrangement.

They then were dealt with under the normal rules (?) of the SPL/SFA/SPL (?) and demoted to the third division - insolvency and potentially irregular contracts.

Take the emotion out then that is that.

However, this was a train crash a long time in coming and one wonders what could have been done before football was plunged into its latest crisis.

Is the league better for it? It would appear so.

[LancashireHibby]

Zombie Huns have just made a booking through my work. Is it petty that I've ensured that they are referred to as 'The Rangers' on our system?

[CropleyWasGod]

I suppose it all depends if the EBT still exists and has funds. As an independent trust it is separate from Rangers. Generally rules exist that do not allow any more than 50% of an individuals allocation to be withdrawn to ensure that any loan is paid back on death etc. If that is the case then the tax man cannot seek tax from the individual because they have complied with the rules of the trust which would have to have been approved by HMRC in the first place.

In effect this is how these trusts actually get HMRC approval:

1 It is a loan that has to be paid back in the lifetime of the employee/former employee
2 The employee can only ever see 50% of it in his/her lifetime
3 The loan coupon is based on a commercial rate
4 The balance of the trust allocation is used to pay off any loan on death and any surplus is subject to inheritance tax, if appropriate.

There are simple EBT's like the above and more racy ones that HMRC go over with a fine tooth comb. If it were approved in the first place then any action would be for a breach of the rules of the trust. This initial judgement appears to suggest there has been no breach - subject to appeal. We have seen HMRC waste money on other appeals and ultimately lost.

If they lose an appeal then Rangers are vindicated and they in effect have not cheated and used a legal vehicle to fund their various campaigns. That is that!

THEN we move onto what actually brought them down:

1 They ran out of money and owed the Bank a shed load
2 They failed to pay HMRC tax on salaries paid - HMRC took their time bringing this to light as a normal employer only gets 42 days
3 They couldn't get creditors to agree a voluntary arrangement.

They then were dealt with under the normal rules (?) of the SPL/SFA/SPL (?) and demoted to the third division - insolvency and potentially irregular contracts.

Take the emotion out then that is that.

However, this was a train crash a long time in coming and one wonders what could have been done before football was plunged into its latest crisis.

Is the league better for it? It would appear so.

Thanks for clarification on the Trusts aspect.

FWIW, I absolutely agree with you about what actually brought them down. Without the BTC, HMRC would still have opposed the CVA and we would have had liquidation. It is ripping my knitting that so many people are out there are saying that liquidation would not have happened (including, it has to be said, Graham Spiers, who I thought had a better handle on things than most.) However, we should be used to slavers from people who don't know the difference between CVA's and IUD's.

One pedantic point. Although some employers pay their PAYE quarterly, most (including Rangers and Hearts) have to pay theirs within 22 days (19, if they pay manually) of the end of the month in which the salaries are paid.

[JimBHibees]

Zombie Huns have just made a booking through my work. Is it petty that I've ensured that they are referred to as 'The Rangers' on our system?

Yes you should use the name you used in bold. :greengrin

[grunt]

It is ripping my knitting that so many people are out there are saying that liquidation would not have happened (including, it has to be said, Graham Spiers, who I thought had a better handle on things than most.) I think Spiers' point is that if they hadn't had the BTC looming over them, Murray could have sold the club to someone more suitable, who would have had some funds and wouldn't have hit the rails so soon.

On a related matter, I liked Tom English' article in the Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/tom-english-if-only-murray-and-his-men-had-been-co-operative-from-day-one-1-2650192

[SurferRosa]

Zombie Huns have just made a booking through my work. Is it petty that I've ensured that they are referred to as 'The Rangers' on our system?

That`s leniant. 'SevCo' would have been more appropriate....:greengrin

[Jack Hackett]

Zombie Huns have just made a booking through my work. Is it petty that I've ensured that they are referred to as 'The Rangers' on our system?

It would be a real shame should that booking mysteriously disappear from the system.... Especially if they've paid in advance :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I think Spiers' point is that if they hadn't had the BTC looming over them, Murray could have sold the club to someone more suitable, who would have had some funds and wouldn't have hit the rails so soon.

On a related matter, I liked Tom English' article in the Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/tom-english-if-only-murray-and-his-men-had-been-co-operative-from-day-one-1-2650192

Okay, that's a fair point. He's back on my good-guy list.

That said, and I'm going to keep banging the drum on this until someone in the MSM hears it, the assessments have to be "reduced", not "removed". The BTC still cost RFC millions.

[oregonhibby]

One pedantic point. Although some employers pay their PAYE quarterly, most (including Rangers and Hearts) have to pay theirs within 22 days (19, if they pay manually) of the end of the month in which the salaries are paid.[/QUOTE]



I may be wrong on that and stand to be corrected. I thought chasing an employer starts 42 days after default? In anycase it certainly wouldn't be 6 - 9 months! With real time filing starting that should also bring an end to that!

As to whether they would have survived had this case been resolved earlier it is an academic question, it would have given the supporters the chance to throw good money after bad, as they will at Tynecastle. In the end the owner may have always wanted this outcome!

[CropleyWasGod]

One pedantic point. Although some employers pay their PAYE quarterly, most (including Rangers and Hearts) have to pay theirs within 22 days (19, if they pay manually) of the end of the month in which the salaries are paid.



I may be wrong on that and stand to be corrected. I thought chasing an employer starts 42 days after default? In anycase it certainly wouldn't be 6 - 9 months! With real time filing starting that should also bring an end to that!

As to whether they would have survived had this case been resolved earlier it is an academic question, it would have given the supporters the chance to throw good money after bad, as they will at Tynecastle. In the end the owner may have always wanted this outcome![/QUOTE]

Ah, I see what you're saying. It's not about when the payment is due, it's about when HMRC start chasing that payment.

HMRC have become much more bullish about chasing up overdue payments in recent years. I have had clients being phoned by them less than a week after the due date, looking for payment. Their attitude is also coloured by the employer's history. For example, if HMFC don't pay up today, the wheels will start turning very quickly.

[JeMeSouviens]

btw, remember all that pish from Hun apologists about how even if the BTC went against them, they weren't cheating because Murray would've bought the players anyway?

From the horse's mouth (Mr Black is a knight of the realm and scrap metal trader):



As for Mr Black,
he denied that the scheme was for tax avoidance in cross-examination, though he went on to describe the scheme as ‘a method of us acquiring, especially football wise, better players in a more cost effective manner than we would be able to do so’; that the club had been ‘very ambitious at that time’; and ‘it was seen as a correct and proper way for us to proceed’; that Rangers ‘have been very successful, because
we’ve been able to attract players of a certain standard that, perhaps, we may not have been able to otherwise’

[JeMeSouviens]

btw2, all this excruciatingly pish pish now emanating from bowels of organs such as the Record about HMRC incompetence etc.

1. They only got a 2-1 verdict and the dissenting opinion is from the tax specialist on the tribunal.

2. The Huns granted several players indemnity should tax be payable on the "loans" in future.

3. as per Tom English, the main reason the tax enquiry took so long was the attempted Hun cover up:


The protracted and chequered course of the enquiry was largely due to a lack of candour and co-operation from Mr Red, who was the chief officer dealing with the enquiry. Key documents such as the side-letters, calculations of figures of contributions, emails and memorandums related directly to the trust’s operation were not disclosed, despite repeated requests and statutory demands for information. From the enquiry correspondence, the tone in Mr Red’s response suggests a degree of hostility, and his remarks were at times aggressive. With his background as a former Inspector of Taxes, and with his professional knowledge as a Chartered Tax Adviser, it is judicious to infer that Mr Red’s attitude and his non-disclosure of key documents did not spring from a lack of understanding of what was being requested, but was informed by a wish to withhold documents which might implicate the operation of remuneration trust as falling outwith the legitimate scope even by his own understanding. It was informative that Mr Red refused any meetings with HMRC in the course of the enquiry, for the likely reason that face-to-face interviews could lead more readily to unintended evidence being divulged.

Having read a good chunk of the document, at best the Huns are portrayed as ruthlessly immoral exploiters of a tenuous loophole.

[southsider]

This makes my blood boil as now we have the ex-directors of zombie-huns demanding compensation from HMRC or the uk taxpayer now they have "won" the case where as had they lose then the liquidated club would have paid zilch. What about the other tax bills and all the other creditors they robbed. Obtaining goods and services without paying for them is theft just like robbing a bank. "one robs you with a six-gun the other with a rountain pen".

[Ryan91]

btw2, all this excruciatingly pish pish now emanating from bowels of organs such as the Record about HMRC incompetence etc.

1. They only got a 2-1 verdict and the dissenting opinion is from the tax specialist on the tribunal.

2. The Huns granted several players indemnity should tax be payable on the "loans" in future.

3. as per Tom English, the main reason the tax enquiry took so long was the attempted Hun cover up:



Having read a good chunk of the document, at best the Huns are portrayed as ruthlessly immoral exploiters of a tenuous loophole.

So are HMRC appealing the decision? Not seen anything definite, but why was the Tribunal panel not made up entirely of Tax Specialists, it is a taxation matter after all.

English's article mentions the fact that it took 5 and a half years for the documents requested by HMRC to be released, why are they not pursuing the Huns for that?

[CropleyWasGod]

So are HMRC appealing the decision? Not seen anything definite, but why was the Tribunal panel not made up entirely of Tax Specialists, it is a taxation matter after all.

English's article mentions the fact that it took 5 and a half years for the documents requested by HMRC to be released, why are they not pursuing the Huns for that?

There will be no decision on an appeal yet. They will have to consider the verdict first, as well as other things like the cost and the public interest.

As for the make-up of the panel, when a tax case gets to this stage it becomes less about "tax" and more about "law"; in particular, it is about the interpretation of law, as well as the application of decisions in previous cases. Therefore it is not surprising to have more lawyers than tax specialists.

[Stevie Reid]

Even by the standards of many of the tubes in their support, this is ridiculous: -

http://www.causes.com/causes/803037-demand-an-enquiry-into-hmrc-v-rangers-fc/actions/1707259?recruiter_id=161301807&utm_campaign=invite&utm_medium=wall&utm_source=fb

We call for a full and transparent public enquiry into the whole process with emphasis on the decision makers at HMRC and their motives and also a full criminal investigation into the steady flow of confidential information that made its way from HMRC into the media and onto faceless online blogs.

Rangers have suffered great damage as a result of the chain of events sparked by a "fishing-trip" by HMRC - their behaviour and that of several other parties - Lloyds Bank, the Murray Group, Duff & Phelps and the SPL - should now be examined by the relevant authorities.

[green glory]

People should be focusing on the the 30 odd cases they lost. The verdict is still guilty albeit on a smaller scale that still runs into millions.

Dual contract use was proven.

[LeighLoyal]

People should be focusing on the the 30 odd cases they lost. The verdict is still guilty albeit on a smaller scale that still runs into millions.

Dual contract use was proven.



And we can assume HMRC will appeal to a second tier on the basis that the most learned tax judge said the oldco huns were 100% guilty. 50m worth of undeclared "loans" my jacksie!

[greenginger]

Can somebody who has read the judgement give us lazy sods a quick list of paragraph references that highlight the fact that the tribunal only partly sided with deadco. and that there are still sums due for their EBT adventure. Also the para that suggests deadco misled the SFA/SPL.

I was golfing with a bluenose yesterday and it was 18 holes of how badly they had been treated and people should loose their jobs for it.

Needless to say the tosser beat me, its hard to concentrate with steam coming out your ears. :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Can somebody who has read the judgement give us lazy sods a quick list of paragraph references that highlight the fact that the tribunal only partly sided with deadco. and that there are still sums due for their EBT adventure. Also the para that suggests deadco misled the SFA/SPL.

I was golfing with a bluenose yesterday and it was 18 holes of how badly they had been treated and people should loose their jobs for it.

Needless to say the tosser beat me, its hard to concentrate with steam coming out your ears. :greengrin

Hope they got cash up front for his green fee.

[VickMackie]

Hope they got cash up front for his green fee.

They'll all be paying Green fees for years to come!

[The Green Goblin]

Is Mr. Red Mr. Green?

[Hibrandenburg]

They'll all be paying Green fees for years to come!

:agree: See what you done there :greengrin

[SurferRosa]

Even by the standards of many of the tubes in their support, this is ridiculous: -

http://www.causes.com/causes/803037-demand-an-enquiry-into-hmrc-v-rangers-fc/actions/1707259?recruiter_id=161301807&utm_campaign=invite&utm_medium=wall&utm_source=fb

We call for a full and transparent public enquiry into the whole process with emphasis on the decision makers at HMRC and their motives and also a full criminal investigation into the steady flow of confidential information that made its way from HMRC into the media and onto faceless online blogs.

Rangers have suffered great damage as a result of the chain of events sparked by a "fishing-trip" by HMRC - their behaviour and that of several other parties - Lloyds Bank, the Murray Group, Duff & Phelps and the SPL - should now be examined by the relevant authorities.

Doesn`t it just turn your stomach. Here`s another one....

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42143

" We the undersigned request that questions from the government are asked of HMRC over their handling of the " investigation" into Rangers Football Club.
Over the last three years, HMRC have pursued Rangers Football Club for " unpaid" taxes in relation to several EBT schemes operated by the club. These schemes were present in all of the clubs annual accounts for the years in which they operated.
The conclusion on the three year investigation was found on 20/11/12 stating that Rangers Football Club were indeed not liable nor had broken any law.
Throughout this " investigation" there have been several leaks of confidential information relating directly to sensitive information about the club, the employees and the current state of play within the " investigation".
The source of this leak must be identified and dealt with accordingly due to the serious breach of protocols and completely undermining the role in which HMRC are charged facilitating. "

[s.a.m]

Chris Jack‏@Chris_Jack89 SPL commission into #Rangers (http://www.hibs.net/search?q=%23Rangers&src=hash) EBTs will sit on Tuesday 29 January 2013 and is expected to last for the remainder of that week.

[LeighLoyal]

Chris Jack‏@Chris_Jack89 SPL commission into #Rangers (http://www.hibs.net/search?q=%23Rangers&src=hash) EBTs will sit on Tuesday 29 January 2013 and is expected to last for the remainder of that week.


Were the EBT payments contractual and were they hidden?



Tick and Tick.


Strip the titles or face ridicule.

[Ozyhibby]

When, if ever, will we know how much tax the FTTT did find that Rangers were liable for?

[CropleyWasGod]

Were the EBT payments contractual and were they hidden?



Tick and Tick.


Strip the titles or face ridicule.

From the FTT judgement, we don't know that. We know that some of the payments from the EBT were remuneration, but we don't know whether any related to players.

[CropleyWasGod]

When, if ever, will we know how much tax the FTTT did find that Rangers were liable for?

It's none of our business, TBH. It's between HMRC and RFC, and only the latter have the right to disclose it.

[JeMeSouviens]

From the FTT judgement, we don't know that. We know that some of the payments from the EBT were remuneration, but we don't know whether any related to players.


In five instances involving footballers (Messrs Selby, Inverness, Doncaster, Barrow and Furness) it was accepted that the guaranteed bonus had been paid through the Remuneration Trust.

Best guesses for Selby and Inverness are Dado Prso and Nacho Novo.

There is also considerable speculation around that some cases in HMRC's original assessment were accepted by the Hun and not part of the appeal. Can't find anything substantive on that though.

[LeighLoyal]

Best guesses for Selby and Inverness are Dado Prso and Nacho Novo.

There is also considerable speculation around that some cases in HMRC's original assessment were accepted by the Hun and not part of the appeal. Can't find anything substantive on that though.



I thought they'd admitted the payments, or some of them, were contractual also. If this Nimmo tribunal is trully independent oldcorpse should be stripped. Will they have the bottle to defy the horde and their media is the real question.

[CropleyWasGod]

Best guesses for Selby and Inverness are Dado Prso and Nacho Novo.

There is also considerable speculation around that some cases in HMRC's original assessment were accepted by the Hun and not part of the appeal. Can't find anything substantive on that though.

It's not speculation, IMO. The phrase I read (and I'm buggered if I'm going to trawl through the 145 pages to find it) was that the assessments were to be "reduced". In other words, some of them stood as originally set. But, as I say, we don't know which of these are for players.


Cav has been awfully quiet on this. I have a vision of him sitting in a windowless room going through every line of the judgement. I reckon we might hear from him by about the middle of next month. :greengrin

[Just Alf]

It's not speculation, IMO. The phrase I read (and I'm buggered if I'm going to trawl through the 145 pages to find it) was that the assessments were to be "reduced". In other words, some of them stood as originally set. But, as I say, we don't know which of these are for players.


Cav has been awfully quiet on this. I have a vision of him sitting in a windowless room going through every line of the judgement. I reckon we might hear from him by about the middle of next month. :greengrin

His head has probably exploded ...... was just a matter of time...... i should have run a book on which of you two it would be! :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

His head has probably exploded ...... was just a matter of time...... i should have run a book on which of you two it would be! :wink:

My cranium is a mass of superglue and elastoplast. My desk has been awash with grey sludge since February.

[Part/Time Supporter]

If you ignore the first load of nonsense, this is an interesting summary of the decision.

http://broganrogantrevinoandhogan.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-hoover-the-runaways-and-a-judicial-nod-is-as-good-as-a-wink-on-the-rangers-tax-case/

Gist of it is that the majority felt compelled to find in MIH/RFC favour because HMRC did not argue that the "loans" were a sham. This then meant that they had to disregard a mountain of oral and written evidence that they were a sham, as explained in great detail in the dissenting opinion.

[CropleyWasGod]

If you ignore the first load of nonsense, this is an interesting summary of the decision.

http://broganrogantrevinoandhogan.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-hoover-the-runaways-and-a-judicial-nod-is-as-good-as-a-wink-on-the-rangers-tax-case/

Gist of it is that the majority felt compelled to find in MIH/RFC favour because HMRC did not argue that the "loans" were a sham. This then meant that they had to disregard a mountain of oral and written evidence that they were a sham, as explained in great detail in the dissenting opinion.

That's really interesting, not least from a philosophical point of view. On one hand we have the legal experts constricted by process, on the other the tax expert coming from the point of view of reality.

If HMRC interpret the judgement in that same way, then an appeal will almost certainly happen.

The bit about BDO not being fettered by process is also telling. However, it remains to be seen whether they will have the funds to go down that route.

[ancient hibee]

I know that this has been done to death but anyone who doesn't realise that £47million of "loans"which do not have to be repaid to the lender and on death are then redistributed to family members,with these "loans"having been made to people who share the same employer,are sham,should really not be allowed out.

[CropleyWasGod]

I know that this has been done to death but anyone who doesn't realise that £47million of "loans"which do not have to be repaid to the lender and on death are then redistributed to family members,with these "loans"having been made to people who share the same employer,are sham,should really not be allowed out.

Thank you, Dr. Poom. :greengrin

[ancient hibee]

Thank you, Dr. Poom. :greengrin

Call me Heidi please.

[CropleyWasGod]

Call me Heidi please.

Ancient Heidi? :greengrin

[LeighLoyal]

I know that this has been done to death but anyone who doesn't realise that £47million of "loans"which do not have to be repaid to the lender and on death are then redistributed to family members,with these "loans"having been made to people who share the same employer,are sham,should really not be allowed out.



The word sham needs redefining if that is not a sham. HMRC are as good at prosecuting a case as the state of California vs OJ Simpson.

[green glory]

Can anyone categorically say how many players actually had side letters/what liability Deadco actually has after these findings. I know the sum in £s hasn't been established. How many individuals though, as I seem to be reading different figures everywhere. 35, 5-7 etc??

CWG and Cav??

[CropleyWasGod]

Can anyone categorically say how many players actually had side letters/what liability Deadco actually has after these findings. I know the sum in £s hasn't been established. How many individuals though, as I seem to be reading different figures everywhere. 35, 5-7 etc??

CWG and Cav??

You won't get a monetary figure, unless RFC disclose it. HMRC have a duty of confidentiality.

As for the number of individuals who were held to have been "remunerated", I thought I read 35. But that will include both directors and players, and it's not clear how many had side-letters, so it can't be used as a guide.

All we need is 1 player, though. :greengrin

[greenginger]

It's not speculation, IMO. The phrase I read (and I'm buggered if I'm going to trawl through the 145 pages to find it) was that the assessments were to be "reduced". In other words, some of them stood as originally set. But, as I say, we don't know which of these are for players.


Cav has been awfully quiet on this. I have a vision of him sitting in a windowless room going through every line of the judgement. I reckon we might hear from him by about the middle of next month. :greengrin

Page 58 Para.35

" it was conceded that advances in favour of certain players are taxable and liable to NIC. "

They are still guilty ! only to a lesser degree.

[CropleyWasGod]

Page 58 Para.35

" it was conceded that advances in favour of certain players are taxable and liable to NIC. "

They are still guilty ! only to a lesser degree.

...but , in SPL terms, only if these particular players had side-letters, no?

[JeMeSouviens]

You won't get a monetary figure, unless RFC disclose it. HMRC have a duty of confidentiality.

As for the number of individuals who were held to have been "remunerated", I thought I read 35. But that will include both directors and players, and it's not clear how many had side-letters, so it can't be used as a guide.

All we need is 1 player, though. :greengrin

See the quote I gave above, there are definitely 5 players mentioned (anonymously) in the decision (page 41, para 176):


In five instances involving footballers (Messrs Selby, Inverness, Doncaster, Barrow and Furness) it was accepted that the guaranteed bonus had been paid through the Remuneration Trust.

Inverness definitely seems to be Novo, some gadge on Kerrydale st reckons Selby is Dado Prso.

[CropleyWasGod]

See the quote I gave above, there are definitely 5 players mentioned (anonymously) in the decision (page 41, para 176):



Inverness definitely seems to be Novo, some gadge on Kerrydale st reckons Selby is Dado Prso.

So, (the smoking gun, IMO) do they all have side-letters?

[greenginger]

So, (the smoking gun, IMO) do they all have side-letters?



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

Prso and Novo both had side letters. :agree:

Novo 178 games in 6 years 2004 - 2010, should nail the cheating bassa's good and proper.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Prso and Novo both had side letters. :agree:

:cb

Next question.....

Have they been shredded yet?

[Hiber-nation]

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

Prso and Novo both had side letters. :agree:

Novo 178 games in 6 years 2004 - 2010, should nail the cheating bassa's good and proper.

Jeez, oldhun signed some absolute dross in their day.

[lapsedhibee]

Jeez, oldhun signed some absolute dross in their day.

You say that, but I seem to remember that the boy Sebo topped a radio station online poll for POTY or best ever player or somesuch - and that wasn't just Huns voting, it was fans of all sorts.

[YehButNoBut]

Rangers game called off tomorrow on safety grounds.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2771-elgin-game-off

DUE to circumstances completely outwith Rangers Football Club's control, the match against Elgin City at Borough Briggs on Sunday 25 November has been called off on safety grounds.

Ally McCoist said: “We are disappointed the match has been called off at such short notice and I know Elgin are as well.

"This was due to circumstances outwith our control but we were informed a short time ago that there was no way the match could go ahead on safety grounds.

“I am sure this is a huge disappointment to our supporters who have purchased match tickets and arranged travel in good faith.

"Elgin City have apologised to the club and we accept their apology but I feel for our fans.”

[LeighLoyal]

Outwith control of T'Rangers Sevco 5088 Football club. :wink:

[Spike Mandela]

Any truth in the rumours that after the surprise FTT decision that The Rangers are changing their motto from 'aye Ready' to 'aye, right'.

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20462546


On the tribunal verdict, McCoist added: "From the club's point of view, it's one we hoped we would get.
"The overriding feeling was satisfaction and pleasure. We feel it was the right decision and we're delighted with it.
"I feel there was an element in the media and Scottish football fans who prejudged the case.
"All we wanted was a fair trial - we got that."

aye ok sally :rolleyes: if the decision had went the other way would it have still been a fair trial ****** grade A ****** plum that yi are

[YehButNoBut]

Rangers game called off tomorrow on safety grounds.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2771-elgin-game-off

DUE to circumstances completely outwith Rangers Football Club's control, the match against Elgin City at Borough Briggs on Sunday 25 November has been called off on safety grounds.

Ally McCoist said: “We are disappointed the match has been called off at such short notice and I know Elgin are as well.

"This was due to circumstances outwith our control but we were informed a short time ago that there was no way the match could go ahead on safety grounds.

“I am sure this is a huge disappointment to our supporters who have purchased match tickets and arranged travel in good faith.

"Elgin City have apologised to the club and we accept their apology but I feel for our fans.”

Looks like the reason the game was called off was because they had sold a 1,000 too many tickets so could not guarantee the safety of everyone turning up. Elgin will be gutted as a sell out crowd and the match being on Sky would have given them a very nice pay day.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/ticket-oversale-forces-postponement-of-elgin-rangers-clash-1-2654339

RANGERS’ match against Elgin City tomorrow has been postponed because too many tickets were sold.

The game at Borough Briggs stadium was scheduled for a lunchtime kick-off, but was called off by police and council officials last night on safety grounds.
The Scottish Football League said there had been a “substantial oversale of tickets”. Moray Council said the stadium has a capacity of 4,500 but around 1,000 more tickets have been sold for the match.

Earlier this week, Elgin director and safety officer Martyn Hunter said 4,520 tickets had been sold and that the stadium would be at its capacity for the first time in years.

A spokesman for Moray Council said: “We are extremely disappointed to have to ask the club to cancel the game. It is certainly not a decision anyone involved has taken lightly. We know how thousands of fans have been looking forward to the match, but there is a real risk to their safety here. The ground can only take 4,500, so another 1,000-plus disappointed fans with nowhere to go is a major concern.”

[Jack Hackett]

Looks like the reason the game was called off was because they had sold a 1,000 too many tickets so could not guarantee the safety of everyone turning up. Elgin will be gutted as a sell out crowd and the match being on Sky would have given them a very nice pay day.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/ticket-oversale-forces-postponement-of-elgin-rangers-clash-1-2654339

RANGERS’ match against Elgin City tomorrow has been postponed because too many tickets were sold.

The game at Borough Briggs stadium was scheduled for a lunchtime kick-off, but was called off by police and council officials last night on safety grounds.
The Scottish Football League said there had been a “substantial oversale of tickets”. Moray Council said the stadium has a capacity of 4,500 but around 1,000 more tickets have been sold for the match.

Earlier this week, Elgin director and safety officer Martyn Hunter said 4,520 tickets had been sold and that the stadium would be at its capacity for the first time in years.

A spokesman for Moray Council said: “We are extremely disappointed to have to ask the club to cancel the game. It is certainly not a decision anyone involved has taken lightly. We know how thousands of fans have been looking forward to the match, but there is a real risk to their safety here. The ground can only take 4,500, so another 1,000-plus disappointed fans with nowhere to go is a major concern.”

If they were Sevco fans, I know exactly where they can go :devil:

[grunt]

Tom English on the rangerstaxcase blog

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/tom-english-blogged-down-by-its-own-hubris-1-2658640

[marinello59]

Tom English on the rangerstaxcase blog

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/tom-english-blogged-down-by-its-own-hubris-1-2658640

A fair analysis.

[lapsedhibee]

Tom English on the rangerstaxcase blog

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/tom-english-blogged-down-by-its-own-hubris-1-2658640

Incredibly poor analysis, and the idea that the MSM was largely steering an even-handed course throughout the saga is absolutely laughable.

[marinello59]

Incredibly poor analysis, and the idea that the MSM was largely steering an even-handed course throughout the saga is absolutely laughable.

His summation of what the blog became is not far off though. It did a great job of getting facts out that the mainstream media failed to do but it's judgement was clouded at the end. Just because it told us all what we wanted to hear doesn't mean it was taking a neutral stance. It wasn't.

[lapsedhibee]

His summation of what the blog became is not far off though. It did a great job of getting facts out that the mainstream media failed to do but it's judgement was clouded at the end. Just because it told us all what we wanted to hear doesn't mean it was taking a neutral stance. It wasn't.

Did it ever claim to be taking a neutral stance? :dunno:

In the context of the lapdog press it was objecting to, it's a tiny failing.

And if HMRC were to appeal and the 2-1 majority overturned, wouldn't that negate almost all of English's piece?

[marinello59]

Did it ever claim to be taking a neutral stance? :dunno:

In the context of the lapdog press it was objecting to, it's a tiny failing.

And if HMRC were to appeeal and the 2-1 majority overturned, wouldn't that negate almost all of English's piece?

No it wouldn't.
I forgot though....Thou shalt not question rangerstaxcase. :greengrin

[TheEastTerrace]

I have to confess that I was utterly convinced that Rangers would be done for as a result of reading the rangerstaxcase. The blog was in receipt of vital information pertinent to the FTT and the evidence presented was pretty compelling. I never read many of the comments mind. In reflection, there was an absence of objectivity ie it presumed Rangers would be found guilty and there was little consideration that Rangers could win out. It was clouded by emotions in the end.

That said, some of the back peddling among some journalists stinks. They were just as culpable in some cases of taking the evidence and presuming guilt in their opinion columns.

[LeighLoyal]

I have to confess that I was utterly convinced that Rangers would be done for as a result of reading the rangerstaxcase. The blog was in receipt of vital information pertinent to the FTT and the evidence presented was pretty compelling. I never read many of the comments mind. In reflection, there was an absence of objectivity ie it presumed Rangers would be found guilty and there was little consideration that Rangers could win out. It was clouded by emotions in the end.

That said, some of the back peddling among some journalists stinks. They were just as culpable in some cases of taking the evidence and presuming guilt in their opinion columns.


They are still guilty in my book regardless of the FTT 2-1. The other clubs paid their due tax to the crown and they didn't, they gained an unfair sporting advantage and hid the fact from the SFA. Some loyalists they are. Rebels I'd call them, as damaging to the Union as any provo. The horde will still sing their sectarian zombie anthems with no hint of irony of course, peasants.

[StevieC]

Caught the start of Your Call last night and Traynor was like the cat that got the milk. Full of self righteousness and slating anyone that ever had the cheek to post on the Internet and believe a "blogger" over a "proper" journalist.

I'm hoping that someone came on and put him straight about his misconception that Rangers "won" and "that should be the end of it"!

[lapsedhibee]

No it wouldn't.
I forgot though....Thou shalt not question rangerstaxcase. :greengrin

I thought a lot of what I read, long before the FTT verdict, on rangerstaxcase was quite obviously written from a standpoint unsympathetic to the huns, so the blog's current vilification for lacking objectivity seems a tad straw-mannish to me.

And the idea that Rangers are somehow victorious, happy and glorious again, as a result of the FTT report strikes me as simply bizarre. Why is Traynor even in a job? Proper journalist? The mind boggles.

[marinello59]

I thought a lot of what I read, long before the FTT verdict, on rangerstaxcase was quite obviously written from a standpoint unsympathetic to the huns, so the blog's current vilification for lacking objectivity seems a tad straw-mannish to me.

And the idea that Rangers are somehow victorious, happy and glorious again, as a result of the FTT report strikes me as simply bizarre. Why is Traynor even in a job? Proper journalist? The mind boggles.

I think it's only the Rangers fans doing vilification, even Traynor concedes it served a useful purpose.

[SurferRosa]

Caught the start of Your Call last night and Traynor was like the cat that got the milk. Full of self righteousness and slating anyone that ever had the cheek to post on the Internet and believe a "blogger" over a "proper" journalist.

I'm hoping that someone came on and put him straight about his misconception that Rangers "won" and "that should be the end of it"!

In my view, a " proper " journalist is one who tries to establish all the facts, writes a balanced unbiased article citing both sides of opinion while remaining objective and impartial throughout. None of which apply to Traynor as far as i can tell, unless the definition of a " proper " journalist has changed to include one-sided story telling, allowing certain people to rant utter nonsense while not questioning a single word they say and writing propaganda for the benefit of certain groups so they continue to buy a certain newspaper....

[Spike Mandela]

How long do HMRC have to consider an appeal? Would like to hear Traynor's backtracking should HMRC win it.

Still annoying listening to his gloating. Traynor works for the Daily Record which no doubt on it's front pages considers itself a force for social justice and would campaign against all these immoral forms of tax avoidance yet it's back pages are glorying in a 'win' for Rangers which sees £50m out of the public purse thanks to a scam where high earning players were paid via 'loans' which never need paid back. (or as ordinary people call loan that don't need paid back......payments!)

[LeighLoyal]

How long do HMRC have to consider an appeal? Would like to hear Traynor's backtracking should HMRC win it.

Still annoying listening to his gloating. Traynor works for the Daily Record which no doubt on it's front pages considers itself a force for social justice and would campaign against all these immoral forms of tax avoidance yet it's back pages are glorying in a 'win' for Rangers which sees £50m out of the public purse thanks to a scam where high earning players were paid via 'loans' which never need paid back. (or as ordinary people call loan that don't need paid back......payments!)


Disgraceful paper full of fat bloated hypocrites in light blue.

The Sunday Times front page said HMRC are certain to appeal and they are very confident of turning around the verdict of those two clown lawyers Mure and Rae, they even sound like huns to me. They are apparently delighted with the more learned contribution of Dr Poon who said the oldco huns were tax scam evaders. My concern is Nimmo takes the FTT as the final word when it is nothing of the sort and uses it as an excuse to let deadco keep the scammed titles. This isn't over, and brothers Mure and Rae are not going to be the last word.

[CropleyWasGod]

Disgraceful paper full of fat bloated hypocrites in light blue.

The Sunday Times front page said HMRC are certain to appeal and they are very confident of turning around the verdict of those two clown lawyers Mure and Rae, they even sound like huns to me. They are apparently delighted with the more learned contribution of Dr Poon who said the oldco huns were tax scam evaders. My concern is Nimmo takes the FTT as the final word when it is nothing of the sort and uses it as an excuse to let deadco keep the scammed titles. This isn't over, and brothers Mure and Rae are not going to be the last word.

That's quite a slur on Lord Nimmo :wink:

As we all already know, or should do, the FTT verdict was not black and white. Lord Nimmo will be informed by the actual findings of the FTT and not the uninformed summary of the mainstream media.

[Ozyhibby]

Disgraceful paper full of fat bloated hypocrites in light blue.

The Sunday Times front page said HMRC are certain to appeal and they are very confident of turning around the verdict of those two clown lawyers Mure and Rae, they even sound like huns to me. They are apparently delighted with the more learned contribution of Dr Poon who said the oldco huns were tax scam evaders. My concern is Nimmo takes the FTT as the final word when it is nothing of the sort and uses it as an excuse to let deadco keep the scammed titles. This isn't over, and brothers Mure and Rae are not going to be the last word.

The FTTT pretty much nails them on paying players through a third party, not declaring payments to players and having side contracts for players.
I'm confident they will be found guilty but not confident about the penalty they will face.

[LeighLoyal]

That's quite a slur on Lord Nimmo :wink:

As we all already know, or should do, the FTT verdict was not black and white. Lord Nimmo will be informed by the actual findings of the FTT and not the uninformed summary of the mainstream media.



I know, but in my view the Nimmo inquiry should be on hold until the appeals procedure comes to an end, even if that takes a couple more years. The possibility that deadco keep some, or all, of the scammed titles only for HMRC's appeal to later overturn chuckle brothers Mure and Rae is surely a real worry. The hun media have already decided deadco can keep the looted silver on the back of these odd verdicts. We're in no rush with Sevco in the lower leagues until August 2015.

[CropleyWasGod]

I know, but in my view the Nimmo inquiry should be on hold until the appeals procedure comes to an end, even if that takes a couple more years. The possibility that deadco keep some, or all, of the scammed titles only for HMRC's appeal to later overturn chuckle brothers Mure and Rae is surely a real worry. The hun media have already decided deadco can keep the looted silver on the back of these odd verdicts. We're in no rush with Sevco in the lower leagues until August 2015.

The FTT and the Nimmo panel are examining different things.

Nimmo is looking at whether RFC paid players by means not registered with the SPL. In that respect, although the FTT might inform his findings, he will be gathering his own evidence. Despite the "black and white" thinking of the MSM, the idea that there may be a "win" for RFC in the FTT and a "loss" in the SPL enquiry is a real possibility.

[StevieC]

The FTT and the Nimmo panel are examining different things.

Nimmo is looking at whether RFC paid players by means not registered with the SPL. In that respect, although the FTT might inform his findings, he will be gathering his own evidence. Despite the "black and white" thinking of the MSM, the idea that there may be a "win" for RFC in the FTT and a "loss" in the SPL enquiry is a real possibility.

That is my understanding as well.
Lord Nimmo has no interest in the taxable aspect of the wages, he is only interested in what wages were declared as part of a players salary. The only argument that OldCo might have is that they continue to claim that the EBT payments were "loans", but that is a bit far fetched even by their standards.

[LeighLoyal]

That is my understanding as well.
Lord Nimmo has no interest in the taxable aspect of the wages, he is only interested in what wages were declared as part of a players salary. The only argument that OldCo might have is that they continue to claim that the EBT payments were "loans", but that is a bit far fetched even by their standards.


Hope you are both correct, but we've had one shock already via masters Rae and Mure.

[jacomo]

Hope you are both correct, but we've had one shock already via masters Rae and Mure.

I genuinely have no idea how they reached the conclusion they did, given the evidence. They must be Huns, surely? What other explanation is there? Even moonbeams Murray assumed they would lose.

[Just Alf]

I genuinely have no idea how they reached the conclusion they did, given the evidence. They must be Huns, surely? What other explanation is there? Even moonbeams Murray assumed they would lose.

I think they voted the way the did on basically a set of legal technicalities. HMRC themselves mention that the savings scheme would be legit (my words) if operated appropriately. What's telling is there are a few unprecedented elements to this...... The dissenting voice is the tax specialist, their feedback takes up around 2 3rds of the document, the other 2 judges don't raise any defence to this in their summing up ...... As quoted in some legal circles, it's almost as if constrained by the legal technicalities in this case they did what was legally required and collectively agreed the wording.

What's interesting is I think this leaves the door wide open for an appeal by HMRC and also gives the liquidators some ammo. I also wonder what the SPL/SFA are thinking, on the face of it at least 5 players look to have had dual contracts, they're going to have to do some serious jiggerey pockerry to avoid penalising HunRIP for it.

Interesting times. :D

[CropleyWasGod]

I genuinely have no idea how they reached the conclusion they did, given the evidence. They must be Huns, surely? What other explanation is there? Even moonbeams Murray assumed they would lose.

To be fair to the members of the panel, they are the only people who have heard and independently reviewed all of the evidence. That, coupled with their knowledge and experience, gives them more than enough right to come to the conclusions they did.

Everybody else, including all of us on here, have only had bits of information, some of it in the public domain and others leaked, and (it has to be said) our general anti-Hun feelings to make our own judgement on.

[jacomo]

To be fair to the members of the panel, they are the only people who have heard and independently reviewed all of the evidence. That, coupled with their knowledge and experience, gives them more than enough right to come to the conclusions they did.

Everybody else, including all of us on here, have only had bits of information, some of it in the public domain and others leaked, and (it has to be said) our general anti-Hun feelings to make our own judgement on.

Murray had all the information at hand, and he offered HMRC £10m to settle the case.

HMRC had (eventually) the information too, and refused Moonbeam's offer because they were convinced they would win the case.

In other words, it seemed both sides were pretty sure which way the verdict would go.

On the face of it, if these EBT payments really were loans then the liquidators will now be coming after the loanees for repayment - starting with Murray himself perhaps.

[CropleyWasGod]

Murray had all the information at hand, and he offered HMRC £10m to settle the case.

HMRC had (eventually) the information too, and refused Moonbeam's offer because they were convinced they would win the case.

In other words, it seemed both sides were pretty sure which way the verdict would go.

On the face of it, if these EBT payments really were loans then the liquidators will now be coming after the loanees for repayment - starting with Murray himself perhaps.

Murray and HMRC are not independent, which is my point. The panel are.

On your last point, that is not the case. The loans were from the EBT, not from Rangers. Therefore the liquidators have no power to have them repaid.

Out of interest, where did you get the information about Murray's offer?

[JeMeSouviens]

Murray and HMRC are not independent, which is my point. The panel are.

On your last point, that is not the case. The loans were from the EBT, not from Rangers. Therefore the liquidators have no power to have them repaid.

Out of interest, where did you get the information about Murray's offer?

Murray confirmed it himself in the aftermath of the judgement.

[CropleyWasGod]

Murray confirmed it himself in the aftermath of the judgement.

Ah okay.

How much are they actually paying?

[JeMeSouviens]

Ah okay.

How much are they actually paying?

Dunno. This was 2 years ago ...


Sir David confirmed MIH had offered HMRC an outA-of-court settlement two years ago worth more than £10m. He said: "The amount of time, effort and fees could be seven to eight million quid on top of that."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/murray-rangers-collapse-should-not-have-happened.19483909?_=afc97ea131fd7e2695a98ef3401360 8f97f34e1d

[Part/Time Supporter]

http://www.milnecraig.co.uk/view_Subproduct.asp?fld_product_id=3&fld_sub_product_id=131


November 2012

Donald Parbrook’s Blog

So, at last we have the Rangers EBT “big tax case” decision. And very interesting it is too. Rarely has something generated as much excitement in Glasgow’s accountancy firm kitchens as the fate of Rangers. Naturally I stay well away from Rangers vs Celtic debate and having an English father I think that’s for the best really. (For the avoidance of doubt I both hope Celtic do well in the Champions league and that Rangers get back to the top flight pronto).

The remarkable thing is that if you read today’s papers you’d think that Glasgow Rangers were being held up as a shining example of a good corporate citizen who was being unfairly treated by HMRC. I think the reaction is a useful rebalancing after a few weeks of “bash a tax avoider” aimed at Amazon and Starbucks. But let’s be clear, the use of EBTs was never about anything other than avoiding tax. The Tribunal decision was simply to decide if the avoidance was effective in law. So, the good news for the Murray group and Rangers is that the Tribunal found on majority that most of the cash routed via the EBT was not subject to PAYE tax – there were genuine loans. So…all legal…no problem. But is that enough in today’s world?

I know a “day is a long time” in the eyes media …..but only a week or so ago I was watching people from some of the top international online retailers justifying to an MP in a televised enquiry why they don’t pay much UK tax. The public and media were baying for their blood…. “they’re ****” I heard a lady say…..”close down these “tax avoiders”. It’s serious hypocrisy for the media and public to criticise Starbucks yet argue that if the Rangers EBT were legal that’s just fine. At least Starbucks and Amazon weren’t using EBTs – they paid their PAYE.

As for Rangers ….there appears to be an argument that Rangers wouldn’t be in their current mess if the Tribunal had opined earlier which would have “cleared it all up just fine”. I totally disagree. The First Tier Tribunal is like the opening home game in a long tax litigation season. I’m told HMRC made it clear to Rangers that if they didn’t win at any stage of the litigation process they would appeal the case onwards to the next level – that being the case (and I think it is true) then Rangers were never going to shake off the shadow of defeat – there was no hope of Rangers escaping the gloom of a “Potential £100m bill” etc. for many years to come and, as such, the club was not appealing to most purchasers and would have remained so until the final litigation in many years time. As such, insolvency was probably inevitable without the presence of really very serious new investment (enough for the tax bill plus players etc). And there was no such investment about.

For Rangers, it’s not clear if HMRC will appeal yet – but if they do I am wondering if the liquidator would contest it and how that might be funded? Could HMRC appeal and have an empty goal to score against at the 2nd Tier or even Court of Session? It’d be like the opposition team not turning up -you know who’ll win. In fact, with certain major investment banks allegedly having billions in EBTs the cynic in me wonders if Rangers were picked as a test case simply because HMRC knew there were limited funds about for defence.

So….is tax avoidance moral? Does it matter? Should tax advisers refuse to offer tax planning that may reduce tax bills if they think the planning is contrary to the intent of law? Where is the line? I’ve always favoured the view that the law should be certain and not subjective and that whilst I am a moral man, that each person should make their own judgement on that question and have no issue with tax planning provided those indulging understand the risks and effect of what they do. It is totally wrong to see legitimate businesses hauled in front of MPs to be put in stocks and get pelted with rancid tomatoes. They should be investigated by HMRC who can then apply pressure through the use of current law to get more tax into the UK.

To go on a little more…that Rangers case….the decision is some 145 pages long. The two judges who decided in favour of Rangers wrote around 16 pages of explanation with their decision. It’s unusual for lawyers to be so brief when you consider the dissenting judge (Dr Poon – a Chartered Tax Adviser) chose to write over 80 pages, explaining the skeletons in the cupboard and explaining why she felt that the overall evidence pointed to the money paid via the EBT was “pay” not a “loan”. The majority prevails for the time being but having done my best to read the important pages and paragraphs I found some sympathy with Dr Poon’s conclusion even if I want to believe HMRC can be defeated in the end.

[LeighLoyal]

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/leaguedivision3/4677958/Green-SPL-a-bust-flush.html


Thread needs bumped.


The joke that keeps on giving under the name Charles Green, the mysterious mouth piece of a dodgy outfit called Sevco 5088, reckons we're all a 'busted flush' and says Sevco won't put the zombies into the spl if any titles are stripped. God, we really want Sevco back don't we? :faf: But they're not your titles Chuckles, just like it's not your tax debt. Reminds of the joke: how many Sevco fans does it take to change a dead lightbulb? Answer: One, the rest all think the old one is still live. Stupid thick, deluded huns. :fenlon

[s.a.m]

James Cook‏@BBCJamesCook HMRC say they will seek permission to appeal the so-called "big tax case" decision which went n favour of Rangers Football Club. #RFC (http://www.hibs.net/search?q=%23RFC&src=hash)

David Cowan‏@stvdavidc Taxman must first get permission from first tier tax tribunal to challenge #rangers (http://www.hibs.net/search?q=%23rangers&src=hash) ebt ruling

[CropleyWasGod]

James Cook‏@BBCJamesCook HMRC say they will seek permission to appeal the so-called "big tax case" decision which went n favour of Rangers Football Club. #RFC (http://www.hibs.net/search?q=%23RFC&src=hash)

David Cowan‏@stvdavidc Taxman must first get permission from first tier tax tribunal to challenge #rangers (http://www.hibs.net/search?q=%23rangers&src=hash) ebt ruling

Phew..... I was beginning to think this thread was in its last days. :greengrin

[PatHead]

Phew..... I was beginning to think this thread was in its last days. :greengrin

Not heard the fat lady sing yet. Wonder how Jim Traynor would spin this then?

[CropleyWasGod]

Not heard the fat lady sing yet. Wonder how Jim Traynor would spin this then?

He has resigned from the Record to lend his skills to the appeal tribunal.

[Moulin Yarns]

New blog from Alex Thomson

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-cheating-football-taxman/3259

I've not finished reading it but it appears that CG and CWG are in agreement (as usual) with the gist of it.

[green glory]

He has resigned from the Record to lend his skills to the appeal tribunal.

He's resigned from the Record to work as head of marketing and PR for Sevco. Hence his appallingly one sided journalism of late. If wouldn't do to piss off the new employers now would it?

[s.a.m]

The Scotsman‏@scotsmanpaper Campbell Ogilvie to stand for SFA presidency re-election http://bit.ly/11xq6Ly (http://t.co/UyholP8h)

[cabbageandribs1875]

The Scotsman‏@scotsmanpaper Campbell Ogilvie to stand for SFA presidency re-election http://bit.ly/11xq6Ly (http://t.co/UyholP8h)


it would be better if he decided to stand in front of a shooting squad instead, for the good of scottish football :aok:

[JimBHibees]

it would be better if he decided to stand in front of a shooting squad instead, for the good of scottish football :aok:

Agree saw him interviewed yesterday about how exonerated he feels and the guy asked him if he would be paying back the loan. Didnt think it went down well but pretty good question I thought.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Agree saw him interviewed yesterday about how exonerated he feels and the guy asked him if he would be paying back the loan. Didnt think it went down well but pretty good question I thought.


did he have a red face, or even a slight wee blush ? it's strange that the public haven't heard from him for several months now :confused: and only going public when he's looking for a wee bit of publicity for re-election :rolleyes: i reckon he's made enough out of football with his 'free' loans etc etc...time for permanent garden leave for the king of tax-avoidance schemes :agree:

[PatHead]

Hope that boy from Raith gets the job. He wouldn't take prisoners.

[jonty]

did he have a red face, or even a slight wee blush ? it's strange that the public haven't heard from him for several months now :confused: and only going public when he's looking for a wee bit of publicity for re-election :rolleyes: i reckon he's made enough out of football with his 'free' loans etc etc...time for permanent garden leave for the king of tax-avoidance schemes :agree:

IF he ran EBTs at Tynecastle and IF he received one then surely the yams would be clawing them back? :cb

[cabbageandribs1875]

IF he ran EBTs at Tynecastle and IF he received one then surely the yams would be clawing them back? :cb



this thread is for the big hun cheats not the wee diet ones :greengrin

[jonty]

this thread is for the big hun cheats not the wee diet ones :greengrin

aye but if he was at the big huns doing it, then he's likely to have been doing it at the wee huns :greengrin (slight-hun-content)

[Golden Bear]

Hector's work may not be done after all.


http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/204093-hmrc-to-seek-permission-to-appeal-rangers-tax-tribunal-verdict/

[cabbageandribs1875]

aye but if he was at the big huns doing it, then he's likely to have been doing it at the wee huns :greengrin (slight-hun-content)


maybe he went 'straight' when he arrived at the wongadome :dunno: i cant even remember seeing any wee snippets of EBT schemes possibly being ran at hertz ? or have i missed all the good bits again :(

[blackpoolhibs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20597808#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=sportsound

[LeighLoyal]

Fingers crossed justice is served on deadco this time, loans my backside.

[Baldy Foghorn]

:lolrangers:

[suavegav]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20597808#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=sportsound

Huns are threatening to boycott tannadice in the Scottish cup tie. If they do, united should drop the prices to £15 and sell out to home fans. SPL clubs need to show we don't need this vile club at our stadiums.

[PatHead]

Huns are threatening to boycott tannadice in the Scottish cup tie. If they do, united should drop the prices to £15 and sell out to home fans. SPL clubs need to show we don't need this vile club at our stadiums.

Admins-This post surely shouldn't have been moved to Old Hun thread. It has nothing to do with Old Hun and is only to do with newco. You are only helping perpetuate the myth they are one and the same.

[greenginger]

Green calling for the boycott of a Scottish Cup tie should be seen as a case of " not acting with the utmost good faith " or whatever the Yams were accused of about a year ago never mind bringing the game into disrepute.

Also I am sure part of the deal to get the Old Co license transferred was to accept all the sanctions.

It is time the SFA put these third division newcomers in their place - The west of Scotland League ! :greengrin

[Corstorphine Hibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20597808#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=sportsound

This and the news today that the ruling monarch will now be allowed to marry a Roman Catholic adds up to a bad day at the office for Sevco.

Shame

[SurferRosa]

This and the news today that the ruling monarch will now be allowed to marry a Roman Catholic adds up to a bad day at the office for Sevco.

Shame

They`ll probably convince themselves that Peter Lawell is responsible for this.

[Onion]

Green calling for the boycott of a Scottish Cup tie should be seen as a case of " not acting with the utmost good faith " or whatever the Yams were accused of about a year ago never mind bringing the game into disrepute.

Also I am sure part of the deal to get the Old Co license transferred was to accept all the sanctions.

It is time the SFA put these third division newcomers in their place - The west of Scotland League ! :greengrin

Totally agree with this. It's one thing for supporters to organise a boycott, quite another for the club itself. Where would the game be if every club started boycotting other clubs because of petty issues. The Huns only have themselves to blame, yet still trying to lay it on other clubs. What a pathetic, small-mided, horrible little club they are. They should be thrown out of the competition.

[jonty]

Subtle.


Douglas Fraser
@BBCDouglsFraser
A young company that could use Osborne's new investor tax breaks: 'Rangers International Football Club plc', just published £27m share offer

[Jim44]

Totally agree with this. It's one thing for supporters to organise a boycott, quite another for the club itself. Where would the game be if every club started boycotting other clubs because of petty issues. The Huns only have themselves to blame, yet still trying to lay it on other clubs. What a pathetic, small-mided, horrible little club they are. They should be thrown out of the competition.

The SFL and SFA should be on their case pronto.

[jonty]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20612863


Ahead of the launch on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM), the club said
it had already received pledges of £17m from business investors.

It hopes to attract another £10m of investment from supporters, bringing the
total value of the club to £50m.


Given that Duff and Phelps sold it for £5.5m and they expect the total value of the club to be £50m after a £27m share issue... that needs a little explaining.

[jabis]

has ONE person payed back even ONE penny to this ''loan'' scheme ?

[CropleyWasGod]

has ONE person payed back even ONE penny to this ''loan'' scheme ?

Since HMRC are now appealing, I'd say they are justified in not paying anything back. :wink:

[grunt]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/walked-ibrox-mice-men/3304

[PatHead]

Great article wonder who will pay up?

[CropleyWasGod]

Great article wonder who will pay up?

To whom?

TBH, the easiest way out for the loanees would be for HMRC to win their appeal.

[PatHead]

To whom?

TBH, the easiest way out for the loanees would be for HMRC to win their appeal.

I would hope they would at worst make a payment to charity or scottish football or some of the firms bumped by Rangers. (Even of the tax NI which would have been due)

[jacomo]

Agree saw him interviewed yesterday about how exonerated he feels and the guy asked him if he would be paying back the loan. Didnt think it went down well but pretty good question I thought.

Surely the liquidators will be pursuing all these loans for repayment. I mean, these are assets that oldco need to try and settle with creditors, right?

[CropleyWasGod]

Surely the liquidators will be pursuing all these loans for repayment. I mean, these are assets that oldco need to try and settle with creditors, right?

Nope, don't think so.

The loans came from the Trusts, which were independent of RFC. Initially, that's where any repayments would go.

That said, one would need to know the terms of each Trust to say what happened after that. Does the money sit in the Trust forever, or is it distributed amongst whoever at the behest of the Trustees?

From the liquidators' point of view, though, I don't see them as being assets of RFC

[Deeklipse]

Debt does not go away if you have assets

Never understood why Rangers weren't forced to sell off Ibrox and Murray Park.

[Finbar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20612863



Given that Duff and Phelps sold it for £5.5m and they expect the total value of the club to be £50m after a £27m share issue... that needs a little explaining.


I'm not sure how 5.5+27=50, that does need some explaining. But I do know that £27m is exactly the amount that Old Rangers owed to Ticketus.

Just a thought, probably way off the mark but, £17m of investment could be a Romanov-esque debt for equity deal so that Ticketus own £17m worth of shares. The fans buy £10m worth of shares, raises a bit of capital, enabling the new Rangers to pay off the balance of the debt they don't owe to Ticketus.

Like I say, just a thought, I mean it would be silly to think that new Rangers would be paying off debts from the old Rangers, wouldn't it.:rolleyes:


It's a bit like instead of the club being worth nothing and £50m in debt, now they're worth £50m with no debt!? I think.

[LioNeilMessi]

Never understood why Rangers weren't forced to sell off Ibrox and Murray Park.

They did.. to CG for what, £5.5m? Why no-one challenged this tiny price tag is way beyond me. Sort of property should be worth in £20m plus I would of thought :confused:

[johnrebus]

Surely there must be a way to cut through all of this ****.


Or do these, 'Trusts', sit outside the laws which apply to normal people?


If they were loans then when are they due to be paid back? It is all so vague and obtuse, yet the MSM, as usual, refrain from asking the awkward questions.

If they were loans then they should be paid back to the Trust who should then pay the money back to Oldco, for the benefit of the creditors.


What is so difficult about that?

:confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

Surely there must be a way to cut through all of this ****.


Or do these, 'Trusts', sit outside the laws which apply to normal people?


If they were loans then when are they due to be paid back? It is all so vague and obtuse, yet the MSM, as usual, refrain from asking the awkward questions.

If they were loans then they should be paid back to the Trust who should then pay the money back to Oldco, for the benefit of the creditors.


What is so difficult about that?

:confused:

... because they weren't loans from RFC. They were contributions to the Trust; payments for services, in the same way as paying the phone bill would be.

[Geo_1875]

... because they weren't loans from RFC. They were contributions to the Trust; payments for services, in the same way as paying the phone bill would be.

That's as may be, but when the "service" is tax avoidance there must be some comeback.

[CropleyWasGod]

That's as may be, but when the "service" is tax avoidance there must be some comeback.

That service has been found by the FTTT to have been legitimate, at least in the most part. Those situations where they established that there was tax evasion will be paid for by RFC. On the other ones, the loans, there is no comeback.

If the appeal by HMRC succeeds, then the whole idea of loans will be overturned. Nothing will be repayable by the loanees. There will be a small amount due to HMRC, but they will have won their case, in preparation for the other cases that are coming up.

[inglisavhibs]

Never understood why Rangers weren't forced to sell off Ibrox and Murray Park.

Ibrox is worthless unless used as a football stadium. Murray Park was transferred to some other company before the s--- hit the fan.
The tax man should still have taken Ibrox though and leased it back to SEVCO. That way at least the taxpayer would have got some money back. The land at Tynie plus the school is currently worth about £8m but that would increase if the North British Distillery was to announce a move. This sale is Vlad's only way of getting out of Hearts without losing all of the £24m of debt (last accounts but probably more now).

[Winston Ingram]

They did.. to CG for what, £5.5m? Why no-one challenged this tiny price tag is way beyond me. Sort of property should be worth in £20m plus I would of thought :confused:

It was actually £2.3m for Ibrox, the Car Park and the Training ground. The rest was for player registrations and any other assets.

I'm absolutely stumped how the figure has not been challenged

[CropleyWasGod]

Ibrox is worthless unless used as a football stadium. Murray Park was transferred to some other company before the s--- hit the fan.
The tax man should still have taken Ibrox though and leased it back to SEVCO. That way at least the taxpayer would have got some money back. The land at Tynie plus the school is currently worth about £8m but that would increase if the North British Distillery was to announce a move. This sale is Vlad's only way of getting out of Hearts without losing all of the £24m of debt (last accounts but probably more now).

HMRC have no powers to do so. Indeed, that would have been discriminatory against all other creditors.

And, you're wrong about Murray Park. it was transferred to Sevco.

[CropleyWasGod]

It was actually £2.3m for Ibrox, the Car Park and the Training ground. The rest was for player registrations and any other assets.

I'm absolutely stumped how the figure has not been challenged

We don't know whether it has been challenged. BDO will be working away and, if they think it appropriate, they will challenge it.

[PatHead]

Notice that Octopus EIS tranche which involved Rangers ticket sales has matured and they have indicated a further payment may follow after outstanding court action

[YehButNoBut]

Noticed that Rangers released a statement today saying that any proceeds they do get from the Dundee Utd cup tie will be donated to charity.

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2863-scottish-cup-statement

CHARLES GREEN and the Board of Rangers Football Club has noted speculation regarding possible outcomes of gate distribution as a result of Rangers' decision not to take tickets for the Scottish Cup match against Dundee United at Tannadice.

The chief executive said: “The Club was contacted by Dundee United requesting us to waive our rights to the share of the gate under Cup Competition Rule 46(c), this was declined.

"It has been decided by the board that any proceeds from gate receipts due to the Club will be donated to the Prince and Princess of Wales Hospice Brick by Brick Appeal and Erskine charities via the Rangers Charity Foundation.”

[lapsedhibee]

Noticed that Rangers released a statement today saying that any proceeds they do get from the Dundee Utd cup tie will be donated to charity.

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2863-scottish-cup-statement

CHARLES GREEN and the Board of Rangers Football Club has noted speculation regarding possible outcomes of gate distribution as a result of Rangers' decision not to take tickets for the Scottish Cup match against Dundee United at Tannadice.

The chief executive said: “The Club was contacted by Dundee United requesting us to waive our rights to the share of the gate under Cup Competition Rule 46(c), this was declined.

"It has been decided by the board that any proceeds from gate receipts due to the Club will be donated to the Prince and Princess of Wales Hospice Brick by Brick Appeal and Erskine charities via the Rangers Charity Foundation.”

That's The Rangers, always keen to do the morally upstanding thing. :fibber:

[madabouthibs]

Dont Rangers have history regarding charities?

[Caversham Green]

That's The Rangers, always keen to do the morally upstanding thing. :fibber:

They even manage to make charitable donations look sleazy.

I hope United counter by saying 20% of match taking will go to charity if Sevco waive their share - at least I trust United to go through with it.

[jonty]

Dont Rangers have history regarding charities?
The Rangers have no history. Fact :agree:

[greenginger]

Are Dundee Utd not still due money from old Hun from a fixture last season and are refusing to pay it because Green has some letter from the SFA/SPL saying they were going to pay it out of sums due the bankrupt club. This never happened, and Green refuses to consider this sum as part of the SFA license transfer.

Now if the SFA instruct United to pay the money due out of Ranger's share of the gate, Green will scream long and loud about depriving Charities.

If they get through they should be kicked out of the competition, if they get beat they should be banned from next years.

I wonder what Green's plans are in event of a Draw and replay. Will they boycott this game too ? :confused:

[Moulin Yarns]

For Green Ginger. Yes about £35k for cup game

[nairn hibee]

Daily record had a big pullout today ,celebrating 140 years of rangers.i thought they died before their 140th year,whts that about or am i wrong:confused:

[Saorsa]

Daily record had a big pullout today ,celebrating 140 years of rangers.i thought they died before their 140th year,whts that about or am i wrong:confused:They're deid tae everybody except their deluded selves and their lackies at daily bog roll. The corpse has been buried but the tramps stole the funeral suit and are wearing it.

[Keith_M]

You're really surprised that the Daily ****** are pandering to NewHun and it's fans?

Who cares about logic when there's print to sell.

[Baldy Foghorn]

Daily record had a big pullout today ,celebrating 140 years of rangers.i thought they died before their 140th year,whts that about or am i wrong:confused:

Obviously the Record has conveniently overlooked the fact that Oldco was liquidated, and a Newco was set up.........Totally expected from that weegie rag, massaging the hordes of huns...........

[Hibercelona]

What they actually mean to say is:

"140 years of racism, sectarianism, satanism and any other forms of bile/bigotry that you could possibly think of".

They just say "Rangers" for short...

[Pretty Boy]

140 days surely?

[SurferRosa]

They also had an 8 page pullout on Celtic yesterday so the natural balance must be restored. 8 pages for the smellies so there has to be 8 pages for SevCo. What one gets the other has to have as well. They pander to both sets of bigots.

[Hibs Class]

Daily record had a big pullout today ,celebrating 140 years of rangers.i thought they died before their 140th year,whts that about or am i wrong:confused:

A lie's a lie for a' that.

[LeighLoyal]

The ****** is so shameless. Traynor is just changing offices and making his Sevco PR official, Keevins should do likewise - if he isn't on the payroll already. :rolleyes: As far as them being the same club.... :faf: If they are they owe 60m to creditors, and an EBT tax liability of 90m if justice is served by the appeal. Same club my ***e

[Hibernia Na Eir]

horrid club with horrid traditions. 140 years of suffering for everyone else.

[Kato]

http://cdn1.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/the-walking-dead-zombie.jpg

[Sir David Gray]

I'm seriously struggling with the concept of a club that's been in existence for around 6 months celebrating their 140th annivesary.

Really baffling.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm seriously struggling with the concept of a club that's been in existence for around 6 months celebrating their 140th annivesary.

Really baffling.

It's an extension of that concept, born in Gorgie, that we lovingly call Yamanomics. For once, the imitation is in reverse.....we can call it Hunanomics. :greengrin

[hibs0666]

Notice that Octopus EIS tranche which involved Rangers ticket sales has matured and they have indicated a further payment may follow after outstanding court action

What do you mean by that mate?

[Jim44]

The 'The Rangers' bandwagon gains momentum this morning with Smith supporting the proposed boycott and waxing lyrical about the injustice against his beloved club. Gough adds to it by demanding that The Rangers should be catapulted back to the top league in hurried reconstruction.

[bathhibby]

It was actually £2.3m for Ibrox, the Car Park and the Training ground. The rest was for player registrations and any other assets.

I'm absolutely stumped how the figure has not been challenged

Apparently the Liquidator is considering challenging the sale in the Court of Sessions on the Grounds that Duff & Phelps did not get a fair price for the Creditors - good luck

[lapsedhibee]

The 'The Rangers' bandwagon gains momentum this morning with Smith supporting the proposed boycott and waxing lyrical about the injustice against his beloved club. Gough adds to it by demanding that The Rangers should be catapulted back to the top league in hurried reconstruction.

I now dislike media hun apologists more even than the bigoted, knuckle-dragging peepul who belt out ditties about the pope. At least the peepul are largely confined to football grounds, lodges, and so on. You can't so easily isolate yourself from Smith, Gough, Traynor, Young, Dodds and the like. They're like a persistent disease, being given oxygen by way of BBC airtime and column inches in the joke press. Utterly disgusting.

[Mr White]

Apparently the Liquidator is considering challenging the sale in the Court of Sessions on the Grounds that Duff & Phelps did not get a fair price for the Creditors - good luck

Presumably this action would be raised against duff and phelps liability insurance rather than against chuckles and his mysterious consortium though?

[CropleyWasGod]

Presumably this action would be raised against duff and phelps liability insurance rather than against chuckles and his mysterious consortium though?

That's a fair assumption.

Although what D&P'S insurers might have to say about their future premiums....... :rolleyes:

And that's before their professional regulators get involved......

[greenginger]

I was looking at the " pledges " to chuckie Greens AIM share launch and Cazenove Capital Management Fund is in for 2,450,000 shares,4.25%.
Cazenove are part of Old Mutual, one of the pillars of sound money, and manage MY pension FFS. Did Chuckie not pay a visit to Northern Ireland to " Drum " up support for the Newco last summer. I wonder how much UDA/UVF or what ever they call themselves these days, cash was also pledged.

I wonder if Cazenove and the other respectable investors know who their fellow share holders are, and if they will enjoy sitting next to Mad Dog and the Shankhill Butchers at Sevco AGM.

I think they should be told ! :agree:
Checked my pension documents. it is Skandia who do the managing and are part of Old Mutual. Casenove provide the platform and manage several of the funds.
I don't have anything in the fund that is buying into Sevco. Pheww !

[s.a.m]

Craig Whyte's lawyers drop court action against ex-Rangers owner
STV 7 December 2012 12:06 GMT

Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/)Tweet (https://twitter.com/share?url=http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/204658-craig-whytes-lawyers-drop-court-action-against-ex-rangers-owner/)Google (https://plus.google.com/)

http://nfs.stvfiles.com/imagebase/135/623x349/135407-quality-photo-of-craig-whyte-rangers-oldco-owner-smiling-during-game-at-ibrox.jpgCraig Whyte: Bought 85% stake in Rangers for £1 in May 2011.SNS Group
<a href="http://oas.stv.tv/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/local.stv.tv/glasgow/204658-craig-whytes-lawyers-drop-court-action-against-ex-rangers-owner/11354882921@Frame1" target="_blank"> <img src="http://oas.stv.tv/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/local.stv.tv/glasgow/204658-craig-whytes-lawyers-drop-court-action-against-ex-rangers-owner/11354882921@Frame1" alt="" /> </a>

The lawyers for former Rangers owner Craig Whyte’s have dropped legal action against him.
Mr Whyte, who bought an 85% stake in the Ibrox club from Sir David Murray for £1 last May, had instructed Bannatyne Kirkwood France and Co to sue the BBC last November.
He had instructed the firm in an attempt to sue the corporation over a documentary about him that it broadcast in 2011. The case against Mr Whyte was scheduled to call at Glasgow Sheriff Court this month.
However, on Friday the civil office confirmed that Bannatyne Kirkwood France had requested in advance that the case be dismissed.
It is believed the action was dropped by the lawyers after they reached an out-of-court settlement with Mr Whyte.
The Glasgow-firm had been instructed to begin proceedings against BBC Scotland over the documentary, Rangers: The Inside Story, which was shown last October. The programme revealed Mr Whyte had previously been banned from being a director for seven years in 2000.
No action was formally raised in the Court of Session in Edinburgh against the corporation, although a writ was served on the BBC in February this year.
After the documentary was screened, the Ibrox club withdrew from cooperating with the BBC, accusing those behind the programme of "muck-raking". Mr Whyte initially instructed London defamation law specialists Carter Ruck to commence immediate proceedings against the corporation, but it was not able to represent him in Scotland.
In February, Rangers were plunged into administration with debts of up to £124m. Insolvency firm Duff and Phelps was appointed but was unable to secure the future of The Rangers Football Club plc through a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) in June, before the club’s assets were sold to a newco owned by a consortium led by Charles Green in a £5.5m deal.
The oldco has been placed into liquidation by neutral insolvency firm BDO, which was appointed at the insistence of the company’s largest creditor, HM Revenue and Customs.
In October this year, Mr Whyte gave the BBC an exclusive interview about his reign at Ibrox. He claimed that Duff and Phelps knew about his use of a £27m deal with Ticketus for season ticket sales to effectively fund his takeover and wipe out the club’s £18m Lloyds Banking Group debt. The administrators have denied this repeatedly, while they are also involved in legal action against Mr Whyte and his former lawyers Collyer Bristow in England.
Earlier this year Harper Macleod, the law firm Mr Whyte instructed in divorce proceedings from his estranged wife Kim, lodged a bankruptcy petition against him at Inverness Sheriff Court over non-payment of a bill. However, the petition was withdrawn after a deal was reached out of court

[Seveno]

That's a fair assumption.

Although what D&P'S insurers might have to say about their future premiums....... :rolleyes:

And that's before their professional regulators get involved......

As I am sure you are aware CWG, their Professional Indemnity Insurance will excludes Deliberate Acts i.e. where they knowingly carry out an action which they know is wrong.

Not that I am suggesting that this could have been the case. :cb

[LeighLoyal]

I see Bradford were booted from the FA cup for fielding one inelligible player vs Brentford. The huns had whole teams of inelligible players for years. Nimmo, do your job!

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

No doubt they left that workings out for this, to their wages department.


QUOTE=FalkirkHibee;3439472]I'm seriously
struggling with the concept of a club that's been in existence for around 6 months celebrating their 140th annivesary.

Really baffling.[/QUOTE]

[ballengeich]

http://thedemiseofrangersinpictures.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/ticketus-increase-shareholding-in-newco.html?spref=tw

It does seem quite believable that Green is fronting for Ticketus.

[PatHead]

What do you mean by that mate?

EIS schemes are typically sold in tranches or lots. They will invest in around 6-12 new companies who are either on the Aim stockmarket or hope to get on it. These are high risk investments and at the end of the term it is likely some of these companies will have failed. The hope is that the "survivors" make more than thr losers. It is a high risk investment but theere are very good tax breaks.

This scheme has now finished and what normally happens is the provider will total up the winners and losers then hand out any value left to the policyholders or ask if they wish to reinvest. This time they have done this with a note saying they hope to get more once the lawsuit is over.

[PatHead]

http://thedemiseofrangersinpictures.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/ticketus-increase-shareholding-in-newco.html?spref=tw

It does seem quite believable that Green is fronting for Ticketus.

The problem with this article is a number of financial companies not shown on this list will have business relationships with Octopus.

[YehButNoBut]

They just posted this image on their Facebook page, they really make you boke.

Don't they know they have won eff all. :fuming:


‎54 Titles - We're Still Going Strong.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s480x480/424868_519437254741701_297477331_n.jpg

[banchoryhibs]

Before I get peppered with accusations of spending my weekends at castle grayskull, or God forbid being a yam fud I'm just as unhappy about this as the next person but perhaps this is simply the stupidest thing that Chuckie could have done.

Yes, the financial company has gone bust but the SFA's QC confirmed that it was appropriate for the side letter / dual contract enquiry to continue as the "club" remained but with a different owner - just as many clubs change ownership from time to time. How many different companies have owned Hibs for example?

If you've read the Rangers Tax Case ruling (I have) the two judges who came down on Ranger's side did so on a very narrow interpretation of tax law set by a case that was not on all fours with the Rangers case. They did not say that there were no dual contracts but said that some were indeed taxable as earnings but the rest were not. Dr Heidi Poon, on the other hand, made it quite clear that there were dual contracts and indeed they were all earnings. All three agreed that there were some dual contracts.

Unlike most criminal not guilty verdicts tax court verdicts are very frequently appealed and the matter not decided until the argument has gone through various courts ending at the Supreme Court. They are certainly "not guilty" yet as HMRC has made it public that they will appeal.

Now for Chuckie's stupidity. He cannot claim that The Rangers can't be punished for the sins of the predecessor company as he is trumpeting it far and wide that "The Rangers" is actually "Rangers". The punishment will stick with the Club.

Given the uncertainty of the tax case - not uncertain at all if you read Poon's damning opinion, they can't say "Not guilty" "Not guilty" but they have to explain themselves. Now Mr Red did not do a very good job of this at the Tax Tribunal. :cb:cb

To quote Lord Hoffman,"Something may be real for one purpose but not for another."

Don't give up yet

[CropleyWasGod]

Before I get peppered with accusations of spending my weekends at castle grayskull, or God forbid being a yam fud I'm just as unhappy about this as the next person but perhaps this is simply the stupidest thing that Chuckie could have done.

Yes, the financial company has gone bust but the SFA's QC confirmed that it was appropriate for the side letter / dual contract enquiry to continue as the "club" remained but with a different owner - just as many clubs change ownership from time to time. How many different companies have owned Hibs for example?

If you've read the Rangers Tax Case ruling (I have) the two judges who came down on Ranger's side did so on a very narrow interpretation of tax law set by a case that was not on all fours with the Rangers case. They did not say that there were no dual contracts but said that some were indeed taxable as earnings but the rest were not. Dr Heidi Poon, on the other hand, made it quite clear that there were dual contracts and indeed they were all earnings. All three agreed that there were some dual contracts.

Unlike most criminal not guilty verdicts tax court verdicts are very frequently appealed and the matter not decided until the argument has gone through various courts ending at the Supreme Court. They are certainly "not guilty" yet as HMRC has made it public that they will appeal.

Now for Chuckie's stupidity. He cannot claim that The Rangers can't be punished for the sins of the predecessor company as he is trumpeting it far and wide that "The Rangers" is actually "Rangers". The punishment will stick with the Club.

Given the uncertainty of the tax case - not uncertain at all if you read Poon's damning opinion, they can't say "Not guilty" "Not guilty" but they have to explain themselves. Now Mr Red did not do a very good job of this at the Tax Tribunal. :cb:cb

To quote Lord Hoffman,"Something may be real for one purpose but not for another."

Don't give up yet

I would echo most of what you say, with one slight disagreement.

This is not about "guilty" or "not guilty". It is about the amount of the assessments that HMRC issued to RFC. What the media have spectacularly missed is the fact that those assessments were reduced, not removed. As you say, there were some instances where they were found to have paid remuneration that should have been taxed. As a result, RFC still have some liability to HMRC.

HMRC's appeal is not to make them "guilty" again, but to have the assessments reinstated at their original level.

[johnbc70]

Their share prospectus is online now, any finance experts had a look to see if it is pure fantasy? www.rangersshareoffer.com

[StevieC]

I would echo most of what you say, with one slight disagreement.

This is not about "guilty" or "not guilty". It is about the amount of the assessments that HMRC issued to RFC. What the media have spectacularly missed is the fact that those assessments were reduced, not removed. As you say, there were some instances where they were found to have paid remuneration that should have been taxed. As a result, RFC still have some liability to HMRC.

HMRC's appeal is not to make them "guilty" again, but to have the assessments reinstated at their original level.

Is there a list of which assessments were ruled in favour of HMRC? There were a few "pay-off" payments to people that were not players, and I'm wondering if these are the ones that were in HMRC's favour?
If there was a single player that was deemed taxable then I can't understand why it's not all of them?

[Caversham Green]

Before I get peppered with accusations of spending my weekends at castle grayskull, or God forbid being a yam fud I'm just as unhappy about this as the next person but perhaps this is simply the stupidest thing that Chuckie could have done.

Yes, the financial company has gone bust but the SFA's QC confirmed that it was appropriate for the side letter / dual contract enquiry to continue as the "club" remained but with a different owner - just as many clubs change ownership from time to time. How many different companies have owned Hibs for example?

If you've read the Rangers Tax Case ruling (I have) the two judges who came down on Ranger's side did so on a very narrow interpretation of tax law set by a case that was not on all fours with the Rangers case. They did not say that there were no dual contracts but said that some were indeed taxable as earnings but the rest were not. Dr Heidi Poon, on the other hand, made it quite clear that there were dual contracts and indeed they were all earnings. All three agreed that there were some dual contracts.

Unlike most criminal not guilty verdicts tax court verdicts are very frequently appealed and the matter not decided until the argument has gone through various courts ending at the Supreme Court. They are certainly "not guilty" yet as HMRC has made it public that they will appeal.

Now for Chuckie's stupidity. He cannot claim that The Rangers can't be punished for the sins of the predecessor company as he is trumpeting it far and wide that "The Rangers" is actually "Rangers". The punishment will stick with the Club.

Given the uncertainty of the tax case - not uncertain at all if you read Poon's damning opinion, they can't say "Not guilty" "Not guilty" but they have to explain themselves. Now Mr Red did not do a very good job of this at the Tax Tribunal. :cb:cb

To quote Lord Hoffman,"Something may be real for one purpose but not for another."

Don't give up yet

I agree with the gist of this, but as CWG says it's really a question of level of guilt rather than guilty or not guilty - we should try to make that clear as much as we can.

The point I want to make is about the bit in bold though. It really boils down to the philosophical question of what constitutes a club. As far as the law goes, the company that is now in liquidation was the club - that's the self-same law that they depended on to escape at least £55m worth of debt and the one that means they won't be liable for the final findings of the FTTT and HMRC's appeal. Comparing like with like, if you're talking about the defunct company owning Rangers rather than being Rangers, no other company has owned Hibs since 1903 and prior to that they were just incorporated under other legislation - they changed their legal structure in common with a large number of clubs around the UK at that time - probably a result of the 'modernisation' of company law in 1888.

In the eyes of the law Sevco Rangers are a brand new club - they would still owe all that money if they weren't and they must not be allowed to have it both ways.

[CropleyWasGod]

Is there a list of which assessments were ruled in favour of HMRC? There were a few "pay-off" payments to people that were not players, and I'm wondering if these are the ones that were in HMRC's favour?
If there was a single player that was deemed taxable then I can't understand why it's not all of them?

You won't get such a list, unfortunately, due to HMRC's confidentiality duties. The assessments themselves are done year-by-year, rather than case-by-case, so they wouldn't of themselves be helpful.

The other problem is that the judgement was anonymised.... everybody involved was given a pseudonym, again for reasons of confidentiality. It's therefore difficult to be sure of which situations were deemed as loans and which not. That said, a few (on here and elsewhere) have made pretty good stabs at identification.... the general feeling is that some players were accepted (by both sides) to have received remuneration. (PTS is your bloodhound on this one... he'll be along in a minute....)

On your last point, one of the reasons that the case took so long was because every individual situation had to be reviewed by the FTTT. It seems, therefore, that not every case was the same..... hence the different conclusions.

[BarneyK]

I agree with the gist of this, but as CWG says it's really a question of level of guilt rather than guilty or not guilty - we should try to make that clear as much as we can.

The point I want to make is about the bit in bold though. It really boils down to the philosophical question of what constitutes a club. As far as the law goes, the company that is now in liquidation was the club - that's the self-same law that they depended on to escape at least £55m worth of debt and the one that means they won't be liable for the final findings of the FTTT and HMRC's appeal. Comparing like with like, if you're talking about the defunct company owning Rangers rather than being Rangers, no other company has owned Hibs since 1903 and prior to that they were just incorporated under other legislation - they changed their legal structure in common with a large number of clubs around the UK at that time - probably a result of the 'modernisation' of company law in 1888.

In the eyes of the law Sevco Rangers are a brand new club - they would still owe all that money if they weren't and they must not be allowed to have it both ways.

:top marks Absolutely. Forget any of this they bought the history nonsense. How can you buy a history of another club? They bought the right to use the name. They bought the assets. That's it. You can't buy another team's history. Absolutely ludicrous. As you say, if it's the same club then they pay back that historical debt. Simple as that.

[CropleyWasGod]

:top marks Absolutely. Forget any of this they bought the history nonsense. How can you buy a history of another club? They bought the right to use the name. They bought the assets. That's it. You can't buy another team's history. Absolutely ludicrous. As you say, if it's the same club then they pay back that historical debt. Simple as that.

Being pedantic, one can buy another club's history. Had they bought the shares of OldCo, that history would have come with it.... but that history would also have included all of the liabilities.

As you say, though, only the assets were transferred.

[hibs0666]

:top marks Absolutely. Forget any of this they bought the history nonsense. How can you buy a history of another club? They bought the right to use the name. They bought the assets. That's it. You can't buy another team's history. Absolutely ludicrous. As you say, if it's the same club then they pay back that historical debt. Simple as that.

That's the legal argument. However a club exists in the heart of its support and there is no doubt that this is the same football team as far as they are concerned. It will be the same if the yams went under, and would be the same with Hibs too.

[BarneyK]

Being pedantic, one can buy another club's history. Had they bought the shares of OldCo, that history would have come with it.... but that history would also have included all of the liabilities.

As you say, though, only the assets were transferred.

Indeed :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

That's the legal argument. However a club exists in the heart of its support and there is no doubt that this is the same football team as far as they are concerned. It will be the same if the yams went under, and would be the same with Hibs too.

I am with this argument too. It's the clash between the law and emotion that has been one of the fascinations of the case for me. It's also one of the reasons why the argument about whether it's the same club will never be properly settled.

[greenginger]

Their share prospectus is online now, any finance experts had a look to see if it is pure fantasy? www.rangersshareoffer.com (http://www.rangersshareoffer.com)


They are having a right go at number crunching on the Sevco thread over on Kerrydale Street.

Some interesting numbers and facts coming out but I'll wait until the dust settles before trying to make heads or tails out of it.

Does look like Chuckie and co. are lining their pockets rather nicely. :agree:

[BarneyK]

That's the legal argument. However a club exists in the heart of its support and there is no doubt that this is the same football team as far as they are concerned. It will be the same if the yams went under, and would be the same with Hibs too.

Yep, wouldn't expect it to be any other way. In reality though, it's not the same club. Not a big deal, mind. They should just get on with supporting their club. It's an opportunity for them to look forward for a change instead of back. :wink:

[hibs0666]

Yep, wouldn't expect it to be any other way. In reality though, it's not the same club. Not a big deal, mind. They should just get on with supporting their club. It's an opportunity for them to look forward for a change instead of back. :wink:

They should indeed however it ain't happening. It looks like they could come back even more horrible than before - didn't think it was possible.

[Onion]

I'm seriously struggling with the concept of a club that's been in existence for around 6 months celebrating their 140th annivesary.

Really baffling.

Is it any surprise that they want all the benefits/assets of the old club yet none of the responsibilities. Everything that has happened to the Huns is someone else's fault. Has ANYONE associated with RFC apologised for anything they have done? Nope. They are being allowed by the Scottish media to paint themselves as victims, for Christ's sake. They are trying to rewite history, and the press are allowing it to happen.

This is why, we as fans must never allow them to forget it, what that club has done, how they ripped honest people off, and their abhorrent behaviour throughout. Tba fans are the ONLY people who can come out of this with any credit and integrity. The rest are simply poisoned and driven by money or bigotry.

[blackpoolhibs]

They should indeed however it ain't happening. It looks like they could come back even more horrible than before - didn't think it was possible.


I wish folk would stop talking about the rangers as the same club as rangers who are no more, deid, buried and history.

This is a new club, its impossible for them to come back unless this new club go bust.

[Caversham Green]

That's the legal argument. However a club exists in the heart of its support and there is no doubt that this is the same football team as far as they are concerned. It will be the same if the yams went under, and would be the same with Hibs too.

The basis of my point is that they used the legal argument to escape their debts therefore they ought to accept the whole of that law (or at least we should keep reminding them of that law). You can't just cherry-pick which parts of the law you accept and reject the rest.

Likewise, the SFA and SFL rules are clear enough and The Rangers were granted a huge favour when those rules were overridden to allow them to start out where they are - as did the SPL by even having a vote on the matter. That makes their consistent ingratitude and spite all the more galling.

[banchoryhibs]

:top marks Absolutely. Forget any of this they bought the history nonsense. How can you buy a history of another club? They bought the right to use the name. They bought the assets. That's it. You can't buy another team's history. Absolutely ludicrous. As you say, if it's the same club then they pay back that historical debt. Simple as that.

You'd think that that was the case but it does not appear to be the view of Lord Nimmo Smith

"The club is a separate but non-legal entity which continues notwithstanding transfer from one owner to another. Rangers Football Club therefore continue as before even though ownership has been transferred."

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/lord-nimmo-smith-and-rangers-the-judge-sets-the-gound-rules/

I don't really understand it either but that's probably why I'm not, and never will be, a QC!

[CropleyWasGod]

You'd think that that was the case but it does not appear to be the view of Lord Nimmo Smith

"The club is a separate but non-legal entity which continues notwithstanding transfer from one owner to another. Rangers Football Club therefore continue as before even though ownership has been transferred."

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/lord-nimmo-smith-and-rangers-the-judge-sets-the-gound-rules/

I don't really understand it either but that's probably why I'm not, and never will be, a QC!

At some stage, this question might be the subject of a definitive Court case.

It is bound up with the notion that football debts come before other debts in an insolvency, which seems to be the stance of the SFA. For me, that is against insolvency law; paying off other clubs is, I think, an unfair preference. It may be that the liquidators will challenge that position, and such an action would help to clarify things.

I agree with LN-S that a "club" is an entity of its own (the "emotional" concept), but there is little in law to support that idea.

[PatHead]

At some stage, this question might be the subject of a definitive Court case.

It is bound up with the notion that football debts come before other debts in an insolvency, which seems to be the stance of the SFA. For me, that is against insolvency law; paying off other clubs is, I think, an unfair preference. It may be that the liquidators will challenge that position, and such an action would help to clarify things.

I agree with LN-S that a "club" is an entity of its own (the "emotional" concept), but there is little in law to support that idea.

Thought that football debts don't take precedence in Scotland. The payment of football debts owed by the original club to Scottish clubs was a condition of The Rangers being allowed into the SFL and for The Rangers to get the players registration rather than it being returned to SFA. Think this was due to the ridiculous position whereby you could find Lee Wallace playing against Hearts whilst no fee was paid.

[CropleyWasGod]

Thought that football debts don't take precedence in Scotland. The payment of football debts owed by the original club to Scottish clubs was a condition of The Rangers being allowed into the SFL and for The Rangers to get the players registration rather than it being returned to SFA. Think this was due to the ridiculous position whereby you could find Lee Wallace playing against Hearts whilst no fee was paid.

AFAIK, they don't take precedence. But there was a point during the administration where the Oldco paid (I think) Dunfermline which, in my view, was an unfair preference; I remember railing against it at the time. The SFA seemed to be okay with that, which to me says that (tacitly) they accept the notion of football debts coming first.

[Since90+2]

The Rangers seem to have a strange case of the Benjamin Button's with their 140th year anniversary celebrations today. Next year will they be celebrating their 139th year? :greengrin

[jonty]

AFAIK, they don't take precedence. But there was a point during the administration where the Oldco paid (I think) Dunfermline which, in my view, was an unfair preference; I remember railing against it at the time. The SFA seemed to be okay with that, which to me says that (tacitly) they accept the notion of football debts coming first.

IIRC it was the orcs who attend castle greyskull that paid money to dunfermline, not oldco.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17543328

[CropleyWasGod]

IIRC it was the orcs who attend castle greyskull that paid money to dunfermline, not oldco.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17543328

Cheers.

It may have been another one I was thinking about then.

[grunt]

Some Celtic fans on Twitter having a look at the Rangers Share Prospectus:

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster Page 62 sets out the "fair value adjustments". Most of the "negative goodwill" profit comes from the RFC brand, bought for £1 now worth £16m

Also uncovering a story about The Rangers sueing the players who didn't TUPE across from OldCo. Looks as though some of them didn't follow the detailed legal advice which I thought had been provided by the PFA. It shows a certain class, I think, to sue your own (albeit in a different company) employees.

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster
Sevco is suing McGregor, Lafferty, Aluko, Naismith, Whittaker & J Ness for breach of contract, as they failed validly to object under TUPE.

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster
Davis, Fleck & McCabe were also sued by Sevco for this, but those cases have settled. The dispute is going to arbitration early next year

Some are fighting back

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster[I]
Page 106: "Sone Aluko, Kyle Lafferty and Jamie Ness have raised employment tribunal claims against Newco. They claim constructive dismissal"

[Sweet Left Peg]

[QUOTE=jonty;3441261]IIRC it was the orcs who attend castle greyskull that paid money to dunfermline, not oldco.


But Castle Greyskull was where the goodies lived. Surely the orcs drag their knuckles along to Snake Mountain, no?

[EuanH78]

Some Celtic fans on Twitter having a look at the Rangers Share Prospectus:

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster Page 62 sets out the "fair value adjustments". Most of the "negative goodwill" profit comes from the RFC brand, bought for £1 now worth £16m

Also uncovering a story about The Rangers sueing the players who didn't TUPE across from OldCo. Looks as though some of them didn't follow the detailed legal advice which I thought had been provided by the PFA. It shows a certain class, I think, to sue your own (albeit in a different company) employees.

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster
Sevco is suing McGregor, Lafferty, Aluko, Naismith, Whittaker & J Ness for breach of contract, as they failed validly to object under TUPE.

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster
Davis, Fleck & McCabe were also sued by Sevco for this, but those cases have settled. The dispute is going to arbitration early next year

Some are fighting back

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster[I]
Page 106: "Sone Aluko, Kyle Lafferty and Jamie Ness have raised employment tribunal claims against Newco. They claim constructive dismissal"


Do not have the knowledge or ability to verify it but stuff I was reading today suggested that the figures in the share offer are somewhat creative. The suggestion is that the Zombie Huns are still looking at losing circa £10M a year and the negative goodwill etc makes it look like they are profitable for now. At least until after the share issue when supposedly Chuckie and co will flip their shares and head off into the sunset.

I can but hope :greengrin

[greenginger]

Just finished off my Christmas Card list and decided to include The Rangers.

I've wished them a very Merry First Christmas and look forward to see them on their FIRST ever visit to Easter Road in few years time. :greengrin

[Leithenhibby]

Just finished off my Christmas Card list and decided to include The Rangers.

I've wished them a very Merry First Christmas and look forward to see them on their FIRST ever visit to Easter Road in few years time. :greengrin


:thumbsup:

I can see that one taking off......... :greengrin

[EuanH78]

The Rangers seem to have a strange case of the Benjamin Button's with their 140th year anniversary celebrations today. Next year will they be celebrating their 139th year? :greengrin

:greengrin

http://twitpic.com/bkld4h

[Sir David Gray]

:greengrin

http://twitpic.com/bkld4h

Brilliant! :greengrin

[PatHead]

On STV news today...................

Sixty-seven players are involved in legal action against Rangers over the handling of their contracts.
PFA Scotland has raised an employment tribunal claim, which Rangers say is on behalf of 67 unnamed players, relating to a failure "to inform and consult".
The action relates to the transfer of player contracts between the oldco and newco Rangers following the sale of the oldco's assets to Charles Green's consortium.
In addition, three former players Sone Aluko, Kyle Lafferty and Jamie Ness are taking Rangers to a separate employment tribunal over the circumstances that led to them leaving the club, citing "constructive dismissal".

STV understands both claims have been lodged with HM Courts and Tribunal Service in Glasgow, though no dates for hearings have yet been set.
Lawyer Donald MacKinnon explained the situation: " Where a company is sold or otherwise changes hands, there is an obligation on both the old company and the new company to consult with the affected staff.
"In this particular case, if there is a failure to consult with the affected staff then the player's representatives or the company or the employees' representatives can make a claim to an employment tribunal for that failure and the tribunal may award up to 90 day's pay for each affected employee.
"That is a sum that can be awarded against both oldco and newco and they are jointly liable for that."
A spokesman for the Ibrox club said: "Rangers position is that these claims are baseless and invalid and affect, in reality, a small number of players who left the club in the summer."
A consortium of businessmen led by Charles Green bought the assets of Rangers old company while it was in the hands of administrators. Player contracts were transferred to the new company under TUPE legislation when Mr Green’s consortium took control of the club.However, several first team players refused to transfer their contracts and left for other clubs, a matter which has been taken to the Scottish Football Association for arbitration and will be heard next year.
Details of the claims being raised were detailed in a share prospectus issued by Rangers ahead of their stock market flotation.
In the prospectus, the Ibrox club challenged PFA Scotland’s right to bring a claim on behalf of 67 players and said it wants a pre-tribunal hearing to dismiss their claim.
Rangers also said that they will defend the separate claim by Aluko, Lafferty and Ness.
The share proposal also states: "They claim constructive dismissal. [Rangers Football Club Ltd] has challenged the right of these players to bring such claims for a number of separate jurisdictional reasons, but in any event these are low value claims."
Rangers believe the claims have been made "for tactical purposes" relating to the dispute over the transfer of their registration which the Scottish FA arbitration is to settle.

Maybe Bully Boy Green is at last getting a bloody nose.

[CropleyWasGod]

On STV news today...................

Sixty-seven players are involved in legal action against Rangers over the handling of their contracts.
PFA Scotland has raised an employment tribunal claim, which Rangers say is on behalf of 67 unnamed players, relating to a failure "to inform and consult".
The action relates to the transfer of player contracts between the oldco and newco Rangers following the sale of the oldco's assets to Charles Green's consortium.
In addition, three former players Sone Aluko, Kyle Lafferty and Jamie Ness are taking Rangers to a separate employment tribunal over the circumstances that led to them leaving the club, citing "constructive dismissal".

STV understands both claims have been lodged with HM Courts and Tribunal Service in Glasgow, though no dates for hearings have yet been set.
Lawyer Donald MacKinnon explained the situation: " Where a company is sold or otherwise changes hands, there is an obligation on both the old company and the new company to consult with the affected staff.
"In this particular case, if there is a failure to consult with the affected staff then the player's representatives or the company or the employees' representatives can make a claim to an employment tribunal for that failure and the tribunal may award up to 90 day's pay for each affected employee.
"That is a sum that can be awarded against both oldco and newco and they are jointly liable for that."
A spokesman for the Ibrox club said: "Rangers position is that these claims are baseless and invalid and affect, in reality, a small number of players who left the club in the summer."
A consortium of businessmen led by Charles Green bought the assets of Rangers old company while it was in the hands of administrators. Player contracts were transferred to the new company under TUPE legislation when Mr Green’s consortium took control of the club.However, several first team players refused to transfer their contracts and left for other clubs, a matter which has been taken to the Scottish Football Association for arbitration and will be heard next year.
Details of the claims being raised were detailed in a share prospectus issued by Rangers ahead of their stock market flotation.
In the prospectus, the Ibrox club challenged PFA Scotland’s right to bring a claim on behalf of 67 players and said it wants a pre-tribunal hearing to dismiss their claim.
Rangers also said that they will defend the separate claim by Aluko, Lafferty and Ness.
The share proposal also states: "They claim constructive dismissal. [Rangers Football Club Ltd] has challenged the right of these players to bring such claims for a number of separate jurisdictional reasons, but in any event these are low value claims."
Rangers believe the claims have been made "for tactical purposes" relating to the dispute over the transfer of their registration which the Scottish FA arbitration is to settle.

Maybe Bully Boy Green is at last getting a bloody nose.

That bloody nose may have to be shared with the OldCo, unfortunately, which would be bad news for the other creditors.

[PatHead]

That bloody nose may have to be shared with the OldCo, unfortunately, which would be bad news for the other creditors.

Still a bloody nose though. Always though Green thinks that if he shouts loud enough it becomes a fact. Just like posters who put FACT at the end of a post which makes it a fact somehow.

I take it these "earnings" will take precedence over other creditors?

[CropleyWasGod]

Still a bloody nose though. Always though Green thinks that if he shouts loud enough it becomes a fact. Just like posters who put FACT at the end of a post which makes it a fact somehow.

I take it these "earnings" will take precedence over other creditors?

They will do.

I am intrigued by the mention of 67 players. Presumably, there are youngsters in there. If they have been shafted, I'm personally quite happy for them to get paid in full..... not so with the high-earners who can get other gigs.

Is it really 67 players? It's STV after all.... maybe they mean 67 staff?

[PatHead]

They will do.

I am intrigued by the mention of 67 players. Presumably, there are youngsters in there. If they have been shafted, I'm personally quite happy for them to get paid in full..... not so with the high-earners who can get other gigs.

Is it really 67 players? It's STV after all.... maybe they mean 67 staff?

Would PFA represent non playing staff?

Maybe all isn't well at Castle Greyskull. Wonder how Chucky will react in the middle of his share issue. Awaiting a mad Vlad style rant.

[CropleyWasGod]

Would PFA represent non playing staff? Maybe all isn't well at Castle Greyskull. Wonder how Chucky will react in the middle of his share issue. Awaiting a mad Vlad style rant.

Indeed. :doh: Sorry, I just get cold sweats every time I hear the words STV and News together. (STV= Should Tread Very etc etc.)

Chucky and Vlad should go on the road together. Now that would make some money......:cb

[PatHead]

Indeed. :doh: Sorry, I just get cold sweats every time I hear the words STV and News together. (STV= Should Tread Very etc etc.)

Chucky and Vlad should go on the road together. Now that would make some money......:cb

Think I would definately go and see that. Could be very entertaining

[Eyrie]

That bloody nose may have to be shared with the OldCo, unfortunately, which would be bad news for the other creditors.
Could any decision be enforced against only one party, or would it have to be split between both?

[CropleyWasGod]

Could any decision be enforced against only one party, or would it have to be split between both?

I'm not an employment lawyer, but I am guessing that they can choose whatever option they want.

[Caversham Green]

I'm not an employment lawyer, but I am guessing that they can choose whatever option they want.

I'm not either, but I think it would probably be 'joint and several' liability to ensure that the injured parties are properly recompensed.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not either, but I think it would probably be 'joint and several' liability to ensure that the injured parties are properly recompensed.

So, as long as OldCo had sufficient funds to pay their half in full, it would be 50:50?

[Caversham Green]

So, as long as OldCo had sufficient funds to pay their half in full, it would be 50:50?

I think it would be open to negotiation between Oldco (i.e. the liquidators) and Newco as to who pays up - if one can demonstrate negligence on the part of the other they would have a case for the negligent party to pay the lot.

That is purely my own reasoning though, no doubt a lawyer will be along in a minute to tell me how wrong I am.

[StevieC]

They are having a right go at number crunching on the Sevco thread over on Kerrydale Street.
Some interesting numbers and facts coming out but I'll wait until the dust settles before trying to make heads or tails out of it.
Does look like Chuckie and co. are lining their pockets rather nicely.

Has the dust settled yet?

:confused:

[greenginger]

Has the dust settled yet?

:confused:

In a word , No. :greengrin

[StevieC]

In a word , No. :greengrin

Be sure and update us once it has. :wink:

[LeighLoyal]

140 years eh? Don't think so. 29.05.12...





http://i50.tinypic.com/20f8dw9.jpg

[CropleyWasGod]

PFA Scotland clarify their position:-

http://pfascotland.co.uk/2012/news/statement-on-protective-award-claim/

[StevieC]

Charles Green on Scotland Today talking about how HE has bought the history and the titles and NO-ONE is going to take them away from HIM.

Also claims the share issue is getting lodged so quickly because that's what the fans wanted, and nothing to do with them needing money quickly. Apparently £17m has already been bought up by outside investors.

[CropleyWasGod]

Charles Green on Scotland Today talking about how HE has bought the history and the titles and NO-ONE is going to take them away from HIM.

Also claims the share issue is getting lodged so quickly because that's what the fans wanted, and nothing to do with them needing money quickly. Apparently £17m has already been bought up by outside investors.

He was a bit cagey on how the money would be spent. A lot needs to be spent on Ibrox... I think £9m was mentioned. (he also let slip that Ibrox has a reinstatement value of £150m. :rolleyes:).

If the stories about the £10m loss are true, that doesn't leave much left for the assault on Divsion 2.

[Caversham Green]

Has the dust settled yet?

:confused:

Here's a quick analysis of the numbers only - I'll keep opinion-based comments to a minimum:

Trading results – For the three months to 31 August they made a ‘normal’loss of £4,121,000 - on a simple extrapolation that’s £16.5m pa – but it was offset by player sales £12,000; non-recurring items (which I’ll explain below)£17,056,000 and a deferred tax credit £973,000(as CWG is the tax expert I’ll leave him to explain that one :greengrin ). Because these items are non-recurring that extrapolates to a profit of about £1.5m for this year, but that doesn’t reflectoverall profitability.
Non-recurring items – this includes costs of £2.8m football debt and £609k acquisition expenses but the main item is negative goodwill of £20,465,000. Broadly, his was arrived at by taking the ‘fair value’ of the assets acquired from the amount paid. The main items here are: Property - fair value £6.5m, acquired for £1.5m and ‘Brand’ fair value £16.042m acquired for nothing. After other adjustments the fair value of assets was £27.215m and these were acquired for £5.5m plus £1.25m pre-acquisition costs giving a negative goodwill of £20.465m
Negative goodwill – this is effectively the discount that D&P gave for taking Rangers FC off their hands and can be partially explained by the losses incurred since. It’s difficult to separate from the ‘Brand’ though, and a swing of £36.5m in three months is ‘remarkable’. That ‘Brand’ goes some way to explaining Green chuntering on about buying the history.
Property valuations – Having established that the ‘fair value to the Group’ was £6.5m the properties have now been revalued at £40.5 while the depreciated replacement cost (which is how Hibs and most other clubs value their stadia) is noted as £79.2. Maybe someone else can explain this ‘cos I sure as hell can’t.
Staff costs – For the three months to 31 August staff costs were £3.5m – that’s not far off what Hibs paid for the full year to 31 July2012. The directors and McCoists salaries deserve a separate post – they’re noted from page 84 onward in the Prospectus.

Apologies for the font - I did it all on Word first then cut and pasted.

[CropleyWasGod]

Here's a quick analysis of the numbers only - I'll keep opinion-based comments to a minimum:

[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]Trading results – For the three months to 31 August they made a ‘normal’loss of £4,121,000 - on a simple extrapolation that’s £16.5m pa – but it was offset by player sales £12,000; non-recurring items (which I’ll explain below)£17,056,000 and a deferred tax credit £973,000(as CWG is the tax expert I’ll leave him to explain that one :greengrin ).

First off, I'll do you for defamation. :greengrin

Secondly, ah, um, I shall need more information, er, before I , ah um, take a view on that. (rough translation..... not a scooby, mate). I hate the words "deferred" and "tax" in the same sentence, because they are damned difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain.

Are they perhaps quantifying the amount of tax they are saving by making losses? :confused: Bit cheeky, if so.

[LeighLoyal]

These speculators giving Sevco 17m obviously have money to burn, the chances Sevco stock will be trading at 70p in 12 months... :faf:

[CropleyWasGod]

These speculators giving Sevco 17m obviously have money to burn, the chances Sevco stock will be trading at 70p in 12 months... :faf:

Chuckie was reticent last night about who they are.

In McCoist-speak, the fans deserve to know who they are. :greengrin

[Sergio sledge]

Here's a quick analysis of the numbers only - I'll keep opinion-based comments to a minimum:

Trading results – For the three months to 31 August they made a ‘normal’loss of £4,121,000 - on a simple extrapolation that’s £16.5m pa – but it was offset by player sales £12,000; non-recurring items (which I’ll explain below)£17,056,000 and a deferred tax credit £973,000(as CWG is the tax expert I’ll leave him to explain that one :greengrin ). Because these items are non-recurring that extrapolates to a profit of about £1.5m for this year, but that doesn’t reflectoverall profitability.
Non-recurring items – this includes costs of £2.8m football debt and £609k acquisition expenses but the main item is negative goodwill of £20,465,000. Broadly, his was arrived at by taking the ‘fair value’ of the assets acquired from the amount paid. The main items here are: Property - fair value £6.5m, acquired for £1.5m and ‘Brand’ fair value £16.042m acquired for nothing. After other adjustments the fair value of assets was £27.215m and these were acquired for £5.5m plus £1.25m pre-acquisition costs giving a negative goodwill of £20.465m
Negative goodwill – this is effectively the discount that D&P gave for taking Rangers FC off their hands and can be partially explained by the losses incurred since. It’s difficult to separate from the ‘Brand’ though, and a swing of £36.5m in three months is ‘remarkable’. That ‘Brand’ goes some way to explaining Green chuntering on about buying the history.
Property valuations – Having established that the ‘fair value to the Group’ was £6.5m the properties have now been revalued at £40.5 while the depreciated replacement cost (which is how Hibs and most other clubs value their stadia) is noted as £79.2. Maybe someone else can explain this ‘cos I sure as hell can’t.
Staff costs – For the three months to 31 August staff costs were £3.5m – that’s not far off what Hibs paid for the full year to 31 July2012. The directors and McCoists salaries deserve a separate post – they’re noted from page 84 onward in the Prospectus.

Apologies for the font - I did it all on Word first then cut and pasted.

I'm still waiting for your follow up post about directors salaries.... :Grrr
Is it right that they made a £4m odd loss in the months that season ticket money came in? If they have no 'external debt' as chuckie keeps saying, how have they paid for this loss? They really do need the share issue pronto to cover a £16m loss in the first season and I can't see income increasing dramatically in the 2nd division, so next year will be interesting. Can't see Jumbo Jim Traynor bringing in £16m in income through media rights.

[Caversham Green]

First off, I'll do you for defamation. :greengrin

Secondly, ah, um, I shall need more information, er, before I , ah um, take a view on that. (rough translation..... not a scooby, mate). I hate the words "deferred" and "tax" in the same sentence, because they are damned difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain.

Are they perhaps quantifying the amount of tax they are saving by making losses? :confused: Bit cheeky, if so.

Looking at the notes in more detail, that's exactly what they have done - they've also provided a deferred tax liability for the property revaluation. Unless the rules have changed since I stopped doing that stuff neither is an approriate entry IMO.


I'm still waiting for your follow up post about directors salaries.... :Grrr
Is it right that they made a £4m odd loss in the months that season ticket money came in? If they have no 'external debt' as chuckie keeps saying, how have they paid for this loss? They really do need the share issue pronto to cover a £16m loss in the first season and I can't see income increasing dramatically in the 2nd division, so next year will be interesting. Can't see Jumbo Jim Traynor bringing in £16m in income through media rights.

I was hoping someone else would do the salaries thing - I'll get on to it shortly though. On the season ticket point, the income is spread over the whole year, so only the proportion relating to the three months is recognised in the trading account.


As Cav said, it's not a £16m loss for the full year. He reckons £1.5m profit.

Their profit is all on paper though - due to the revaluation of the assets. It won't help cash flow at all.

[Caversham Green]

Right, directors' salaries:

Charles Green: £360,000 pa plus all expenses and accommodation including rent, utility charges and local taxes, backdated to June 2012. He is also entitled to a bonus of 100% of salary if the club wins promotion from the SFL or transfers to another league. 3m notice by him, 12m by the club

Brian Stockbridge:£200,000 pa plus 100% bonus if the club wins promotion or transfers to another league or division. Notice as per Chuckie.

Malcolm Murray: £60,000 pa as non-exec director.
Ian Hart: £40,000 pa.
Walter Smith: £50,000 pa.
Phillip Cartmell: £40,000 pa.
Bryan Smart: £40,000 pa.

All on 1 months notice each way.

Key employees

Imran Ahmad: £350,000 pa plus unquantified bonus - backdated to 1 June 2012. Notice - club 12m IA 3m.
Alistair McCoist: Continues on old contract - salary commensurate with experience and market. He was paid £175,000 in the three month period - eqivalent to £700,000 pa. Bonuses for winning the SPL, treble, CL group stage qualification, CL last 16 and from prize money for other European competition. Notice 12 months each way.

All for a SFL3 club - similar to Elgin's pay structure I suppose.

[Bostonhibby]

Charles Green on Scotland Today talking about how HE has bought the history and the titles and NO-ONE is going to take them away from HIM.
Also claims the share issue is getting lodged so quickly because that's what the fans wanted, and nothing to do with them needing money quickly. Apparently £17m has already been bought up by outside investors.

Was just thinking about this guy's style and it seems that the more he gets away with the more arrogant he becomes, he is at the point where he seems to feel that he is powerful enough for whatever he says to actually be reality irrespective of legality / reality, for example there is absolutely no doubt that the business he fronts was incorporated and established in 2012 - he registered it.

The problem with this sort of person is that they set their own agenda and if others do not stand up to them they become emboldened and go for more and more, this one is about the football and tax authorities continuing to be brow beaten and Green utilising the loyal Hun press. Mind games.

[YehButNoBut]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s480x480/522538_369296039828201_428510807_n.jpg

[Sergio sledge]

Right, directors' salaries:

Charles Green: £360,000 pa plus all expenses and accommodation including rent, utility charges and local taxes, backdated to June 2012. He is also entitled to a bonus of 100% of salary if the club wins promotion from the SFL or transfers to another league. 3m notice by him, 12m by the club

Brian Stockbridge:£200,000 pa plus 100% bonus if the club wins promotion or transfers to another league or division. Notice as per Chuckie.

Malcolm Murray: £60,000 pa as non-exec director.
Ian Hart: £40,000 pa.
Walter Smith: £50,000 pa.
Phillip Cartmell: £40,000 pa.
Bryan Smart: £40,000 pa.

All on 1 months notice each way.

Key employees

Imran Ahmad: £350,000 pa plus unquantified bonus - backdated to 1 June 2012. Notice - club 12m IA 3m.
Alistair McCoist: Continues on old contract - salary commensurate with experience and market. He was paid £175,000 in the three month period - eqivalent to £700,000 pa. Bonuses for winning the SPL, treble, CL group stage qualification, CL last 16 and from prize money for other European competition. Notice 12 months each way.

All for a SFL3 club - similar to Elgin's pay structure I suppose.

Sally McCoist gets £700,000 per year to manage in Div 3? I wonder what the total annual wage bill/expenses payments of all the div 3 clubs apart from Rangers is? It can't be much more than that you would think.

If Rangers get promoted, Green gets £720,000 plus expenses for the year? That seems crazy. He'll make his £5.5m back in no time....

[StevieC]

If Rangers get promoted, Green gets £720,000 plus expenses for the year? That seems crazy. He'll make his £5.5m back in no time....

I read it as promotion from the SFL, ie promotion to the SPL, rather than just promotion from Div.3.

[CropleyWasGod]

I read it as promotion from the SFL, ie promotion to the SPL, rather than just promotion from Div.3.

Me too.

Given his earlier pronouncements about the SPL, that'll be his golden handshake then. :agree: