Printable View
There was an investigative journalism program on TV over a year ago, about EBT's , image rights and other scams mostly about the English Premier league.
It did state the names of the Clubs being investigated for EBT's included Hartlepool and in Scotland Rangers and Hearts.
I am sure if the HMRC get a "result " with the Rangers case they will be making a call at the PBS.
In the meantime a simple question to Ogilvie could clear up a lot of speculation , or dig him an even deeper hole.
Ah okay, thanks. I had also "heard" the story that the previous poster mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
EBT's, of themselves, don't suggest the type of "double contract" situation that is alleged at RFC. However, I agree that, if HMRC win the BTC at RFC, HMFC will be next to GTF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If the players were getting wages supplements over and above what is on their playing contract registered with the SPL then I'm certain they would want something in writing in way of confirmation.
Vlad does'nt think he should have to pay the money due on registered contracts if it does'nt suit him. :greengrin
That's the issue, though. Contributions to EBT's were legitimate, and it would have been appropriate to write those into the players' contracts. If they were, then there is no issue in terms of "double contracts". It is then purely an HMRC matter. If they weren't, which is what you're suggesting, then sure, it's the same situation as the Huns.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Does anybody know if Rangers Administrators suceeded in their action this morning in Court of Session to have an Administration Order made over the Company (i.e. RFC).
Looks like they were worried about the possibility of being removed as agents by the Company (i.e. RFC - C Whyte).
This could also change the timetable for reporting.
Looks like they're still the admins.Quote:
Originally Posted by KazHibby
@BBCAlLamont: Rangers status as a company in administration confirmed in court.Lord Hodge back-dated ruling to date original ruling on admin made
I suspect this week could be a slow one in terms of public information. There will be plenty going on behind the scenes, I'm sure, with the various bidders.
However, what would really spice things up is the BTC result being announced..... :devil:
Radio 5 Live have a special programme on tonight at 7.00pm. Rangers What Next?
Be interesting to hear a London spin on things. Just hope they don't just wheel out Chic, Jim Traynor etc and just go over the old ground. Surely Roddy Forsyth will be allowed to get his bit in.
Who is deciding this BTC? I am surprised this has not been publicised in a bid to put public pressure on them for a sympathetic hearing. Privately I would presume this pressure is being applied by the high and mighty.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Mark HATEley and Andy LVF Goram are on the panel. So it will be all about how we need Rangers, they are the peepul and the Bog Hoose must stay open.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Anyone know when the Duff and Duffer Vs Ticketus result will be in ?
I 'm not too concerned how it goes. Ticketus win and the Huns are screwed for half their season ticket income for 4 years.
The Legal Establishment go with Scotland's Establishment club and find in favour of Rangers and the result will be appealed, tying this case and the administration for months if not years.
Paul Murray was interviewed on Radio Scotland on Friday evening and said that for the Blue Knights, the outcome of the BTC is an irrelevance. Their bid is a fixed amount dependent on a CVA being in place. As far as they're concerned all the BTC result will do is change the pence in the pound that creditors will receive. Essentially they're relying on HMRC being willing to write off many millions. They see the advantage of their bid as being the link with Ticketus which will reduce the amount of legal wrangling.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I hope HMRC stand firm for the full amount due, as I suspect that none of the bidders has any intention of paying the tax arrears.
As I suspected, the bid is a time waster. There is not a hope of HMRC agreeing to a CVA as it is against their expressed policy and actions in previous cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
The Administrators will presumably try and work out a CVA, although how this will operate without any resolution of the tax cases I do not know?
In the meantime the legal actions with Craig Whyte, Ticketus, HMRC and sundry creditors will grind on.
What happens if this is still in play by the end of the season? Will the SPL and SFA permit Rangers to remain in place despite knowing that they are likely to be liquidated at any time?
Maybe the SFA and SPL should put a deadline on resolving this case and expel Rangers if this is not met? Otherwise, how can the plans for next season be worked out?
Good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Is there a time limit as to how long a club/business can stay in administration?
It may be that Rangers might stay in administration until after the new season/fixtures are announced and thus apply the pressure of keeping a NewCo Rangers in the SPL?
It's known as a First Tier Tax Tribunal. http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/taxQuote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
You won't get too much in the way of information about it in the public domain. That is to protect the confidentiality of the taxpayer's affairs.
If there is any sort of pressure being applied, that of course would be wrong; it would be like the Government trying to influence the Judiciary.
Then they would have another 10 point deduction - and I'm sure there would be questions about them continuing to trade while insolvent. I'm sure Cropley will be along shortly to quote chapter and verse.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
There are time limits for the administrators to report to the Courts. Look 'em up yersel..I'm busy :greengrin. However, IIRC, the Court can extend these, depending on the circumstances, and what the admins tell them.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
I am sure I read, though, that if Rangers start the new season still in administration, there is a further 10 point penalty.
That will depend on their audit situation. They're in the same boat as Hearts here. No audit report yet, with the likelihood that it will ultimately refer to their ability to continue as a going concern. If that is the case, it will breach the terms of their SFA Licence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal Hibby
The licencing regime has only been in place a few months, so I can't see the SFA exercising the ultimate sanction yet... but, technically, both clubs could lose their licence.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-cen...l-in-football/
Fit and proper people ken whit's goin oan.
"It would require little to no substantive investment other than repayment of debts and a new owner would have a superb club that is guaranteed European Football in the coming years as well as a huge worldwide support."Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
I suppose it depends on your definition of the word "substantive".
£100m? Ach... get two. :rolleyes:
Ten points would be minimum I reckon. Dundee received 25 points, although that was for entering administration for the second time rather than the second season.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think, because it's the same administration, the penalty is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
The Emir of Qatar --------- is that not the same punter whom Fatty Foulkes was encouraging Alex Salmond to approach with a view to buying out Mad Vlad.?Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
That is SFL rules. They are much tighter than SPL rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Livingston got busted to Division Three for a second spell in Administration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Everton could be bought for less.
43000 union jack flags to be sold prior to the OF game to try and raise funds. What a joke.
I noticed in the Englsh/Ogilvie interviewthat Ogilvie explained that he only borrowed from the EBT.So did English ask him how much he had paid back?Aye right.
Of course he didn't, as he knows what the true answer would be :lips sealQuote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
That was the whole basis of EBT's though. One borrows from the Trust, with no commitment to repayment.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-17433007
Looks like the Ticketus case is going to extra -time. Judge reckons he'll have some answers by the end of the week. (After the Lodge meeting)
I can't my head round an argument that a contract can be struck down because it would be bad for one party to the contract especially since that decision would be catastrophic to the other party as they would lose virtually their whole investment.
Also in another Court in London the administrators are arguing the same contract is in force and they are entitled to the £ 4.5 million or whatever that is in the London Lawyer's account.
Alice through the Looking Glass stuff. :confused: