Would that not suggest that they are the same club? If so why did they have to start again in division 3?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Printable View
Would that not suggest that they are the same club? If so why did they have to start again in division 3?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Because the other clubs voted that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by lord bunberry
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Correction:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Because the supporters of the other clubs threatened to walk away if any other decision was taken.
Should be on the back page of every paper & in every media outlet in the country for a month.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Looking forward to the abject apologies from the SPFL / SFA / Regan / Doncaster etc etc :rolleyes:
Only wish the other clubs would stand up & demand punishment.
An excellent summary of the facts. Sir David Murray knighted for services to Business. What a disgraceful recommendation. He should return the title and pay the proper PAYE on the £6.5 million that he loaned himself with borrowed bank money. Scandalous no Scottish MSP wishes to debate this matter and higlight this level of impropriety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
This whole idea of the company and the club as separate seems to have come about as a convenient excuse to say that "it's the same club" IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
When DM bought Rangers through M.I.H, did he buy the club via two holding companies?
RFC (founded 1872) were incorporated and became RFC Ltd (in 1899), who were listed on the stock exchange and became RFC PLC. I'd be interested to see reference to there being, for example, two boards (FC and PLC) pre-2012.
If the "club" bit is just the assets (badge, stadium, "good will" etc - the stuff that "transferred" to Sevco Scotland Ltd), then who is employing the players, liable for tax (ha!), holding league membership etc?
P.S. I'm aware all this may have been done before!:greengrin
Said it before. The argument over new club/same club will never be properly settled. Not unless there's a cast iron High Court decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
It's always going to be based on opinion, often driven by one's club loyalties. My opinion , as repeated ad nauseam on here, is that it's the same club. That's neither right or wrong, of course [emoji6]
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
I posit he is a bit of an anus aperture. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I posit your opinion :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Oldco went bust. Of course the cutural phenomenon known as Rangers is still continuing, supported by the same fans, with the same colours and stadium, and yes, all that accumulated history, but the club went bust.Quote:
Originally Posted by lord bunberry
They were lucky. Hereford and others had to start from the very bottom again.
I know they are the same lot with the same identity and, sadly, the same issues. What I don't get is why they claim they were punished?
They weren't punished. They were given a free pass into the League.
Where did the claim that he is a Rangers fan come from? He clearly isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I am finding it hard to follow you. you are talking about Rangers, are you? they don't exist. tell any The Rangers fans, that the auld club (Rangers) that they may have supported have been buried. the funeral was in Inverness, 3 years ago and there was some sort of jelly and icecream party.Funerals can be sombre, but I enjoyed watching that one. we are talking the same language mate and I understand your point, and agree that they wont take points aff The Rangers. they may well take money from them though, but, I suspect that it will still take a long time and some will be dragged to the graveside before they give up that moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by lord bunberry
I'm not sure there could be such a High Court decision. The question of whether a club (or anything) is new/the same is kind of like Trigger's Broom (or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)! (I'm thinking The Rangers move to new home ala MK Dons and oldco set up as AFC Rangers! - ie which club is Rangers?):greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
However, I haven't seen as yet anything to say Rangers were two separate companies pre-admin. Surely in the eyes of the law, a professional football club is essentially a business? Why would the law concern itself with whether "the club" persists outside of that?
Agree 100% with the boys post and feel they questions need asked and they need to be replied to ,like the guy said Livingston admitted it for1 year ,this is mass desception on a large scale and no 5 points deduction or £10.000 fine imo would be suitableQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack
To settle all the pub and message-board arguments once and for all [emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
So do I reluctantly but its a very good post, however I can see the point about the moral high ground bearing in mind the many similarities between the two clubs up to the point of the now defunct Glasgow rangers liquidation.Quote:
Originally Posted by gorgie greens
The semantics of the difference between the two clubs going forward is probably pointless for all of those creditors who were bumped out of their money, and I don't think any charities were bumped in the process of cobbling together sevco(?)
I know we've done this to death but the company *was* the club, it was called "Rangers Football Club plc". The clue was in the name. I know the sfa and our compliant media have done all they can to confuse and muddy the waters but we all know it's rubbish, don't we? (And so do they.)Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Anyway, they're far too lazy to maintain the fiction consistently. The terms club and company are used interchangeably all the time in reports, financial reports, official statements by the club (oops!) and governing bodies all the time.
Rangers are dead, death to The Rangers!
Notice in the papers this morning Mike Ashley has become a director of the retail division.
Why is that a problem and how can he just appoint himself as a director? Surely he'd need to be voted in?
@BBCchrismclaug: The board of the SPFL will discuss the latest twist to the Rangers tax case saga today. No plans, as yet, for an EGM.
Rangers Retail is a separate company, which is not connected to the football club other than in the name and the fact that MASH have interests in each.Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo70
MA won't have appointed himself. He will have been elected by the rest of the Board.
Maybe in the small print that allows him too. Also maybe just maybe this is why ( if I understand earlier info correctly) King has tried to get MA banned from voting on any issues. Was he not trying because MA could influence people etc??Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo70
GGTTH
And I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Which kind of makes my point. There are valid arguments on both sides, and it will almost certainly never be completely settled.
In a seething thread about BBC reporter Chris McLaughlin on FF, someone has posted information about a tax avoidance scheme used by the BBC with thousands of it's employees, including many on-screen, big name celebrities. Apparently the individuals are paid as companies, paying tax at 21% instead of at the higher rate. Now, I've no idea if this is accepted common practice and if it's legal, but you can imagine how it's going down with the Hun hordes. :greengrin
A bit distasteful, but perfectly legal and they do actually hand over tax and NI as distinct from the now defunct Glasgow rangers who didn't fulfil their obligations here but used this ill gotten gain to get an unfair advantage over many seasons - if only they still existed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Extremely common practice in the entertainment industry. Also up here in oil & gas where many contractors set themselves up as one-man ltd companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
They declare earnings via their accounts/tax returns and still have to pony-up tax and NI.
Very, very different.
Essentially actors or presenters who are self employed (depending on circumstances) incorporate and put their trade into a business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Profits are taxed at 20% (under 300,000)and the individuals are only taxed when they draw money from the company.
It's tax avoidance, but nowhere near illegal.
The majority of the benefits it brings will be eroded from 6/4/16 anyway
The BBC have already been hauled over the coals for this by MP's and have promised to end the practice. Not illegal but very distasteful from an organisation that threatens to jail people who can't afford to pay for their service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The BBC scheme is actually a NI-avoidance mechanism. Ity saves them Employer's NI, and their "workers" Employee's NI.
As has been said, it's legal. HMRC attempt to minimise the savings by use of what's known as IR35 legislation.
It's also common practice in IT for contract workers. As has been said, there is corporation tax, VAT, NICs to pay from the company, and then you still have personal income tax to pay yourself. Add in accountants fees, the lack of sick pay, holiday pay, company pension or other benefits and it doesnt necessarily mean you get much more money out of it, and with Gideons upcoming tax changes will mean there is little benefit in running your finances in this way.
http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/rang...t-king-murray/
An amusing point at the end of this article (may have been discussed somewhere on the thread earlier)
If these EBT payments were loans repayable at some point in the future, if HMRC hit oldco with a tax bill, will the "loans" be called in? Will the recipients still be describing them as repayable loans then??