Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Duff and Phelps would not be likely to hand over the Ibrox keys until they have raised enough money to pay themselves.
They would'nt want to become creditors of the club and have to vote a CVA for themselves. :wink:
If the Pope blesses them, then they'll really know they're screwed.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindsummit
Finally the whole farcical situation is being investigated by real journalists so maybe the SFA and SPL won't be able to let Rangers wriggle off the hook so easily now. If any of you have ever read RangersMedia you'd be forgiven for thinking our tired old hacks up here had been somehow harsh on Rangers.
Just wait til they feel the force of an unbiased media.
The only problem is that the previous owner still thinks it is his house and will take legal action. The tax authorities thinks that they should have the house in lieu of unpaid taxes by the previous owner and the one before him.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The house costs around £6 million a year to run and another guy thinks that they have paid the rent in advance to use the hous for the next four years.
Yeah that'll be right!
:top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Not to mention that Christian Aid think it's being run as an opium den.
It's a 'big hoose' though so plenty room for all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Hallelujah! [in a non-religious way]Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Todd
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/game-on/#more-2281
More on the Alex Thomson call to the SFA.
The Sun are running a story this morning that there's interest from New York Investment bank group Fortress in the takeover of Rangers, with $27 billion of assets.
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scot...-for-Gers.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
ExclusiveBy KENNY McALPINE
Last Updated: 14th March 2012
A BILLION pound American investment bank is behind a sensational Rangers takeover bid.
SunSport can reveal that New-York based Fortress, which currently boasts assets of £27BILLION, has expressed definite interest with administrators Duff and Phelps and it is understood the Yanks' move is being taken seriously — while a Far East consortium from Singapore continue to weigh up their options.
An insider close to the deal told SunSport: "This American company has piles of cash behind them and they are turn-around specialists."
Fortress Investment Group was set up as a private equity firm in 1998 by mega-rich American duo Wesley Edens, 51 and Robert Kauffman, 48.
Four years ago dad-of-four Edens was ranked 962 on the Forbes World rich list with a personal fortune of around £770million.
Just one year earlier the magazine ranked Kauffman at 557 with a bulging bank balance of £1.1billion.
Fortress began as an equity company before expanding into hedge funds, real estate and debt securities.
It is unclear as yet if the corporate giants have been approached by Gers supporting businessmen trying to rescue the stricken club, who were plunged into administration last month over an unpaid tax bill.
Rival bidders are preparing to show their hands as the Friday deadline looms for new owners to prove they are serious about buying the stricken SPL champs.
Paul Murray and his Blue Knights, who include London-based John Bennett and Scott Murdoch and motor tycoon Douglas Park, still believe they are in pole position to snap up Rangers.
Ex-director Murray, 46, who has the backing of fans groups and ex-Gers gaffer Walter Smith, inists he is confident of formalising his bid in the next 48 hours.
Now he could face Stateside opposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Quote:
Originally Posted by HibeesLA
That's brilliant, it's upside down
:faf:
About the only truth in that report.Quote:
Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee
Fortress Finance backing bid for Rangers ?
Competition for Wonga on the Pay-Day Cheques front then.
http://www.ukpaydayreviews.com/one-month-loan
A big boy done it and ran away!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17364257
Sir David Murray holding court yesterday with the Scottish Football (pet poodle) Hacks and not an awkward question asked. :confused:
EBT's - " Categorically there were no dual contracts "
"There were no contractual entitlement on part of the players "
We are to believe all the foreign stars just came to Rangers taking a drop in salary with a hope that Santa would be good to them ?
" The Remuneration Trust was always mentioned in our accounts "
What does " Remuneration " mean Mr Murray ? my dictionary defines it as PAY !!!
The football press will never ask an obvious Question. :confused:
I heard Chick Young making a very vigorous defence of Campbell Ogilvie on Sportsound last night. Campbell apparently is happy to talk about everything however just not now and only to Chick. Havent been following this as
closely as some others however is not the main issue that Rangers were in effect using two different contracts, one of which was undisclosed to the SFA which apparently is illegal and which was the EBT type contract. If that is the case and it seems to be as indicated by Hugh Adam then surely Ogilivie must bear some responsibility.
The bold Chico seemed to be indicating that Ogilvie's role was much less than had been originally thought, he was apparently side tracked by some of Murray's lackies at the time and that EBT's havent as yet been proven to be illegal in terms of tax law (awaiting BTC judgement). No mention of the dual contract thing which you would assume given Ogilvie's current role he would know what was allowed and not allowed.
IMO Young's defence went a little further than it should as it came over as not just Ogilvie's view but that Young was agreeing with him that this was correct. How Chick would know this I dont know.
Maybe I am missing the point?
What Murray said was there was no contractual requirement for the players to receive about half their salary and they came and played for Rangers and the EBT money only came to the players out of the goodness of the Trustees hearts.
You would have to be one dumb son of a b*tch to believe that one.
Obviously the Scottish Hacks swallow it, fortunately the HMRC hav'nt. :agree:
I can't currently decide which of two disgusting rabbles I more want to see the back of: the Huns themselves, or the slavering media Hun-apologists. Young, Dodds, Smith, etc etc etc etc. If the current 'crisis for Scottish football' results in a mass clear out at BBC Scotland sports, that would be excellent. Keep Gordon and Spence and bin the rest, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Murray defends Ogilvie
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...eople.17017403
In essence, that is how Trusts work. It is up to the Trustees to decide how the money is distributed.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
However, in this situation, I would like to know who the Trustees are in each case. :cb
A concerted effort to-day from the Weegia.
Murray said: "We're confident that we have a strong case"Quote:
Originally Posted by moff1875
:faf:
Risible.
Wagons have been well and truly circled.Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
Too little, too late IMO.
Hopefully but the realist in me says that this will be swept under th carpet and the status quo will remain intact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
It's a point that is constantly being overlooked. When you're considering contractual obligations payments out of the trust are just as relevant to the case as payments into it. The question of who made the decisions about those payments, what those decisions were based on and who actually received the payments is surely just as important as whether there were any second contracts on paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Laudrup and Albertz should be asked whether they received any money from the trust, and if so, why.
http://i39.tinypic.com/657ezb.jpg
Glasthunbury??
There is reference to a letter detailing 2nd payments, is this letter referring to payments out of the EBT or are these separate issues? Have any papers released copies of the letter? When does a letter change from being a letter of intent to a legally binding document?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
A lesson in obfuscation if ever there was one.Quote:
Originally Posted by moff1875
But he was a director, and as such should have known about the use of EBTs. Collective responsibility is the whole point of having a board of directors.Quote:
"Campbell Ogilvie wasn't involved in paying people," said Murray.
That is not for Sir David Murray to decide.Quote:
When then asked if his position at the SFA was in any way conflicted because of the use of EBTs he added: "No. In no way, whatsoever."
That depends on how they were worded - again, not his decision to make.Quote:
They were never binding contracts, he said.
The use of EBTs was not illegal but, assuming HMRC win the case, the way RFC used them was - that's what the case is all about and an HMRC win will provide proof of illegal payments.Quote:
"It has to be made clear that the use of EBTs was in no way illegal," he said. Both Murray and McGill stressed that, even if the tribunal finds against Rangers, it is wrong to suggest that is proof of "illegal payments" to players.
The payments out of the EBT are, essentially, of no relevance to the SFA. It's the payments IN to the Trust that they should look at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio sledge
Once they have left RFC, they become the "property" of the Trust.
However, as Cav says, HMRC are interested in the payments in and out.
Radio 5 Live are holding a debate on their future on Mon at 7pm. I got an email offering tickets to be in the audience last night, strangely enough there are none available today...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/s...rangers_debate