Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'Rourke3

Crops, I thought ignorance of the law was no defence. I'm sure under cross examination the answer to "Did you collude on a tax avoidance scheme?" Would be answered by "I didnae collude on anything your worshipfull, aw I did was signed a contract after they explained I widnae need to pay so much tax, sorted eh?"

---

In some cases, ignorance itself should be a hanging offence. :cb

Re that EBT money

If it was a loan, then it still requires repaid?

Would it not be in order for the liquidators to go after it to help repay creditors and, of course, their own fees?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

No, sadly.

It's an established practice of HMRC that, in instances where a payroll scheme has been operated incorrectly, it always falls on the employer/operator to make good any tax lost; that's even when the employee has benefited.

The only way that HMRC would go after the beneficiaries would be if they thought there was collusion between RFC/the Trusts/ the beneficiaries to evade tax.

That would be very difficult to prove. The basis of the defence would be "Billy Dodds colluding in a tax avoidance scheme? He's thick as pigsht, m'lud. I rest my case."

---

An established legal principle in football circles known as the Redknapp defence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

Re that EBT money

If it was a loan, then it still requires repaid?

Would it not be in order for the liquidators to go after it to help repay creditors and, of course, their own fees?

---

This is where it gets messy.

The money paid by RFC was a contribution to the Trust(s). In other words, an expense, not a loan, and not recoverable.

The money paid by the Trust(s) to the players etc. was a loan. If there was any recovery in those situations, it would be by the Trustees of each individual Trust.

Transcript from TSFM of today's proceedings of the UTTT

John Clarke TSFM

ohn clarke says:
February 24, 2014 at 7:32 pm
9 0 Rate This

Nothing of any great substance to report from today’s UTTT hearing.
I was there for 9.30 , but the kick-off wasn’t till 10.00. That gave time for a little bit of socialising: I didn’t meet the Grant Russell chap from STV, but only a chap from the ‘Sun’, and a director from Murray Group, and Mr Thornhill (QC for the respondents,i.e the MG),who came to make himself known to me and another TSFM person.
A big surprise to me was that it was not Lord Bishopp presiding, but Lord Docherty ( which, of course, kept the business within the Scottish house)
Apparently, the respondents had appealed against the time allocation set by Judge Bishopp, and it was reduced from 20 to 10 days, and Judge Bishopp stood down for some reason.
At kick-off, there were ,besides Judge Docherty and the clerical officer, there were 15 persons in the Tribunal room.
On the left, Roderick Thomson QC for HMRC,supported by 6 other lawyers(none of whom actually sat beside him,but behind).
On the right, Andrew Thornhill QC for the respondents, supported by 2 other lawyers (one of whom sat beside him, the other one behind). Behind them was the Finance Director of the Murray group, the chap from the ‘Sun’, and me and a lurker.
On my left were two young women one of whom was there, she told me, as part of her training, as newly qualified and in her first job in a solicitor’s office as a qualified solicitor.
The other took copious notes and was probably a lawyer as well. (Mind you, so did I take copious notes,and I’m no lawyer!) She did not turn up for the second half.
The 17th person must have been Russell of STV, but he was sitting beside the lawyers behind Thomson,QC, so I had clocked him as a lawyer.

Lord Docherty reminded counsel that the names of the HMRC officers who gave evidence at the FTTT should not be disclosed, nor should the names of 3 witnesses who had given evidence on the basis of anonymity. Mr Thomson said he would try to remember that if or when he had occasion to mention their testimony in the course of the hearing.

Mr Thomson invited His lordship
- to overturn the decision of the First Tier Tax Tribunal and uphold HMRC’s assessments. He added that he would later have something to say about ‘unreasonable comments’ made by the FTTT.
or, if His Lordship was not minded to make any additional findings of fact, then to remit the case to a fresh Tribunal.
He gave a very short summary of the background. To wit, that the FTTT had heard evidence for 17 days,
and that the evidence bundles shows that much of the documentation was provided by the MG, and that there had been extensive reference to that documentation.
Put very simply, the MG had argued a) that for earnings to be taxable, there had to be ABSOLUTE legal title to
them, and that under the EBT Trust scheme there was no such absolute title. Payments made under them were something other than bonuses or emoluments and that the recipients of loans had had been no ‘unreserved disposal’ of the money that was on offer as loans.
and b) that the Trust scheme had not been shown to be a sham.
Mr Thomson said that HMRC’s view was that the evidence showed that there had been an underlying tacit agreement between the parties involved that loans would not ever be recalled, that interest due would be rolled up, until death, when the interest and repayment would be able to be offset against inheritance tax.
He said that the idea that the idea that payments under the Trust arrangements were something ‘other’ than taxable earnings was merely an assertion by the MG that did not reflect reality.
The rest of the day was spent by Mr Thomson ripping the FTTT’s whole approach to their hearing apart, and using quite harsh words their failure of duty to examine the evidence, make complete findings of fact, and apply the principles of the Ramsay case and a couple of other relevant cases properly, if at all.
he referred to the minority report of DR Poon as showing how many findings of fact were there to be made, which the majority had missed, and how their understanding and application of the Ramsay and other relevant cases had been erroneous and actually missed the very point of those cases.
He went on to say that the FTTT majority had failed to address the submissions made by HMRC, and that a pattern emerged of the FTTT simply accepting the MG’s submission, and of failing to make findings of fact to support arguments
There was not merely understandable error in law, but deeply flawed submissions by the Majority, wholesale faiure to exercise their judicial duty.

And so on all day till 4.00 pm, with frequent references to the legal authorities and the true interpretation of the case which is, that while there may be all the legal documentation to show that there was a proper, valid Trust, it was necessary to look at whether people in fact worked the Trust properly.
The Trust may be perfectly legal and not a sham, but the Trustees could ( and in this case, did, act beyond their powers) by making loans to people who were not entitled to such under the trust, making loans without requiring evidence of security or requiring repayment or interest payments -and all involved knew this to be the case. And, of course, the Trustees who began to ask for security etc were dismissed and another more compliant lot were brought in.
—–
That all sounds as dry as dust, but I actually quite enjoyed the day, And I’ll be back tomorrow. I still have 18 pages of notes to decipher: I can write legibly, and I can write fast: but not both at the same time!

'Mon the HMRC

:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tynie01011973

Transcript from TSFM of today's proceedings of the UTTT

John Clarke TSFM

ohn clarke says:
February 24, 2014 at 7:32 pm
9 0 Rate This

Nothing of any great substance to report from today’s UTTT hearing.......

(Edited for brevity)

.........I can write legibly, and I can write fast: but not both at the same time!

'Mon the HMRC

:greengrin

---

That was a good read. Look forward to some more :thumbsup:

Interesting!

Who's TSFM?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Interesting!

Who's TSFM?

---

http://www.tsfm.org.uk/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

http://www.tsfm.org.uk/

---

Tried to visit the site but looks like they have been subject of a cyber attack. Wonder who that was????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I don't think there was any serious suggestion that the two who were in favour of the parts of the finding that favoured RFC were Huns.

However, the type of arguments put forward by the dissenter will form a key part of HMRC's case, I'm sure.

---

No, CWG, I have no idea if they were but this is Scotland and the vested interests of the Huns are, generally looked after by those in power, giving a reasonable possibility that they were of that ilk. You only have to look at the number of Jambos entrenched in senior positions within Edinburgh Council to realise how likely it is that their counterparts in the West are likely to have similarly vast numbers in HMRC and the judiciary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Milne

No, CWG, I have no idea if they were but this is Scotland and the vested interests of the Huns are, generally looked after by those in power, giving a reasonable possibility that they were of that ilk. You only have to look at the number of Jambos entrenched in senior positions within Edinburgh Council to realise how likely it is that their counterparts in the West are likely to have similarly vast numbers in HMRC and the judiciary.

---

Bill, no just no.
It's not 1955 and he Rangers are generally looked on with disdain and contempt by those in power in 21st Century Scotland.

Societal and social change over the last few decades has affected Rangers badly. Their inability to tackle the bigotry in their support left Celtic as the trendy establishment club back in the 90s. Without a shadow of a doubt Celtic are the club of the Labour controlled Glasgow City Council, and have benefitted allegedly from both State Aid and definitely from soft loans from the Co-Operative Bank, the Labour Party's bank of choice. BBC Scotland's Sports Department isn't jokingly referred to as PacificQuayCSC#1 for nothing. Rangers are viewed as a stupid anachronism followed by Neanderthals who are presently getting their just desserts.

To try and say that the FTTT went 2:1 against HMRC because of some Rangers influence is frankly ridiculous. HMRC didn't make a good enough case to win outright, plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

Bill, no just no.
It's not 1955 and he Rangers are generally looked on with disdain and contempt by those in power in 21st Century Scotland.

Societal and social change over the last few decades has affected Rangers badly. Their inability to tackle the bigotry in their support left Celtic as the trendy establishment club back in the 90s. Without a shadow of a doubt Celtic are the club of the Labour controlled Glasgow City Council, and have benefitted allegedly from both State Aid and definitely from soft loans from the Co-Operative Bank, the Labour Party's bank of choice. BBC Scotland's Sports Department isn't jokingly referred to as PacificQuayCSC#1 for nothing. Rangers are viewed as a stupid anachronism followed by Neanderthals who are presently getting their just desserts.

To try and say that the FTTT went 2:1 against HMRC because of some Rangers influence is frankly ridiculous. HMRC didn't make a good enough case to win outright, plain and simple.

---

Good post. I think the only ones who sympathise with der hun these days, are those who've had their snouts buried in the Rangers trough

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Milne

No, CWG, I have no idea if they were but this is Scotland and the vested interests of the Huns are, generally looked after by those in power, giving a reasonable possibility that they were of that ilk. You only have to look at the number of Jambos entrenched in senior positions within Edinburgh Council to realise how likely it is that their counterparts in the West are likely to have similarly vast numbers in HMRC and the judiciary.

---

So you "have no idea if they were", yet you still assume that they are?

Even if they are, you then make the assumption that their football allegiances come before their professional responsibilities. That's quite an accusation.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/gre...6/rangers-hmrc

:yawn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan sarf

http://www.theguardian.com/media/gre...6/rangers-hmrc

:yawn:

---

But more importantly !

Dave King Statement as per the Herald:

Because of my ongoing interest in the future direction of the club I have deliberately avoided immersing myself in the day-to-day "noise level" that is being played out in the media. By doing this I had hoped to serve as a bridge between non-aligned stakeholders and the club, as well as seeking a way forward that could accommodate all interests. I no longer believe that I can achieve this with the board that is presently in place. I consequently wish to update the fans on my current position.

Late last year I travelled to Scotland in an attempt to find a way forward that would accommodate all parties and ensure sound corporate governance and sound financial planning for the club. Unfortunately, my efforts were in vain. During this period I made it clear to the board that I am a potential source of funding by way of a new capital injection. My prime condition is that any funds introduced by me would go into the club for the benefit of the team and the dilapidating infrastructure.

For the avoidance of doubt, I appreciate that the Rangers board has no obligation to engage with me or to agree with my vision for the future of Rangers. My assessment is that the business is not commercially sustainable in the short term and hence requires a level of soft investment. The board is focusing on right-sizing the business ie. cutting costs to match the income. It is correct that anyclub must, over the long term, operate within its means but in the short term Rangers needs a significant once-off financial boost that cannot be met from the current revenue stream. Without this we will not get back to where we should be. If we cut our costs to suit our present income we will remain a small club and Celtic will shoot through 10 in a row - and beyond - while we slug it out for the minor places. That is not the Rangers that I grew up with and not the Rangers that we should be passing down to our children and grandchildren.

Such a soft investment will only come from a fan based group that regard their return as winning trophies in the top flight. I have been such an investor and want to be so again. I would like to lead a fan-based initiative to acquire an influential shareholding in the club.

I hope that the board will belatedly recognise the importance ofcommunicating with fans on the true state of the club's finances.Financial transparency should now be a non-negotiable requirement of the fans prior to investing in season tickets. It is an easy deflection for the board to suggest that it has had insufficient time or that it is restricted by AIM regulations. That is simply not true. Legitimate concerns about the club's financial position have been voiced for a long time. It should have been the board's number one priority to provide the comfort that the fans need - if it is able to do so. Craig Whyte employed exactly the same reasons for avoiding disclosure of the true financial state of the club during his ill-fated period of ownership.

The board has previously dealt with queries around the club's finances by giving categoric assurances that there was sufficientfunding until the end of the season. We now know that these assurances were untrue and that emergency financing has been put in place on terms that are not commercial and that indicate the desperate financial position that the club is in. This lack of transparency on the present and projected funding position isextremely worrying. The Craig Whyte purchase would never have happened if the true source of "his" funds had been known. Similarly, the fans would not have purchased season tickets at that time if they had known that their funds were going out of the club. The fans lost their cash and almost lost their club. So now, at this critical time, I remind fellow supporters of the old adage - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

The fans have no proper insight into the owners of the club and who represents which shareholders on the board. The board has strenuously resisted any attempt by the fans to find out who key shareholders are. What is known is that the current board members have a very minor stake in the club. Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own". It is not in Rangers culture to have spin-doctors that feed information to the media in an attempt to damage our own players, management, potential investors, and supporters. Much of what has been fed to the media is clearly untrue or exaggerated.

Ultimately, it is in the hands of the existing shareholders (through the board) to decide to issue new shares to investors. There is a clear reluctance to do this at the present time and the reasons for this can only be speculated upon. Undoubtedly, the club requires a significant injection of new equity from existing or new shareholders but this will take some time to put in place. A proper financial evaluation will have to be undertaken and all the necessary AIM requirements etc. complied with. Clearly, by not having acted sooner the board is making it clear that it has decided to rely on the fans' cash once again.

The big question is- "What can fans do to protect themselves but still assist the team and management"? Fans must remember that the purchase of a season ticket is essentially an individual loan from the fan to the company until such time as all games are played. No banker would lend money to a company without knowing its true financial position. Unless the board departs from its present stance of opacity the fans will be asked to lend money to the company with no security and with no comfort that the loan advance is not going into a financial black-hole. It must be stressed that the board was happy to give security to Laxey Partners for the recent facility as well as a massive return on this short-term loan. It seems wrong that, if the board gets its way, these new loans will be repaid from interest free and unsecured loans provided by long suffering fans.

If the board does not provide disclosure to the fans then it is time to draw a line in the sand. I propose that the fans buy the season tickets only on one of the two following bases;

1. The fans pay the season ticket money into a trust and the funds are released to the club on a "pay-as-they-play" basis.

2. The fans pay the season ticket money into a trust and the funds are released in full to the club but against security of the club property until such time as all games are played. In that way the fans will have some protection from a future event of failure if the board cannot bridge the funding gap that clearly exists.

Additionally, the fans should insist on a board appointee prior to renewing their season tickets, to look after their interests.

I also suggest that the following questions be put to the board on condition that satisfactory answers must be given prior to fans agreeing to make cash from season ticket sales available to the club.

1. Will the board provide legally binding assurances that the club is a going concern and has sufficient funds and/or facilities in place for the 2014/2015 season.

2. Will the board undertake that none of the proceeds from season ticket sales will be used to settle any financial obligation that arose prior to receipt of the season ticket monies by the club.

3. Will the board confirm that the club assets continue to be unencumbered.

4. Will the board explain its previous statements that the club had sufficient cash resources to last until the end of the season.

I previously invested 20 million pounds in the club and lost it all.Like all Rangers fans I continue to loyally support the team and the manager. I am willing to provide funding again but I do not believe that Rangers should be under the control of one owner/benefactor. We have already seen the damage that has been caused at Rangers (and many other clubs) when the club becomes a hostage to thefluctuating whims and wealth of a single owner. I see my role as being the lead investor of a like-minded consortium that will invest in the club, along with the supporters, without the "short-sightidness" of an immediate return on investment. An immediate return on investment will guarantee a non-immediate return of the team to the top flight.

The fact that it believes it can proceed as it is doing without financial transparency makes two major statements about the board's thinking. First, they have correctly understood the fierce and unbending loyalty that Rangers fans display towards the club and the team at a time of common difficulty. Secondly, they have seriously misunderstood this loyalty as being something they can take for granted and offer nothing in return. We shouldn't allow that to continue. At this critical juncture, the fans control the funding that the board is relying on. How we proceed will determine our club's future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weststandwanab

But more importantly !

Dave King Statement as per the Herald:

Because of my ongoing interest in the future direction of the club I have deliberately avoided immersing myself in the day-to-day "noise level" that is being played out in the media. By doing this I had hoped to serve as a bridge between non-aligned stakeholders and the club, as well as seeking a way forward that could accommodate all interests. I no longer believe that I can achieve this with the board that is presently in place. I consequently wish to update the fans on my current position.

Late last year I travelled to Scotland in an attempt to find a way forward that would accommodate all parties and ensure sound corporate governance and sound financial planning for the club. Unfortunately, my efforts were in vain. During this period I made it clear to the board that I am a potential source of funding by way of a new capital injection. My prime condition is that any funds introduced by me would go into the club for the benefit of the team and the dilapidating infrastructure.

For the avoidance of doubt, I appreciate that the Rangers board has no obligation to engage with me or to agree with my vision for the future of Rangers. My assessment is that the business is not commercially sustainable in the short term and hence requires a level of soft investment. The board is focusing on right-sizing the business ie. cutting costs to match the income. It is correct that anyclub must, over the long term, operate within its means but in the short term Rangers needs a significant once-off financial boost that cannot be met from the current revenue stream. Without this we will not get back to where we should be. If we cut our costs to suit our present income we will remain a small club and Celtic will shoot through 10 in a row - and beyond - while we slug it out for the minor places. That is not the Rangers that I grew up with and not the Rangers that we should be passing down to our children and grandchildren.

Such a soft investment will only come from a fan based group that regard their return as winning trophies in the top flight. I have been such an investor and want to be so again. I would like to lead a fan-based initiative to acquire an influential shareholding in the club.

I hope that the board will belatedly recognise the importance ofcommunicating with fans on the true state of the club's finances.Financial transparency should now be a non-negotiable requirement of the fans prior to investing in season tickets. It is an easy deflection for the board to suggest that it has had insufficient time or that it is restricted by AIM regulations. That is simply not true. Legitimate concerns about the club's financial position have been voiced for a long time. It should have been the board's number one priority to provide the comfort that the fans need - if it is able to do so. Craig Whyte employed exactly the same reasons for avoiding disclosure of the true financial state of the club during his ill-fated period of ownership.

The board has previously dealt with queries around the club's finances by giving categoric assurances that there was sufficientfunding until the end of the season. We now know that these assurances were untrue and that emergency financing has been put in place on terms that are not commercial and that indicate the desperate financial position that the club is in. This lack of transparency on the present and projected funding position isextremely worrying. The Craig Whyte purchase would never have happened if the true source of "his" funds had been known. Similarly, the fans would not have purchased season tickets at that time if they had known that their funds were going out of the club. The fans lost their cash and almost lost their club. So now, at this critical time, I remind fellow supporters of the old adage - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

The fans have no proper insight into the owners of the club and who represents which shareholders on the board. The board has strenuously resisted any attempt by the fans to find out who key shareholders are. What is known is that the current board members have a very minor stake in the club. Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own". It is not in Rangers culture to have spin-doctors that feed information to the media in an attempt to damage our own players, management, potential investors, and supporters. Much of what has been fed to the media is clearly untrue or exaggerated.

Ultimately, it is in the hands of the existing shareholders (through the board) to decide to issue new shares to investors. There is a clear reluctance to do this at the present time and the reasons for this can only be speculated upon. Undoubtedly, the club requires a significant injection of new equity from existing or new shareholders but this will take some time to put in place. A proper financial evaluation will have to be undertaken and all the necessary AIM requirements etc. complied with. Clearly, by not having acted sooner the board is making it clear that it has decided to rely on the fans' cash once again.

The big question is- "What can fans do to protect themselves but still assist the team and management"? Fans must remember that the purchase of a season ticket is essentially an individual loan from the fan to the company until such time as all games are played. No banker would lend money to a company without knowing its true financial position. Unless the board departs from its present stance of opacity the fans will be asked to lend money to the company with no security and with no comfort that the loan advance is not going into a financial black-hole. It must be stressed that the board was happy to give security to Laxey Partners for the recent facility as well as a massive return on this short-term loan. It seems wrong that, if the board gets its way, these new loans will be repaid from interest free and unsecured loans provided by long suffering fans.

If the board does not provide disclosure to the fans then it is time to draw a line in the sand. I propose that the fans buy the season tickets only on one of the two following bases;

1. The fans pay the season ticket money into a trust and the funds are released to the club on a "pay-as-they-play" basis.

2. The fans pay the season ticket money into a trust and the funds are released in full to the club but against security of the club property until such time as all games are played. In that way the fans will have some protection from a future event of failure if the board cannot bridge the funding gap that clearly exists.

Additionally, the fans should insist on a board appointee prior to renewing their season tickets, to look after their interests.

I also suggest that the following questions be put to the board on condition that satisfactory answers must be given prior to fans agreeing to make cash from season ticket sales available to the club.

1. Will the board provide legally binding assurances that the club is a going concern and has sufficient funds and/or facilities in place for the 2014/2015 season.

2. Will the board undertake that none of the proceeds from season ticket sales will be used to settle any financial obligation that arose prior to receipt of the season ticket monies by the club.

3. Will the board confirm that the club assets continue to be unencumbered.

4. Will the board explain its previous statements that the club had sufficient cash resources to last until the end of the season.

I previously invested 20 million pounds in the club and lost it all.Like all Rangers fans I continue to loyally support the team and the manager. I am willing to provide funding again but I do not believe that Rangers should be under the control of one owner/benefactor. We have already seen the damage that has been caused at Rangers (and many other clubs) when the club becomes a hostage to thefluctuating whims and wealth of a single owner. I see my role as being the lead investor of a like-minded consortium that will invest in the club, along with the supporters, without the "short-sightidness" of an immediate return on investment. An immediate return on investment will guarantee a non-immediate return of the team to the top flight.

The fact that it believes it can proceed as it is doing without financial transparency makes two major statements about the board's thinking. First, they have correctly understood the fierce and unbending loyalty that Rangers fans display towards the club and the team at a time of common difficulty. Secondly, they have seriously misunderstood this loyalty as being something they can take for granted and offer nothing in return. We shouldn't allow that to continue. At this critical juncture, the fans control the funding that the board is relying on. How we proceed will determine our club's future.

---

A lot of good points in there. However, just a tad hypocritical to say "Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own"." He is doing exactly that.

I have no doubt that this will whip up the masses, and there will be another round of protests ,fringe-meetings, public statements and the likes. It will not help TRFC in raising capital... as if anything could just now... and can only contribute negatively (or positively, depending on how one looks at it :greengrin) to the soap-opera.

I note that nowhere does he put himself up for the Board. I think he knows that will never happen. Instead he mentions "the fans should insist on a board appointee".... the best he can get there is someone to be his puppet.

Love it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

A lot of good points in there. However, just a tad hypocritical to say "Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own"." He is doing exactly that.

I have no doubt that this will whip up the masses, and there will be another round of protests ,fringe-meetings, public statements and the likes. It will not help TRFC in raising capital... as if anything could just now... and can only contribute negatively (or positively, depending on how one looks at it :greengrin) to the soap-opera.

I note that nowhere does he put himself up for the Board. I think he knows that will never happen. Instead he mentions "the fans should insist on a board appointee".... the best he can get there is someone to be his puppet.

Love it.

---

CWG between that and the Jambos I am loving it too so much so I have just extracted a bottle of 2004 Amarone from the cellar which should be ready to quaff about the time Sportsound starts.

Don't understand what Dave King is up to. He's had opportunities to invest before but didn't take them, he worries about the financial health of the club but criticises their recent efforts to balance the books, and he doesn't trust the Board but he doesn't want to be on the Board.

He seems to be offering jam today to the supporters and is advocating a season ticket boycott unless certain conditions are met... I can't see the Board of any football club agreeing to those conditions.

Whatever he's up to, this will stir up the hornets' nest. Notice that he doesn't mention 'the manager' by name, either... in the murky world of the Rangers this will be seen as a snub.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

A lot of good points in there. However, just a tad hypocritical to say "Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own"." He is doing exactly that.

I have no doubt that this will whip up the masses, and there will be another round of protests ,fringe-meetings, public statements and the likes. It will not help TRFC in raising capital... as if anything could just now... and can only contribute negatively (or positively, depending on how one looks at it :greengrin) to the soap-opera.

I note that nowhere does he put himself up for the Board. I think he knows that will never happen. Instead he mentions "the fans should insist on a board appointee".... the best he can get there is someone to be his puppet.

Love it.

---

As Tom English noted. Dave King went and talked to the media.
He's still talking to the media......

Ho hum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacomoseven

Don't understand what Dave King is up to. He's had opportunities to invest before but didn't take them, he worries about the financial health of the club but criticises their recent efforts to balance the books, and he doesn't trust the Board but he doesn't want to be on the Board.

He seems to be offering jam today to the supporters and is advocating a season ticket boycott unless certain conditions are met... I can't see the Board of any football club agreeing to those conditions.

Whatever he's up to, this will stir up the hornets' nest. Notice that he doesn't mention 'the manager' by name, either... in the murky world of the Rangers this will be seen as a snub.

---

King could have picked up Rangers in 2010 and also in 2012. On both occasions he could have got the club for a song and whilst due to his SARS Tax convictions he might not be ok to be installed as Chairman he could have put his own people in to run the club.

But he didn't. He just as Tom English said went and blabbed away in the papers.
He's all fart and nae *****! :devil:

"If we cut our costs to suit our present income we will remain a small club"

I think it's fair to say that some lessons will never be learned over there.

Dave King wants Rangers. The Rangers fans want his money whether he is a convicted tax cheat or not. The MSM want Dave King at Rangers. The propaganda won't stop until this is acheived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by South Sub

"If we cut our costs to suit our present income we will remain a small club"

I think it's fair to say that some lessons will never be learned over there.

---

This is what I don't understand. Why spend more money now when - even with Swally at the helm - they are cruising back up through the divisions? Surely the time to spend is the season after next?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

So you "have no idea if they were", yet you still assume that they are?

Even if they are, you then make the assumption that their football allegiances come before their professional responsibilities. That's quite an accusation.

---

I think Bill's allusion goes beyond mere football allegiances and perhaps suggests social and religious bias. Undeniable, 1955 or not!

Isn't wonderful to see a man trying to claim the moral high ground when he is a convicted criminal.

It could only happen at Castle Greyskull. No, wait a minute, it could happen somewhere in the west of Edinburgh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamilton Handling

I think Bill's allusion goes beyond mere football allegiances and perhaps suggests social and religious bias. Undeniable, 1955 or not!

---

What's undeniable? That 2 QCs, Practising members of the faculty of Advocates, who have built their career & reputations on their abilities to forensically examine cases having studied for degrees and Diplomas In legal practise and then gone through Deviling and passed assessment for entry to the Scots Bar are suddenly going to compromise their professional integrity over a relatively minor tax case because it involves a football team.
Really ?

Or perhaps the truth was it was just that HMRC didn't produce a good enough case and too much of it was based around "we didnae think this was right" which isn't going to impress anyone.

Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

What's undeniable? That 2 QCs, Practising members of the faculty of Advocates, who have built their career & reputations on their abilities to forensically examine cases having studied for degrees and Diplomas In legal practise and then gone through Deviling and passed assessment for entry to the Scots Bar are suddenly going to compromise their professional integrity over a relatively minor tax case because it involves a football team.
Really ?

Or perhaps the truth was it was just that HMRC didn't produce a good enough case and too much of it was based around "we didnae think this was right" which isn't going to impress anyone.

Just a thought.

---

Distinctly possible ! Deviling now that takes me back but do not under estimate the Friday G & T brigade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weststandwanab

Distinctly possible ! Deviling now that takes me back but do not under estimate the Friday G & T brigade.

---

:greengrin

This is still one conspiracy theory I wouldn't touch with a barge pole. :wink:

Is this Dave King fellow by any chance related to the Dave King who sat on the Rangers Board while they went spectacularly bust after he was busy committing financial crimes in South Africa thus raising enough money to give Rangers £20million.Or is he the reincarnation of Dave King a dreadful comic of 30 years ago who was on the box every Saturday night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

What's undeniable? That 2 QCs, Practising members of the faculty of Advocates, who have built their career & reputations on their abilities to forensically examine cases having studied for degrees and Diplomas In legal practise and then gone through Deviling and passed assessment for entry to the Scots Bar are suddenly going to compromise their professional integrity over a relatively minor tax case because it involves a football team.
Really ?

Or perhaps the truth was it was just that HMRC didn't produce a good enough case and too much of it was based around "we didnae think this was right" which isn't going to impress anyone.

Just a thought.

---

Have you read the minority opinion? Dr Poon (the tax expert of the 3 on the FTT) was impressed. I don't think the majority acted out of some sense of Hunnery btw, EBTs were always playing on the difficult edge of aggressive avoidance so it was a pretty grey area. My totally non-expert hunch is HMRC will win their appeal though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Have you read the minority opinion? Dr Poon (the tax expert of the 3 on the FTT) was impressed. I don't think the majority acted out of some sense of Hunnery btw, EBTs were always playing on the difficult edge of aggressive avoidance so it was a pretty grey area. My totally non-expert hunch is HMRC will win their appeal though.

---

I agree. The First Tier Tribunal decision was remarkable in as much as the two judges who found in favour of Der Hun arrived at their decision by taking a very narrow and restricted view of the case presented before them. They were indirectly criticised for this by Lord Bishopp when he was asked to rule on what was, and was not, admissible to be brought before the Upper Tier Tribunal and, I would say, directly criticised by Heidi Poon in her dissenting decision.

There may have been many reasons to take such a narrow view, one of which could have been an acknowledgement that a ruling over the tax treatment of EBT payments / loans should be taken by a higher Court. What is significant is that the facts are being allowed to be re-presented to the Upper Tier Tribunal, normally only points of law are allowed to be discussed.

Tax cases are ultimately decided in the Supreme Court and along the way the decision can come down on one side in one Court then the other in the next hearing so HMRC losing the first round is not in any way decisive. It's not called the FIRST Tier Tribunal by accident.

This issue has a long way to go, not because it's The Rangers but because tax avoidance via EBTs was marketed to a very large number of people and there is a huge amount of money at stake across the UK. Other cases have gone through various levels of hearings but, for one reason or another, none have made it to the ultimate arbitrator, The Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Have you read the minority opinion? Dr Poon (the tax expert of the 3 on the FTT) was impressed. I don't think the majority acted out of some sense of Hunnery btw, EBTs were always playing on the difficult edge of aggressive avoidance so it was a pretty grey area. My totally non-expert hunch is HMRC will win their appeal though.

---

I'm one of the sad individuals who read it all. I still found stuff to disagree with on both sides, and there was a lot that was over my head. It doesn't surprise me that there was disagreement between the three, but nowhere was there any sense of bias.

Except on page 16, paragraph 90, where the guy in the sash said "Suck the rope"..... which I think was a typo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

:greengrin

This is still one conspiracy theory I wouldn't touch with a barge pole. :wink:

---

It still exits today !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ancient hibee

Is this Dave King fellow by any chance related to the Dave King who sat on the Rangers Board while they went spectacularly bust after he was busy committing financial crimes in South Africa thus raising enough money to give Rangers £20million.Or is he the reincarnation of Dave King a dreadful comic of 30 years ago who was on the box every Saturday night.

---

One and the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Have you read the minority opinion? Dr Poon (the tax expert of the 3 on the FTT) was impressed. I don't think the majority acted out of some sense of Hunnery btw, EBTs were always playing on the difficult edge of aggressive avoidance so it was a pretty grey area. My totally non-expert hunch is HMRC will win their appeal though.

---

I did read the report and I won't pretend to follow or understand all of it. Much of it i couldn't get into at all and I've read some dry heavy legal stuff in my time. The QCs would be working on the absolute legal definitions & interpretations just as Dr Poon thought there was a case of Evasion going on. Talking to a couple of lawyer mates recently, they're still far from certain that the entire verdict of the FTTT will be overturned.

My own hunch is that we might all be left scratching our heads again after the appeal finishes as we may not get a straight yes/no answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

I did read the report and I won't pretend to follow or understand all of it. Much of it i couldn't get into at all and I've read some dry heavy legal stuff in my time. The QCs would be working on the absolute legal definitions & interpretations just as Dr Poon thought there was a case of Evasion going on. Talking to a couple of lawyer mates recently, they're still far from certain that the entire verdict of the FTTT will be overturned.

My own hunch is that we might all be left scratching our heads again after the appeal finishes as we may not get a straight yes/no answer.

---

We didn't get one in the FTTT either, despite how it was reported in the MSM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

So you "have no idea if they were", yet you still assume that they are?

Even if they are, you then make the assumption that their football allegiances come before their professional responsibilities. That's quite an accusation.

---

Might, however, explain why two so-called professionals wafted through the appeal without making any real attempt at justifying their decision while the dissenting female gave a detailed rebuttal. The evidence being led in the current tribunal implies some bias on the part of the two blokes allowing the appeal. Yes, my supposition may be fanciful but the prescence of, lets say, Donald Finlay QC in legal circles may give rise to a reasonable suspicion that there are more like him buried in legal ranks.

Was there not something omitted in the submissions by the HMRC legal team that seemed really stupid, and that allowed the two parties who rejected the HMRC claims enough wriggle room to justify their findings ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Milne

Might, however, explain why two so-called professionals wafted through the appeal without making any real attempt at justifying their decision while the dissenting female gave a detailed rebuttal. The evidence being led in the current tribunal implies some bias on the part of the two blokes allowing the appeal. Yes, my supposition may be fanciful but the prescence of, lets say, Donald Finlay QC in legal circles may give rise to a reasonable suspicion that there are more like him buried in legal ranks.

---

Doesn't explain anything and nobody "wafted" through the appeal.
Your supposition is both fanciful and misplaced. If you read the report you will see that both MIH and HMRC are criticized at points.

As for Donald Findlay, he is a Defence Advocate specialising in court work in high profile criminal cases usually involving violent crime and has absolutely nothing to do with this relatively minor tax case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

Doesn't explain anything and nobody "wafted" through the appeal.
Your supposition is both fanciful and misplaced. If you read the report you will see that both MIH and HMRC are criticized at points.

As for Donald Findlay, he is a Defence Advocate specialising in court work in high profile criminal cases usually involving violent crime and has absolutely nothing to do with this relatively minor tax case.

---

Well, since I actually said my supposition may be fanciful, it puts my argument in the position of being my own personal opinion. I note nobody took issue with my comments about the number of highly placed Jambos in Edinburgh Council. Why should HMRC and our judiciary be any different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Milne

Well, since I actually said my supposition may be fanciful, it puts my argument in the position of being my own personal opinion. I note nobody took issue with my comments about the number of highly placed Jambos in Edinburgh Council. Why should HMRC and our judiciary be any different?

---

Do these highly-placed Jambos put their football allegiances before their professional duties?

And, you have now introduced HMRC into your argument. If, as you suggest, they are Rangers-friendly, why would they be pursuing this particular case with such vigour?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Do these highly-placed Jambos put their football allegiances before their professional duties?

And, you have also introduced HMRC into your argument. If, as you suggest, they are Rangers-friendly, why would they be pursuing this particular case with such vigour?

---

I think the HMRC case is now being controlled by the head honchos down south who want a test case to knock all the other EBT operators with.

Thinking back to Rangers CVA voting back in 2012, I think the Duffers and commentators were getting signals from the local HMRC offices that killing off Rangers was not their preferred option but then the decision was taken out of their hands.

As for our local council, the Main Stand at the PBS is still open 12 years after they were given notice by the Council that the safety certificate would not be renewed indefinitely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

I think the HMRC case is now being controlled by the head honchos down south who want a test case to knock all the other EBT operators with.

Thinking back to Rangers CVA voting back in 2012, I think the Duffers and commentators were getting signals from the local HMRC offices that killing off Rangers was not their preferred option but then the decision was taken out of their hands.

As for our local council, the Main Stand at the PBS is still open 12 years after they were given notice by the Council that the safety certificate would not be renewed indefinitely.

---

Killing off companies is very rarely HMRC's preferred option. It hasn't been that way for at least 10 years, when they started to understand the commercial aspects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Killing off companies is very rarely HMRC's preferred option. It hasn't been that way for at least 10 years, when they started to understand the commercial aspects.

---

They must take a different view with football clubs.

They voted against the CVA proposals at Rangers, Hearts, Portsmouth and I'm sure a couple of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

They must take a different view with football clubs.

They voted against the CVA proposals at Rangers, Hearts, Portsmouth and I'm sure a couple of others.

---

They do have a policy of voting against CVA's for football clubs.

I was meaning earlier in the process. They generally are less inclined to put a business under whilst there is still a chance of recovering their debts, and of saving (tax-payers') jobs. That is the approach they adopted at Hearts. They could have put them under long before it actually happened; as it turned out, they actually recovered more tax than they would have otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

They do have a policy of voting against CVA's for football clubs.

I was meaning earlier in the process. They generally are less inclined to put a business under whilst there is still a chance of recovering their debts, and of saving (tax-payers') jobs. That is the approach they adopted at Hearts. They could have put them under long before it actually happened; as it turned out, they actually recovered more tax than they would have otherwise.

---

That's not the way I count it.

They got the November 2012 PAYE payment and may'be the next quarter too, but they got nothing for the £ 1.5 million Tribunal agreement for the Kaunus loan player scam.

Then in the November 2013 CVA document, when the final creditor list was produced, a sum of £ 646,851.66 of VAT due was added to the original list from the previous July.
This I guess was the VAT due on season tickets sold before admin. If the hearts had been forced into admin. at the beginning of 2013 the administrator would have ensured the Revenue got their money for this item.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

That's not the way I count it.

They got the November 2012 PAYE payment and may'be the next quarter too, but they got nothing for the £ 1.5 million Tribunal agreement for the Kaunus loan player scam.

Then in the November 2013 CVA document, when the final creditor list was produced, a sum of £ 646,851.66 of VAT due was added to the original list from the previous July.
This I guess was the VAT due on season tickets sold before admin. If the hearts had been forced into admin. at the beginning of 2013 the administrator would have ensured the Revenue got their money for this item.

---

There were a couple of instances, well before administration, where HMFC paid their debt very late. Had HMRC put them under before that, as they were entitled to do, they would have got nothing. I said at the time that I thought HMRC were playing a blinder in squeeezing the last drop of blood out of the stone.

Had they put them under much earlier in the process, I think they would have been justifiably criticised for taking an uncommercial stance.

The latest from Phil:-

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/dav...ove/#more-4414

Watch out for the incisive interview with King Dave.

I'm thinking this whole sorry affair could have been avoided if the SFL had just told them to GTF 18 months ago. What a missed opportunity that was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Hackett

I'm thinking this whole sorry affair could have been avoided if the SFL had just told them to GTF 18 months ago. What a missed opportunity that was.

---

There would have been social unrest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peter douglas

There would have been social unrest.

---

What on earth for? It is football we are discussing here. There might have been a number of very angry supporters venting their frustration but social unrest is taking the whole thing too far IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CentreLine

What on earth for? It is football we are discussing here. There might have been a number of very angry supporters venting their frustration but social unrest is taking the whole thing too far IMO

---

I think Peter Douglas was making a tongue in cheek reference to this. Which was of course a ridiculous comment to make by that idiot Regan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Hackett

I'm thinking this whole sorry affair could have been avoided if the SFL had just told them to GTF 18 months ago. What a missed opportunity that was.

---

I'm thinking that the clubs in the bottom 2 divisions would disagree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hank Schrader

I think Peter Douglas was making a tongue in cheek reference to this. Which was of course a ridiculous comment to make by that idiot Regan.

---

My bad. Sorry Peter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peter douglas

There would have been social unrest.

---

Armageddon dontcha know?

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/game-on-2/#more-4429

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/game-on-2/#more-4429

---

I guess we don't need to wait very long to find out if he's right.

What is a controlled insolvency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Www1875hfc

What is a controlled insolvency?

---

It's where there is already a buyer lined up for the shares in the company, and where the shareholders and major creditors are in agreement with the proposed deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's where there is already a buyer lined up for the shares in the company, and where the shareholders and major creditors are in agreement with the proposed CVA deal.

---

Thanks CWG :aok:

Hearing that a controlled insolvency and administration will happen this week.

On a lighter note I saw a car coming over the Forth Road Bridge with The Rangers scarves hanging out the windows. Good to see supporters of new clubs getting excited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Www1875hfc

Thanks CWG :aok:

Hearing that a controlled insolvency and administration will happen this week.

---

What's the points penalty for this, if it were to happen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy Whizz

What's the points penalty for this, if it were to happen

---

Will be interesting to see.
25pts if it's their second admin within 5 years.
15pts if they're a different club :cb

There was talk of the SPFL deciding when to apply the points penalty but I'm not sure if that was brought in. It would make sense for Sevco Huns to take the penalty this season as it won't affect their chances of wining Division One, but equally it would be a far stronger punishment if the penalty can be delayed until next season when it could stop them winning the "Championship".

That's one of the reasons they would have to do it sooner rather than later. I still have my doubts about whether it's going to happen though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

Will be interesting to see.
25pts if it's their second admin within 5 years.
15pts if they're a different club :cb

---

Is it not 15 points, or 1/3 of the previous season points, or has that been done away with?

alex thomson ‏@alextomo 9m Rangers to go into Administration on Wednesday? At least one senior Glasgow accountant is saying so tonight.

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve20

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.

---

There's is never enough punishment for SEVCO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve20

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.

---

Was just thinking how this would affect Hearts and them being in the same league..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenStar

Was just thinking how this would affect Hearts and them being in the same league..

---

Hearts could be in a league a lot lower

I hated the old Rangers more than anything I can muster for Hearts. Hearts are just rivals. The old and the new Rangers are disgusting bigoted organisations and I will not shed a tear for them no matter what benefit it may bring the yams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve20

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.

---

I think you do the other clubs a big dis-service and are possibly overrating the quality of team Hearts will have. Also, Hearts could still be in Adminstration themselves.


Wouldn't that be funny, Hearts start the season on -15 and The Rangers on -15/-25 (depending on how they then decide the status of their club)


:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve20

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.

---

Hearts will not win the league next year regardless of Rangers problems. They have a mountain to climb and I doubt that the level of their playing staff will be much different to what it is this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

I think you do the other clubs a big dis-service and are possibly overrating the quality of team Hearts will have. Also, Hearts could still be in Adminstration themselves.


Wouldn't that be funny, Hearts start the season on -15 and The Rangers on -15/-25 (depending on how they then decide the status of their club)


:greengrin

---

Regardless of whether it's 15 or 25, they'll win the league. They've made damn sure the automatic relegation rule was scrapped before they've embarked on this (probable) course. Everything lined up and a quick in and out of admin before the season's anywhere near finished

Cheats then. Cheats now. Cheats forever.

Loathsome from top to bottom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Hackett

Regardless of whether it's 15 or 25, they'll win the league. They've made damn sure the automatic relegation rule was scrapped before they've embarked on this (probable) course. Everything lined up and a quick in and out of admin before the season's anywhere near finished

Cheats then. Cheats now. Cheats forever.

Loathsome from top to bottom

---

Maybe not. The whole purpose of this admin is to get out of expensive player contracts. They will release everyone who is earning too much and have to go with youngsters the rest of the season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Maybe not. The whole purpose of this admin is to get out of expensive player contracts. They will release everyone who is earning too much and have to go with youngsters the rest of the season.

---

I imagine that Black, Daly, Sheils, Law, Bell, McCulloch, Templeton and Foster are all on decent money. How many will they shed? Whatever, if they shed even half of them it would give the other teams an opportunity and belief I would have thought.

So if there is a 2nd controlled admin - does anyone in the real world get stiffed (i.e. HMRC, newsagents ....)?

Seems to be a way of cancelling contracts of players they don't want or are too expensive.

15 or 25 points is irrelevant this season, so no punishment there.

Other than the embarassment (yeah, I know) is there any down side for The Rangers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newry Hibs

So if there is a 2nd controlled admin - does anyone in the real world get stiffed (i.e. HMRC, newsagents ....)?

Seems to be a way of cancelling contracts of players they don't want or are too expensive.

15 or 25 points is irrelevant this season, so no punishment there.

Other than the embarassment (yeah, I know) is there any down side for The Rangers?

---

How can it be irrelevant? If it is 25 points (and I don't know that for sure) they will be back to close to equal with Dunfermline but with potentially all of their high earners gone. You don't think Dunfermline will see an opportunity there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoboHarry

How can it be irrelevant? If it is 25 points (and I don't know that for sure) they will be back to close to equal with Dunfermline but with potentially all of their high earners gone. You don't think Dunfermline will see an opportunity there?

---

Exactly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoboHarry

How can it be irrelevant? If it is 25 points (and I don't know that for sure) they will be back to close to equal with Dunfermline but with potentially all of their high earners gone. You don't think Dunfermline will see an opportunity there?

---

Hmmm - I see 25 points would put them 1 behind Dunfy, however I think would still have enough to get them top. MAybe these high earners will be re-signed on not so high earnings for the rest of the season - or face having no income and publicly branded traitors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve20

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.

---

No I don't I want both the cheating *******s in the lowland league

They should be totally hammered if they go into admin again. A blind man could see it was coming with players on thousands a week and a manager earning £800,000 a year FFS. We all knew it was happening but the authorities sat by and watched it all happen, although saying that they were probably powerless.

Talking to a, and I quote, a dyed in the wool blue nose from my toes to the top of my head and feckn hate kafflix, last night who is funnily enough the first person I have ever heard say they had sympathy for the small businesses that lost money. Gobsmacked was i.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoboHarry

Hearts will not win the league next year regardless of Rangers problems. They have a mountain to climb and I doubt that the level of their playing staff will be much different to what it is this year.

---

Agreed. In a league full of hatchet men their poor wee lambs couldn't handle that. Tattoo mans level though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newry Hibs

Hmmm - I see 25 points would put them 1 behind Dunfy, however I think would still have enough to get them top. MAybe these high earners will be re-signed on not so high earnings for the rest of the season - or face having no income and publicly branded traitors.

---

Dunfermline play the rangers on the last day of the season. Iirc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbc70

They should be totally hammered if they go into admin again. A blind man could see it was coming with players on thousands a week and a manager earning £800,000 a year FFS. We all knew it was happening but the authorities sat by and watched it all happen, although saying that they were probably powerless.

---

Hammer them again? They are a new club/company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoboHarry

I imagine that Black, Daly, Sheils, Law, Bell, McCulloch, Templeton and Foster are all on decent money. How many will they shed? Whatever, if they shed even half of them it would give the other teams an opportunity and belief I would have thought.

---

Start tapping Shiels up now ;)

@alextomo: Some more questions for Rangers tonight - questions note - not statements ?

@alextomo: Why is Jack Irvine contacting journos quite unsolicited tonight to deny possible imminent Admin to people who hadn't asked about it?

@alextomo: Will Rangers deny that Nash and Wallace have met 2 potential Administrators in the past 48 hours? #c4news

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

alex thomson ‏@alextomo 9m Rangers to go into Administration on Wednesday? At least one senior Glasgow accountant is saying so tonight.

---

Speaking , today, with an accountant friend whose firm was involved in the last IBROX "problem" and he made the comment
" .....it is highly likely that Sevco/Rangers, whatever you want to call them, will be in administration this week. All the signs are there !!
You can't run a football business like a market stall and expect to succeed "

:rolleyes:

Gifs at the ready :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

alex thomson ‏@alextomo 9m Rangers to go into Administration on Wednesday? At least one senior Glasgow accountant is saying so tonight.

---

Shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoboHarry

I imagine that Black, Daly, Sheils, Law, Bell, McCulloch, Templeton and Foster are all on decent money. How many will they shed? Whatever, if they shed even half of them it would give the other teams an opportunity and belief I would have thought.

---

Add McCoist to that list of overpaid duds they should look to empty (but hopefully won't).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve20

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.

---

Who says Hearts will definitely be in the Championship? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdships

Speaking , today, with an accountant friend whose firm was involved in the last IBROX "problem" and he made the comment
" .....it is highly likely that Sevco/Rangers, whatever you want to call them, will be in administration this week. All the signs are there !!
You can't run a football business like a market stall and expect to succeed "

:rolleyes:

---

If they do this has been planned and they have brought in players on wages they knew they couldn't afford but in effect knew they could win the league comfortably and take the minus whatever points and still come up .They really need a bigger punishment than that .They seem to think they were hard done by before and now they think there isn't the on going stomach in new set up to take them on again It would be the arrogance of the club if they did do this that I find hard to accept Sporting Integrity ? it's greed and they won't stop till back in top flight ,they really don't care .The current civil war and board room Politicking are deplorable just now .Its everyone wanting a share of the potential money pot further down the line so positioning themselves to try and take over the club before they get back into top flight again .

At least the old rangers had a good innings. The zombie rangers are too young to die but just like their ancestors I'm struggling to give a ****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveHFC

Gifs at the ready :greengrin

---

Can always rely on you steve!

There really should have been a rule put in place to stop them going into admin for at least a few seasons. They were always going to spend big to make sure they got into the top league as fast as possible. A new team enters the league and maybe going into administration in under 2 years. This must be a record?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyle89

There really should have been a rule put in place to stop them going into admin for at least a few seasons. They were always going to spend big to make sure they got into the top league as fast as possible. A new team enters the league and maybe going into administration in under 2 years. This must be a record?

---

Portsmouth entered Administration for the second time in two years on 17th February 2011.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weststandwanab

Portsmouth entered Administration for the second time in two years on 17th February 2011.

---

Rotherham went into administration after the 2005/6 season and again in March 2008

Portsmouth and Rotherham weren't new teams, this incarnation of rangers has only existed for 2 years, if they're allowed to go into administration and still be promoted then I would say the rules need to be changed.