Agree with this sadly. More chance of Hitler being done for the Reichstag fire in 30's Germany than the Huns figurehead Murray taking his share of blame in present day Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
Printable View
Agree with this sadly. More chance of Hitler being done for the Reichstag fire in 30's Germany than the Huns figurehead Murray taking his share of blame in present day Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
The DR has already started.
They have an article in today's issue explaining why none of it is Murray's fault.
Had a quick look (not had my breakfast yet so didn't read too much) they've also got a nostalgic piece on when the Hun 'won' their 'Nine-in-a-row' - making it worse, the 1st line claims it 'Equalled Celtic's record' ??. I'm no lover of Septic but I do believe their achievement was won without any dubiosity or underhanded methods being used or even anyone questioning it but hey - anything to to try and keep the knuckle-scraping hordes morale up, eh !Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
Just further confirmation of how insidious, odious and ludicrous the 'Daily Rectum' is - it's now well-documented exactly HOW the Hun 'won' their titles/trophies yet this rag continues to pay homage to them as if they achieved admirable/honourable feats ??. If I ever win the lottery the first thing I'm going to do is pay well over the odds for a full-page advert in the 'Rectum' and it'll just say -
THEY F*****G CHEATED YA PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A PAPER !!
(after it's printed I'll bounce the cheque !)
Quality rant but the Old Huns' 9 IAR actually preceded the EBT scheme by a few years. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
I'm of the view that whilst Murray was in charge, anything was possible - the only reason they're not being done for his entire time there is because - ahem - paperwork went missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
HMRC have the right to go back 20 years or more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
In situations where they are of the opinion that underdeclaration of tax has occurred in a particular year, they are allowed to assume the same took place in earlier years. The onus then switches to the taxpayer to prove innocence, rather than the HMRC proving guilt.
In that light, "missing paperwork" would not help RFC at all.
The contributions to the EBT are easily proven as starting on a specific date.
Back in court.
will try and post what I can from James Doleman.
Shanks agrees after takeover Whyte's company "Wavetower" became the "owner of the debt and could treat it how they wished"
Te overspending didn't. That years Rangers were on financial steroids. Murray then moved the debt over to his metals group and it was never repaid as it collapsed with nearly £1bn of debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Murray then bought all the good assets on the cheap using money he had spirited away in his family trust. That's why he is able to fund big property developments on the outskirts of Edinburgh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My head tells me you're spot on with this, however it's superb stuff Findlay is serving up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
Whatever happens the current incarnation of the team playing at Ibrox will have a very, very hard time of ever finding decent funding again.
Perhaps the reason that no-one other than Whyte would buy them and they were subsequently liquidated shows that no-one will touch them, principally due to the vast majority of their supporters extolling bigoted and centuries old views of the world. What rich individual/business would want to get involved with this and risk alienating their existing customers?
The only person I can see getting involved is Ashley - long term as a means of advertising Sports Direct across Europe if the The Rangers ever get that far again. Thankfully, however, Ashley is regarded as a pariah by the bigoted peepul so this is unlikely to happen. Enjoy the slow lingering death of an outdated culture and its focal point institution.
some stuff from this morning
Shanks agrees after takeover Whyte'scompany "Wavetower" became the "owner of the debt and couldtreat it how they wished"
Email states "the bank wants to chargea termination fee of £1.5m" on the term loan.
Shanks tells court he cannot explain thetermination fee comment, "it's the first time I've seen this" Judgeintervenes
Shanks says there was no discussion of atermination fee, but there was a £1m cost to close the interest rate"hedge" facility
moves on to 13 April 2011, witness to hisboss "Martin Bain is seeking compensation for losing his job"
Continues Alistair Johnson is happy to paythis, other board members not so supportive
Email continues "Johnson and some ofhis board members are delaying the deal to put their own bid in..we arefrustrated.." "we will withdraw our finance.. Johnson may bepersonally liable" "We were playing tough" witness says
Email "If Craig wanted to put the clubinto administration..the process would be quick.. hopefully allow Craig to keepcontrol of club"
Findlay:if insolvency event occured a major creditor could put club into administrationtax debt becomes inconsequential" Shanks "correct"
Shanks "This was written in context of having a dealwith Craig," says board could have put club into administration.
Findlay suggests that control of the club could beretained through administration Shanks "correct"
Lady Stacey asks if HMRC would not have a preferentialstatus as a creditor? Findlay says he is not a tax lawyer
Witness says secured debt to the bank would be paidbefore HMRC and "if there was no money left" they would get nothing
Shanks says Paul Murray's proposal to buy the club"involved new money but we didn't know where it was from... unacceptableto us"
Email 21 April, Shanks to his manager, term loan assignedto Whyte, Rangers board advised" Findlay: "there is nothing theycould do about it
Email 28 April, "concern about board trying to putclub into administration before Mr Whyte takes over"
Findlay on the Rangers board: "Dithering,uncertainty?" Shanks "Those are fair comments"
Findlay "negotiations appear to have been going onthrough the media"? Shanks: "Correct"
Email "David Murray is leaning on AlistairJohnson" Shanks "correct"
Shanks agrees that to keep the Rangers board"quiet" cutting of finance "was an option"
Findlay "There was a benefit to the Murray group ingetting rid of Rangers?" Shanks "Correct"
Shanks says bank had decided to "get out ofRangers" from beginning of Project Charlotte
Findlay "the bank wanted the Murray group to sellRangers to reduce the debt"
tea break
It wasn't just Rangers that were overspending though pre the EBT years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The debt levels at other clubs were skyrocketing as well. Robinson was trying to punt Tynecastle to Cala Homes and move Hearts to Tynecastle so that he could clear historic toxic debt levels to the bank of £over £20m and Rod Petrie memorably applied the spending brakes hard at Hibs in 2002 when our debt hit £18.5m.
Yep, we did the same thing albeit on a much lesser scale. If it wasn't for the happy circumstance of Edinburgh land prices skyrocketing so we could sell the car park and the golden generation coming through and being sold for top $ we would have been in the same **** as a bunch of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
The difference with the Huns and their EBTs (and possibly the Yams and Lith loans) is that they deliberately hid the side letters, their players weren't properly registered and were receiving payments over and above their regular contracts to cheat the taxman and the other clubs. That's what moves it on from dubious behaviour to outright cheating imo.
The rest of this mornings proceedings
Shanks says after deal completed banktransferred it's floating charge to Wavetower.
Findlay "Do banks do creditchecks?" Shanks "Yes"
Findlay returns to issue of Murray Metalshe raised yesterday Witness shown his email 21 April 2011
Email "metals business could be spunout to David after he sells his shares in Rangers" Witness confirms Davidis David Murray
Witness confirms sale of metals business toDavid Murray was conditional on sale of his Rangers shares and repayment ofclubs debt
Findlay suggests metals business wasimportant to David Murray personally as it was "where he got started"
Findlay suggests board could have signedMessi and Ronaldo on "ridiculous money" and saddled new owner withthe bill.
Shanks says Murray Group could have calledan EGM to remove Rangers board members if they refused to resign.
Findlay suggests there would be a benefitto David Murray from sale of Rangers Shanks "That was always the agreementin Project Charlotte"
Findlay "the other shareholders aregetting nothing?' Shanks: "If you put it like that" Findlay: "Ijust did"
Findlay "Rangers was sold for a pound,for nothing for all practical purposes" Shanks agrees
Court now looking at agreement between thebank and Murray on sale of shares" Findlay "What's the D.R.A.G?"Shanks doesn't know
Findlay "If Murray group got rid ofRangers David Murray could get his metals business back for a pound?"Shanks agrees
Court being shown a letter David Murraysent to Shanks. Notes debt reduction at Rangers has "exceededexpectations" due to ECL participation
Letter continues with a request from Murrayto "immediately release the metals business from MIH"
Letter signed "Sir David EMurray"
Lloyd's reply to Murray letter now beingshown Is dated 21 Jan 2011. Denies request to sell metals business to Murrayunless.
Unless "RFC is sold prior to the endof April..as previously agreed"
Findlay "If the Rangers deal is donethe metals business is released for £1?" Shanks "That's one wayyes"
Findlay "only way to be sure is dodeal for Rangers before the end of April?" Shanks "Correct"
Findlay "There was no benefit tominority shareholders..they get nothing" Shanks "correct"
LUNCH
there's a song in there
:music:'Shanks' said NO, i don't think so
but i've heard of the mental hibees
This whole thing stinks. It's about time Direcors of Companies became personally liable for the debts their companies acrue rather then leave the taxpayer to pick up the tab whilst the said Directors wash their hands of the debt.
Directors are responsible for company debts, if they are found to be guilty of wrongful trading.Quote:
Originally Posted by southsider
However, if you did that across the board, enterprise and business would collapse in this country. The concept of Limited Liability, which dates back to the 19th Century, underpins so much of our economy.
Taking our own back yard as an example, would we be able to attract the calibre of Board member that we have, if they were held personally liable for the club's debts? I doubt it.
On the RFC case, most of the debt thus far (pending the BTC judgement) is not borne by the taxpayer. It's borne by individuals and businesses.
So it's ok for D.Murray to now worth a reported £159 million when he screwed the tax payer out of hundreds of millions. The wee man pays whilst the rich Cameron, Osborne, Murray etc don't. Sorry mate, it's just how I feel about rich tax dodgers.
In the RFC big tax case even if Hmrc 'win' they will get zilch as that was old co who are no more.
Afternoon session
Findlay asks the witness "if you havean overdraft whose money is it?' Shanks: "the bank's"
Findlay suggests that although the money isthe bank's the person with the overdraft can do what they choose with the money
Shanks says the money belongs to "whohas it at the time"
Letter "in connection with proposedsale, as far as we are concerned £1 is the sole consideration for the sale ofRFC, no benefit to Murray"
Findlay suggests "That doesn't squarewith what we heard this morning." Shanks "no benefit to MHL"Findlay "That's splitting hairs"
"If the subsidiary company gets abenefit doesnt the holding company get a benefit?" Shanks "To theMurray group there was"
Findlay says the letter "is not thewhole picture is it?" Shanks "It's what is says" Findlay "Iknow, I can read it"
Findlay says he is moving on to "Thebank's relationship with the Rangers board"
Email from Rangers Chairman AlistairJohnson to Rangers board, Jan 2011 Complains about bank "stringentapplication' of financial agreement
Findlay says he is giving the witness achance to give his position on issues that may arise later in the case
Johnson draft letter "we are allmasquerading as directors..now acting as stooges to pay back the debt..clubthrottled into submission"
Shanks says he agrees bank had a"difficult relationship" with the Rangers board
Letter goes on "The bank has prudentlywritten off the debt" Shanks "We had a legal duty to pursue themoney"
Letter continues "The carnage left byLloyd's policies and the impoverished remains of Rangers Football Club"
Letter points to "Calamitous declinein season ticket sales..bank doesn't understand.'
Findlay "if the board had sold aplayer for £20m would the bank demand bet repaid?" Shanks "We werenot taking every penny'
Shanks denies club was facing a"financial catastrophy" says 'club still operating'
Johnson letter "bank has a blind spoton the methods needed to run a football club..an astonishing lack ofunderstanding"
Letter "The consequence will be theclub falling into administration" Shanks says not true
Findlay "An English bank wouldn't wantto put a Scottish institution into administration"
Letter "Board will announce publicallywe have signed credit agreement under duress"
Shanks says he doesn't recall receiving theletter but is not saying he didn't
Letter 24 Jan 2011, Martin Bain to Shanks"Another letter of complaint" Findlay describes as "it's not myfault guv it's the bank's fault"
Witness being shown transcript of interviewwith Alistair Johnson says he was told "The Murray group is heavilyincentiveised to sell club"
Johnson interview continues "The bankwanted all the money, they wouldn't let Rangers off..it would be a precedent.blah blah blah '
Johnson interview "I was told if actswould be performed on me that hadn't been performed on anyone in Scotland since15th century'
Findlay comments "The mindboggles"
Shanks says he "can't comment on the15th century thing" Lady Stacey "You can comment if you saidthat" Shanks "I never said that"
Shanks adds "I did say I wouldwithdraw the credit line" Findlay "It's fantastical nonsense isn'tit"
Findlay on Johnson "He was extendinghis chief executive's contract, giving him pay rises and talking nonsense about15th century?" Agreed
Johnson interview on bank "You haveallowed this debt to run up, you have lent Rangers more than they can payback"
Findlay notes bank's do not go"knocking on people's doors offering loans" witness agrees someonewould have to ask
Johnson interview "My view was..bankshould migrate Rangers debt to Murray group..more chance of getting itback"
Findlay says Johnson was saying "takethe debt off me and give it to David Murray" Shanks says "legally wecan't do that"
Johnson Interview "It just blew mymind they wouldn't do that" also suggests if tax case lost Murray shouldpay
Johnson interview was on the radio in 2012court told
Findlay "this is his (Johnson's)revisionist view of what happened in 2011..it was nonsense then and nonsenselater"
TEA BREAK
That's not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by southsider
There was over £15m in the creditors pot at the date of the last liquidator's report. (another report is due shortly.) IIRC, there is more legal action pending, which could increase that.
It's a myth that the old company "are no more". The liquidation process will be ongoing for some time yet.
If you are going to bounce the cheque, why do you have to win the lottery first?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
Agree with everything you say above, limited liability is one of the reasons the west is as rich as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I do think though that a director who has been involved in an insolvency should be banned from buying the assets from the company after the insolvency. They should have to walk away.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, I hear you. There's a lot of merit in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sometimes, though, it's the only way that the creditors will get to see any cash.
It should also be remembered that a lot of insolvencies are unavoidable, ie they aren't the directors' fault. (If a major customer goes under without warning, for example).
Last bit…. (my bold bits for emphasis)
Witness shown document, letter Oct 2009bank letter to RFC Directors
Letter sets our details of loan and bankingfacilities available to Rangers Football Club
Shanks says email was written by hispredecessor, is to Alistair Johnson then chairman
Email "There seems to be a belief thatthe club can operate beyond its means with impunity"
Email calls budget "not a supportablestrategy" as assumes Champions League entry every year for 3 years
"This state of affairs reflects verybadly on the executive management of the club"
"Raises considerable concerns abouttheir ability to deal with this very difficult situation" no "cultureof prudent financial management"
Findlay "We have a chairman who will blame anyoneother than himself" Shanks "Correct"
Shanks says he thinks financial situationwas "manageable" in 2011. Findlay "Thanks to the bank?"Shanks "No extra money put in"
Findlay "Rangers board were doing verylittle internally to improve their situation" Shanks "Agreed"
Findlay "My Whyte came in with theonly plausible bid?" Shanks "Agreed"
Witness shown email he sent to Martin Bain3 Sept 2010 1. Debt target for 2011 £18m 2. To secure Jelovic, Rapid Viennawant cash guarantee
Email shows Jelavic transfer backed by loan fromTicketus, "not to appear on accounts"
Findlay says hidden from shareholders? Shanks "Notin accounts' Findlay "They hid the use of Ticketus?" Shanks"Yes"
Email continues bank demand to take furthermoney from Ticketus to reduce debt
Findlay "As a matter of principleTicketus money could be used to pay back debt?" Shanks "Yes"Cross-examination ends
Advocate Depute rises to re-examine,withess confirms bank not a party to share purchase agreement Shanks"Don't believe so"
AD "Your information is thirdhand" Shanks "Correct"
Witness confirms Lloyd's had a duty to itsown shareholders and employees
Witness repeats bank was not interested insource of Whyte's funds "as long as it was legal"
Shanks says he believed the sale to CraigWhyte would lead to a favourable outcome for all parties
Shanks says he understood Rangers usedTicketus on an annual basis for working capital
AD suggests Whyte was not a director ofRangers and had no right to enter into a relationship with Ticketus on club'sbehalf
Re-examination ends. Shanks steps down fromwitness box. Court adjourns until 10 am tomorrow
Thanks for the days updates GF. Your bolded bits are very juicy :agree: :greengrin
No denying Johnson's a Hun, eh - reading that he genuinely seems gobsmacked that the bank wouldn't lie down to the 'Mighty Rangers' - how dare they !. Throughout Murray's time the Hun literally 'Bought' Scottish Football (and the titles/trophies that goes with it) with the bank's money but then didn't want to pay the money back !Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Really ?? Ok, the lottery-win was just to let them think I was good for the money - the bouncing is just out of sheer devilment because it's the 'Daily Rectum' !Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperAllyMcleod
If this mornings witness was correct in saying that the bank did not care that the money to repay the debt came from Ticketus and it was within the law, why is there a trial going on at all?
I read it as him saying they didn't care where the money came from as long as it was within the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
OK but if it was not within the law where does that leave them? I'm having a hard time believing there was no due diligence carried out on their part....Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod