Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

This was a debt owed by Newco issued because of Oldco's usage of EBT's. The fine is surely owed by Oldco not Newco. The five way agreement is a legal anomaly. If the fine is paid by Newco on because of Oldco's usage of dodgy EBT's then that is a linkage and I would be looking for answers if I was a stiffed creditor of Oldco. It is a legal anomaly that Newco is paying a fine levied on Oldco's EBT usage which was a major issue of them becoming insolvent in the first place.

---

The 5 way agreement laid down the conditions for RFC being granted an SFA licence. One of those was that all football debts would be honoured, including any sanction that the SFA/SPFL might impose for EBT use.

The new Rangers regime, under Charles Green, accepted that. IIRC, they also accepted the findings of the tribunal that set the fine (I may have my timings out on that one). It was Dave King that refused to pay the fine, and appealed it. IMO, the judgement yesterday was the only one they could come to, since Green et al had signed that agreement.

Paying football debts to ensure continuing football licences is an anomaly, as you say, but it is one that has never been challenged by any liquidator. Why would they? Reducing the amount of creditors by the amount of football debts actually increases the remaining creditors' share of the pot. It's therefore not in a liquidator's interests to challenge it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

I'm guessing it's a football debt because it's a fine levied by the football authorities for a football related misdemeanour (LNS "inquiry") and not for something under UK law.

---

Evading tax is not a football debt. Try telling the taxman that one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

Why not? It's a very fair argument.

---

You've got two different jurisdictions in play here. The creditors, the liquidation were all under UK law. The fine in question has nothing to do with UK law, but is a fine levied by the SPFL for breaching their rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

Evading tax is not a football debt. Try telling the taxman that one!

---

Jeezo. The fine doesn't have anything to do with evading tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The 5 way agreement laid down the conditions for RFC being granted an SFA licence. One of those was that all football debts would be honoured, including any sanction that the SFA/SPFL might impose for EBT use.

The new Rangers regime, under Charles Green, accepted that. IIRC, they also accepted the findings of the tribunal that set the fine (I may have my timings out on that one). It was Dave King that refused to pay the fine, and appealed it. IMO, the judgement yesterday was the only one they could come to, since Green et al had signed that agreement.

Paying football debts to ensure continuing football licences is an anomaly, as you say, but it is one that has never been challenged by any liquidator. Why would they? Reducing the amount of creditors by the amount of football debts actually increases the remaining creditors' share of the pot. It's therefore not in a liquidator's interests to challenge it.

---

It was Oldco who that used EBT's not Newco and it's not a football debt. But I do have respect for your well made argument CWG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

I'm guessing it's a football debt because it's a fine levied by the football authorities for a football related misdemeanour (LNS "inquiry") and not for something under UK law.

---

Aye if it's payable to a club/player/SPFL. Don't know how far it applies Eg if it applies to other employees of club. Its the football business looking after its own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Jeezo. The fine doesn't have anything to do with evading tax.

---

The fine was issued for Oldco's EBT tax avoidance grunt. Why would Newco have to pay that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

It was Oldco who that used EBT's not Newco and it's not a football debt. But I do have respect for your well made argument CWG.

---

Whether or not it's a "football debt" is actually irrelevant. Newco agreed to the sanction, and that's what matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

The fine was issued for Oldco's EBT tax avoidance grunt. Why would Newco have to pay that?

---

Because they agreed that they would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

The fine was issued for Oldco's EBT tax avoidance grunt. Why would Newco have to pay that?

---

You just accepted CWG's explanation but you wont accept mine even though it's the same? I give up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

You just accepted CWG's explanation but you wont accept mine even though it's the same? I give up.

---

I did'nt say I accepted CWG's explanation. I gave CWG respect for making his argument thoughtfully as he always does. Not saying you don't of course.

:aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

I did'nt say I accepted CWG's explanation. I gave CWG respect for making his argument thoughtfully as he always does. Not saying you don't of course.

:aok:

---

Fairy nuff. I realised after I'd posted that you said you'd respected his argument rather than accepted it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Because they agreed that they would.

---

Therein lies my argument. in so much as if I was a stiffed creditor and Newco is seen paying readies for Oldco's actions I would be wanting answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Fairy nuff. I realised after I'd posted that you said you'd respected his argument rather than accepted it.

---

:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

Therein lies my argument. in so much as if I was a stiffed creditor and Newco is seen paying readies for Oldco's actions I would be wanting answers.

---

You didn't read the rest of my post.

If Oldco had taken the fine, that would have reduced the amount available to the other creditors. They're better off by Newco paying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

You didn't read the rest of my post.

If Oldco had taken the fine, that would have reduced the amount available to the other creditors. They're better off by Newco paying it.

---

That's an argument CWG. I am still of the opinion that as Newco are paying off a debt caused by Oldco and I was a creditor I would argue the linkage existence and file a writ. It may be an argument
without merit from the Courts but it would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons. I would also have the written testimony from D King and Bomber Brown stating they are not a new club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

That's an argument CWG. I am still of the opinion that as Newco are paying off a debt caused by Oldco and I was a creditor I would argue the linkage existence and file a writ. It would be an argument without merit from the Courts but it would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons. I would also have the written testimony from D King an Bomber Brown stating they are not a new club.

---

It's more than an argument, it's fact :greengrin

You would get nowhere with your writ. It's illegal to sue a company in liquidation. To sue a company not in liquidation, to get past first base you would need to show an invoice (to Newco) for the debt. None of Oldco's creditors have that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

You would get nowhere. It's illegal to sue a company in liquidation. To sue a company not in liquidation, to get past first base you would need to show an invoice (to Newco) for the debt. None of Oldco's creditors have that.

---

Yes I understand that CWG. But therein lies the legal anomaly with the five way agreement. Newco is not liable for Oldco's usage of tax evation/avoidance of EBT's despite them initially agreeing to pay them. You did agree there was a legal anomaly. It's not a football debt.

It is a highly dubious and frankly shocking state of affairs. I'm not saying I'm against RIFC paying out a not insubstantial amount of readies however it stinks to high heaven.

At which point will DK claim that this was an enforced bribe to the SFPL to clear the way to Sevco's registration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

Yes I understand that CWG. But therein lies the legal anomaly with the five way agreement. Newco is not liable for Oldco's usage of tax evation/avoidance of EBT's despite them initially agreeing to pay them. You did agree there was a legal anomaly. It's not a football debt.

It is a highly dubious and frankly shocking state of affairs. I'm not saying I'm against RIFC paying out a not insubstantial amount of readies however it stinks to high heaven.

---

You're not getting this..... a contract was signed that was legally binding on all parties. Therefore it's payable.... and that is what the Courts have just decided. Whether or not the fine is a football debt is irrelevant.

I agreed that the "football debt" was an anomaly in insolvency terms. Once again, it's one that suits the remaining creditors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'Rourke3

At which point will DK claim that this was an enforced bribe to the SFPL to clear the way to Sevco's registration?

---

Good point. Love the badge O'Rourke, used to have one with the two fingers.

I'm aff to enjoy the rest of ma voddy bottle. See you soon peeps. Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

Doddsy

:gwa:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'Rourke3

At which point will DK claim that this was an enforced bribe to the SFPL to clear the way to Sevco's registration?

---

Presumably, he offered that argument to the Court.

However, he would be wrong in saying so. At the time the 5 Way Agreement was signed, there was no fine.

I'm a bit confused (again!) .... while related to the EBT's I thought the "fine" was.in relation to they way oldco had registered the players involved rather than the actual use.of the EBT.... ie if they registered the EBT payment element with the SFA at the time then there would have been no case to answer, in footballing terms at least??


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

I'm a bit confused (again!) .... while related to the EBT's I thought the "fine" was.in relation to they way oldco had registered the players involved rather than the actual use.of the EBT.... ie if they registered the EBT payment element with the SFA at the time then there would have been no case to answer, in footballing terms at least??


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

---

That's my understanding too. Some time ago Billy Dodds talked on Radio Scotland about his EBT. He said that the only payment he got was a severance payment of the balance of his contract. While he'd been playing, his payments had come throught the company's PAYE scheme. He got the net amount he was expecting as a one-off so as the amount he received had been declared in his registered contract I'd say the club hadn't commited a football offence in this case.

However, I hope the Supreme Court will decide there should be tax paid on this type of transaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

I'm a bit confused (again!) .... while related to the EBT's I thought the "fine" was.in relation to they way oldco had registered the players involved rather than the actual use.of the EBT.... ie if they registered the EBT payment element with the SFA at the time then there would have been no case to answer, in footballing terms at least??


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

---

The fine was for the usage of the EBT side letters setting out readies loaned and not part of the player's/staff/everybody at Ibrox official contracts which were of course liable for tax while the EBT's were not at that time. Just another tax avoidance scheme used to fool the taxman. Thankfully said taxman is tightening up these greedy barstewards duplicitous schemes.

Anyone else agree that the timing of the fine being paid is suspicious. If it had been ordered be paid several months ago RIFC might not have had the money to add one Billy King who would not then have scored the last minute goal he did just prior to us going on our poor run of form. Might have changed events slightly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

Anyone else agree that the timing of the fine being paid is suspicious.

---

Hasn't been paid yet ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Hasn't been paid yet ....

---

Yes you are 100% correct grunt. It seems it will be sliced off winning the league money instead. If it had been ordered earlier it may have changed events, mibbes aye mibbes naw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doddsy

Yes you are 100% correct grunt. It seems it will be sliced off winning the league money instead. If it had been ordered earlier it may have changed events, mibbes aye mibbes naw.

---

Would still have been deducted from whatever money the SPFL were due them.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Would still have been deducted from whatever money the SPFL were due them.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

---

I take your point CWG but it still seems unfair they were allowed to add players like Billy King who gained points on the board for them while they were owed this money to the SPFL no?