Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Alf R

If you don't read anything else tonight, read this.... for once a really, really clear picture of the Huns current reality! :greengrin

(it's long tho :rolleyes: )

---

Here are some probable outcomes - quoted from Web.3D.Law


Where does this leave RFC (IA)? Here is what I see as the potential outcomes in no particular order…


Option 1 – Sell assets, namely players raising cash for a CVA pot. Ticketus and HMRC will have to agree.. Right now, either of them could block a CVA on the 75% Creditors rule. Ticketus has about a £26M claim as an unsecured creditor. HMRC has about a £42 claim. (25M +9M PAYE +4M VAT on Ticketus deal, and 4M “wee tax case”). As the judgement from the ‘big tax case’ is not in yet, I’ll leave that out. I still see HMRC and Ticketus having to agree to any CVA and the only way they will agree is for a fire sale of all Rangers assets to raise the value of the CVA pot.
Rangers stay in the SPL, and with the transfer embargo in place, have to field a team of youngsters for a season.

Option 2: Rangers sell Ibrox and all the other fixed assets to keep the players. I know this is an unlikely outcome. While Ally’s rallying cry “we don’t do walking away” made for rallying the troops, when a players livelihood is on the line, it will be hard pressed not to walk away to the bank to collect a pay check from a club on much stronger foundations. Without any working capital and no legal right to buy players, the only way RFC can stay competitive is to sell their fixed assets – Ibrox, Murray Park, and the two car parks. Take the proceeds from the asset sale and stick it in the CVA pot. Hope all the unsecured creditors agree.
Rent Ibrox back from its new owners. Or play in Hampden and rent it from the SFA. Ouch. That would be a sore one. All the big name players go, with the exception of people like Lee McCulloch and one or two of the rising stars like Andy Little. This gives the club some working capital. They can’t rely on Ticket sales to raise funds anymore because of the Ticketusdeal and the season ticket deals.

Option 3: The big tax case comes back against Rangers and holds up the levy already placed on Rangers. HMRC moves for liquidation. All hell breaks loose and all the assets are sold off – players and fixed and creditors repaid pennies on the pound. Rangers are killed off by two decades of financial mismanagement. The blame lies at Sir David Murray’s door as much as it is Craig Whyte’s.

Option 4: This is the ‘NewCo’ option and would involve literally start all over again by applying to get back into the SFA. Sell all players and sell all fixed assets. A possibility would be to rent Ibrox and Murray Park back from its new owners. The transfer embargo has ensured those 40 players on RFC rosters have a place to play. It just means that they can’t buy anyone for 12 months over the age of 18.
The competence of the panel and the reasoning behind the decision has now been explained. Let’s say we see, either an oldco RFC in the SPL next season, or a “NewCo” RFC next year.
Under the ‘oldco’ outcome, we will see a club with no stadium, no players, under an effective transfer embargo, and either playing at Ibrox rented from its new owners or Hampden, if Ibrox is sold off to developers. It will likely have been punished a further points reduction for still being in administration. It will likely be a shell club, well shy of its former glory. It will be Rangers though, and that will be what a lot of the fans will want to see.

Under the ‘newco’ option, it will not be Rangers and that will be a sore pill to take for a lot of supporters.

All of this gets settled and then the double contract announcement comes home to roost. The former RFC as a “newco” can’t be punished anymore, because it is, well new. The “oldco” can be. I think it will be appropriate and likely that the football community start to think of the totality of Craig Whyte’s actions as misdemeanours. If the double contract judgement comes back against Rangers, it will likely be referred to as a series of felonies – systematic long-term cheating and we will have to have a serious of conversations about how to deal with this. Do we invalidate all of the results over a year when EBTs and double contracts were in use? If that’s the case, I think we need to look at how much money clubs lost out on after amending all of the tainted results. Should compensatory damages be paid to all of those clubs that lost out on a second, 3^rd or 4^th place finish, because of a financially doped team? How much did clubs lose out on from not being able to play in Europe? What would be the difference in the amount each club would have received from the Commercial Fund? What would attendance have been if the playing field had been levelled? There will be a lot of questions to be answered. However, you and I will get there together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

This bit was interesting too. A slip of the tongue?

Rangers - Sandy Jardine, spokesman for the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund, added: “Rangers supporters will be shocked and bitterly disappointed by this decision and will find it hard to take that the club has been so heavily punished for the actions of individuals.”

Comment - Ah. Now this is an interesting comment. Sandy Jardine says that fans will find it hard to take it that the club is being punished for the actions of “individuals”. This is the official Rangers website, so I suspect an argument that he had been misquoted or take out of context would not work. Is this the only acknowledgement so far by Rangers that there were more people to blame than Mr Whyte? Maybe someone will ask Mr Jardine to whom he is referring.

---

Maybe it was the " NEDS " - (Non Executive Directors) Messieurs Greig and Mclelland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

In Whyte's case, you would have to prove that he never intended to pay it, ever. Even at that, it would be RFC who got done initially. To me, it is just a case of a business in severe difficulties. The Revenue are always one of the first creditors to get bumped.

SDM's case is a bit less clear-cut to me. I am sure he would hide behind the defence that he was acting on advice received. To be fair, a lot of companies were taking that same line at the time... it's "unfortunate" for them that HMRC didn't agree with their interpretation of the law.

However, HMRC might press charges to make an example of him... but it would, again, be difficult to prove "wilful" fraud.

---

I would love it that SDM was exposed as the main culprit in all of this and not punished at all.

He would live with the fact that he ruined his beloved club and the hordes of flesh-eating Huns would feel so betrayed by their saviour that all hope would be lost for eternity !:greengrin

MOONBEAMS with various supporters groups chaired By Mr Charles Green, Sandy Jardine and Jim Hannah.

The Meeting commenced at 5:30 and ran until 6:50. There was an agenda produced by Mr. Green then the floor opened for questions.

1. Season ticket prices.
Despite no increases in the past three years and the desperate need for money coming into the Club, the prices will not be increased for the forthcoming season. An official announcement will be issued soon. The Ticketus deal is over.

2. Meeting with the SFA/ SFA Appeal.
Mr Keen, our Q.C. presented a strong case why the penalties were harsh. The sanctions were not actually in the SFA Rule Books. He stressed we were very likely to lose players. He spoke for one and a quarter hours. The SFA's lawyer then presented his case. Both Mr Green and Sandy Jardine stressed the panel were independent and not "football men". Rangers asked for a quick decision in order that we may plan what to do next. The panel went away for an hour and a half and returned with the verbal decision, to be confirmed in writing, that the decision and sanctions stand

3/4. Deal Structure/ CVA/ Newco and CVA letter issue date.
Mr Green's preferred route is a CVA. Funds are in place to pay the creditors. On or around next Friday Duff and Phelps will write to the creditors with the offer. The creditors then have 14 days to decide if they will accept. If all say yes, Duff and Phelps stand aside and Mr Green pays the creditors, although he will not yet be the new owner. From making their decision, the creditors then have a 28 day cooling off period in which they can change their minds but Mr Green thought it unlikely any would do so having made a decision. Once the debt is settled, Rangers are out of administration. Crucially, the SFA looks upon things differently, and once the creditors accept - not when they get paid - Rangers are, in the SFA's eyes, out of administration.

Scottish football is working to new rules, so it is vital all is settled before the 4th August - or we may face further punishments.

If we go down the newco route, it is along similar lines to Bill Miller's except Mr Green will pay the creditors now. Bill Miller's idea was to pay them off over three or four years.

Mr Green stressed that whatever happens we will not lose the history or the trophies. The Club was founded in 1872 before the days of incorporation. In 1899, we incorporated. In 1981, we re-registered. All with the history intact. All we get is a different number in companies house against our name.

5. Investor information.
Mr Green was looking into the purchase from 18th February. His idea is to have investors owning from 1% to 15%. All 26,000 current fan share holders will be invited to invest and given 2 or 3 years to fund their investment. The press have found out about Kevin McDonald and Freddie Shepherd and approached them. Both have declared an interest in investing but as yet, have not done so. Mr Green has 5 or 6 people who have already committed to invest and who have paid money to be part of the dream. Some are from the Middle East and some are from the Far East. None are Rangers fans but are football fans. Their dream is to fund soccer academies in the Far East and to see Rangers progress in Europe, where the creation of a European League is seen as a reality.

The company will be listed and everyone will be able to see all who invest. At the moment they have asked for privacy.

6. Craig Whyte agreement.
Mt Green has met Mr Whyte on three occasions and has paid him £1 for the Club. He also paid him a second pound so that Mr Whyte could make a 100% profit on the deal. The thing is set in stone and Mr Whyte cannot back out. Mr Green stressed that anything David Murray or Craig Whyte did should be consigned to the history books and we now look forward.

The floor was opened to questions.

Asked what would happen if one, two or three of our recently called up International players got crocked playing for their country and we could not sign anyone because of the embargo, Mr Green and Sandy Jardine expressed their amazement and anger at how the situation may develop. Mr Whyte pointed out to the panel at Hampden that we had three goalkeepers on our books and asked what would happen if they all got serious injury, would we have to field a team without a keeper? No satisfactory answer was forthcoming. They looked at the team sheets and saw almost 40 signed players from 17 years of age up. Sandy Jardine asked them what would happen if all the experienced players left. The answer was that we still had enough on the books to put out a team. Sandy Jardine answered that you cannot blood a youngster too soon. One bad game and he may be finished. But he told the Meeting the people he was talking to were not football people.

Asked if we should plump for Division 3, Mr Green replied that without Rangers there is no SPL and the other Club Chairmen know it. While other clubs fan may want us demoted, their Chairmen are businessmen.

Mr Green stated that while not a test case, if we were Crewe Alexandria or Arbroath, the punishments would not be sever, indeed there may be calls to assist us.

Mr Green stated that there may be a "year of pain" but that we would emerge from it and regain our place. Asked where he saw us in 5 years, he said "top of the League".Mr Green paid great tribute to Ally McCoist, the management team, the players and to Rangers men such as Sandy Jardine and Jim Hannah who had given so much.

Asked about further investors, Mr Green said that he had held meetings today and would hold more tomorrow with Rangers fans keen to invest. They were, he said, major names in Scottish business - and Bluenoses.

Asked about future players Mr Green reminded the meeting that he had built and sold the largest sports agency in the world and still had the contacts. "who would not want to come and play for Rangers?" he asked.

Lastly, Mr Green stressed that it was most important that there should be no disruption to the Cup Final at the weekend. It would not be beneficial to Rangers

------------------------------
some glaring contradictions.... and a lot of pash!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Alf R

MOONBEAMS with various supporters groups chaired By Mr Charles Green, Sandy Jardine and Jim Hannah.

The Meeting commenced at 5:30 and ran until 6:50. There was an agenda produced by Mr. Green then the floor opened for questions.

1. Season ticket prices.
Despite no increases in the past three years and the desperate need for money coming into the Club, the prices will not be increased for the forthcoming season. An official announcement will be issued soon. The Ticketus deal is over.

2. Meeting with the SFA/ SFA Appeal.
Mr Keen, our Q.C. presented a strong case why the penalties were harsh. The sanctions were not actually in the SFA Rule Books. He stressed we were very likely to lose players. He spoke for one and a quarter hours. The SFA's lawyer then presented his case. Both Mr Green and Sandy Jardine stressed the panel were independent and not "football men". Rangers asked for a quick decision in order that we may plan what to do next. The panel went away for an hour and a half and returned with the verbal decision, to be confirmed in writing, that the decision and sanctions stand

3/4. Deal Structure/ CVA/ Newco and CVA letter issue date.
Mr Green's preferred route is a CVA. Funds are in place to pay the creditors. On or around next Friday Duff and Phelps will write to the creditors with the offer. The creditors then have 14 days to decide if they will accept. If all say yes, Duff and Phelps stand aside and Mr Green pays the creditors, although he will not yet be the new owner. From making their decision, the creditors then have a 28 day cooling off period in which they can change their minds but Mr Green thought it unlikely any would do so having made a decision. Once the debt is settled, Rangers are out of administration. Crucially, the SFA looks upon things differently, and once the creditors accept - not when they get paid - Rangers are, in the SFA's eyes, out of administration.

Scottish football is working to new rules, so it is vital all is settled before the 4th August - or we may face further punishments.

If we go down the newco route, it is along similar lines to Bill Miller's except Mr Green will pay the creditors now. Bill Miller's idea was to pay them off over three or four years.

Mr Green stressed that whatever happens we will not lose the history or the trophies. The Club was founded in 1872 before the days of incorporation. In 1899, we incorporated. In 1981, we re-registered. All with the history intact. All we get is a different number in companies house against our name.

5. Investor information.
Mr Green was looking into the purchase from 18th February. His idea is to have investors owning from 1% to 15%. All 26,000 current fan share holders will be invited to invest and given 2 or 3 years to fund their investment. The press have found out about Kevin McDonald and Freddie Shepherd and approached them. Both have declared an interest in investing but as yet, have not done so. Mr Green has 5 or 6 people who have already committed to invest and who have paid money to be part of the dream. Some are from the Middle East and some are from the Far East. None are Rangers fans but are football fans. Their dream is to fund soccer academies in the Far East and to see Rangers progress in Europe, where the creation of a European League is seen as a reality.

The company will be listed and everyone will be able to see all who invest. At the moment they have asked for privacy.

6. Craig Whyte agreement.
Mt Green has met Mr Whyte on three occasions and has paid him £1 for the Club. He also paid him a second pound so that Mr Whyte could make a 100% profit on the deal. The thing is set in stone and Mr Whyte cannot back out. Mr Green stressed that anything David Murray or Craig Whyte did should be consigned to the history books and we now look forward.

The floor was opened to questions.

Asked what would happen if one, two or three of our recently called up International players got crocked playing for their country and we could not sign anyone because of the embargo, Mr Green and Sandy Jardine expressed their amazement and anger at how the situation may develop. Mr Whyte pointed out to the panel at Hampden that we had three goalkeepers on our books and asked what would happen if they all got serious injury, would we have to field a team without a keeper? No satisfactory answer was forthcoming. They looked at the team sheets and saw almost 40 signed players from 17 years of age up. Sandy Jardine asked them what would happen if all the experienced players left. The answer was that we still had enough on the books to put out a team. Sandy Jardine answered that you cannot blood a youngster too soon. One bad game and he may be finished. But he told the Meeting the people he was talking to were not football people.

Asked if we should plump for Division 3, Mr Green replied that without Rangers there is no SPL and the other Club Chairmen know it. While other clubs fan may want us demoted, their Chairmen are businessmen.

Mr Green stated that while not a test case, if we were Crewe Alexandria or Arbroath, the punishments would not be sever, indeed there may be calls to assist us.

Mr Green stated that there may be a "year of pain" but that we would emerge from it and regain our place. Asked where he saw us in 5 years, he said "top of the League".Mr Green paid great tribute to Ally McCoist, the management team, the players and to Rangers men such as Sandy Jardine and Jim Hannah who had given so much.

Asked about further investors, Mr Green said that he had held meetings today and would hold more tomorrow with Rangers fans keen to invest. They were, he said, major names in Scottish business - and Bluenoses.

Asked about future players Mr Green reminded the meeting that he had built and sold the largest sports agency in the world and still had the contacts. "who would not want to come and play for Rangers?" he asked.

Lastly, Mr Green stressed that it was most important that there should be no disruption to the Cup Final at the weekend. It would not be beneficial to Rangers

------------------------------
some glaring contradictions.... and a lot of pash!!!!!!

---

These people have no shame in regards to their social responsibilities.

They think they are The SPL and would jump ship to a Euro League at the first chance!

They have tarnished the term " Football Men ' too!

They think they will keep their history, good, they can have it, a filthy, cheating disgrace! ( insert... and ... breathe... smiley.. )

Wasn't the lead judge a former Chairman of Partick Thistle or something?

Stuff and nonsense, once again all three came from a list that all the clubs, Rangers included, approved. Their complaints about the ban seem to be ignoring the fact that it is meant to be a punishment! Of course that means they will have difficulty next season! Idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Alf R

Lastly, Mr Green stressed that it was most important that there should be no disruption to the Cup Final at the weekend. It would not be beneficial to Rangers.

---

Cue for all the Celtic supporters to dress in blue and make a nuisance of themselves around Hampden Park on Saturday!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...sanctions.html

where to start with that.....

sounds like they have a timescale from SFA to get it sorted or things get worse.

sounds like he is putting pennies in and hoping to get it all for buttons then get others to do the investing.....smoke, mirrors and blind hope...

and already are talking about a Euro league...the irony is shameless....so the SPL cant do without them...you must save us...otherwise we won't be here to take up better opportunities when they come along....
the other Chairmen should be asked to answer how they feel about them verbalising plans to leave when they can even at this point.....:grr:

might as well adjust you business plans now...they have made it clear its there desire not to be here

This is an interesting statement ...

"and once the creditors accept - not when they get paid - Rangers are, in the SFA's eyes, out of administration."

Could there be a situation where they make an offer but, at a later point, refuse to honour it?

"The press have found out about Kevin McDonald and Freddie Shepherd and approached them. Both have declared an interest in investing"

I was a bit worried about these investors, but now I know that Freddy Shepherd could be involved I feel much happier.
:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

Does there HAVE to be a tax implication for the double contracts issue still to be, ermmm, an issue?

Is it not a case of one contract being lodged with the SPL saying Player X will be paid Y and another contract being held in the Big Hoose saying Player X will be paid Y + Z.

Whether or not Z is liable for tax or not does not take away the fact that one document said Y while the other Y + Z

Or is this too simple an analysis?

---

There doesn't have to be, but in this case there is.

The tax implication is that any income derived from carrying out contractual duties should be taxable. The double contracts issue is that any payments made from playing football should be covered by one approved, registered contract.

In this case, HMRC contend that the EBT payments made to the players were made for playing football (and that the side letters prove this), so in effect the tax case and the double contracts issue overlap completely.

Plus it's a nice political benefit for the SPL/SFA if someone else (the FTT) find them guilty first. Thus I don't expect any move from the football authorities until after the FTT result is in.

Quote:

---

Doncaster, though, believes that the newco option has become unfairly discredited in the media since Rangers were plunged into administration over three months ago.

“Whenever I speak to people about the distinction between a Company Voluntary Agreement and a newco what I keep being told is that it’s simply wrong that any club should be able to create a newco and shed debt - as if a CVA doesn’t lead to the shedding of debt,” he said.

“Administration is the protection the court gives you when you can’t pay your debts. There are two ways out of that; one is a newco, one is a CVA."

---

Does he really think anyone believes this drivel? It's like saying serving a prison sentence and doing a bunk are the same thing, both allow you to live freely afterwards. :rolleyes:

Neil Doncaster in today's Daily Mail

"I am baffled by the CVA/NewCo distinction"

"The distinction between the two is relatively fine.I am baffled as to why such a distinction is drawn"

" As if a CVA does'nt lead to the shedding of debt"

Who is the man trying to kid ? or is it possible he truly is an IMBECILE.

Distinctions between the two Neil. Try a worthwhile offer of say 30 - 40 pence in the pound, an offer in value far in excess of the break up value of the Company.
Or

A derisory offer of about 2 pence in the pound to ordinary creditors who respond by telling the offerer to go do one and a New Company is formed.

Another small difference is with the CVA it is the same Company/legal entity with a NewCo its a new Club. Not much difference eh Neil.

The man truly is out of his depth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

This is an interesting statement ...

"and once the creditors accept - not when they get paid - Rangers are, in the SFA's eyes, out of administration."

Could there be a situation where they make an offer but, at a later point, refuse to honour it?

---

I would think the courts would have something to say about it if that happened. It is odd how SFA are viewing as during 28 day 'cooling off period' creditors can change mon...so they would not be out of admin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

"The press have found out about Kevin McDonald and Freddie Shepherd and approached them. Both have declared an interest in investing"

I was a bit worried about these investors, buy now I know that Freddy Shepherd could be involved I feel much happier.
:wink:

---

this is where you can see how thin the money is behind them...reason they don't want them named...as with this pair they have apparently agreed nothing.....and as you are hinting...not universally loved individuals.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Neil Doncaster in today's Daily Mail

"I am baffled by the CVA/NewCo distinction"

"The distinction between the two is relatively fine.I am baffled as to why such a distinction is drawn"

" As if a CVA does'nt lead to the shedding of debt"

Who is the man trying to kid ? or is it possible he truly is an IMBECILE.

Distinctions between the two Neil. Try a worthwhile offer of say 30 - 40 pence in the pound, an offer in value far in excess of the break up value of the Company.
Or

A derisory offer of about 2 pence in the pound to ordinary creditors who respond by telling the offerer to go do one and a New Company is formed.

Another small difference is with the CVA it is the same Company/legal entity with a NewCo its a new Club. Not much difference eh Neil.

The man truly is out of his depth.

---

I was truly gobsmacked when I read that. What chance has the game in Scotland got with this guy holding some sort of power. I can't believe I defended him in the past now.

I've read a lot of this thread and a lot of the press stories, and reading about the Rangers fans views, Sandy Jardine, Fat Ally and the rest, the conclusion I have come to, after a lot of thought and deliberation is:

Screw the whole damned lot of them and I hope their vile, bigotted, hate filled, self important and cheating club dies a long slow painfull death...:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs13681

Would there not be a hole in their accounting though? They must have provided the SPL with one of the contracts. If thats the case would their not be a massive difference between their spending on salaries and what was provided to the SPL. For the big tax case, would they not have investigated the situation to find out if there were dual contracts and if one them were being witheld from the SPL. If they did investigate that and found that they were witholding information from the SPL then that, to me, would prove an element of guilt from Rangers side in that they were trying to keep it hush and knew it wasnt above board.

---

There wouldn't be a hole in their accounting because of the trust acting a a middle man. How it operates is that the club pays sums of money into the trust, which is a nominally independent entity, and the trust then 'loans' that money to the employees based on their 'needs'. The amounts paid to the trust are included in staff costs in the accounts but the amounts paid to the players are the trust's remit rather than the club's. The loans are interest-free and non-repayable during the player's lifetime and because they are loans they're not taxable.

The tax problems arise where these 'loans' are seen to be payments in recognition of the employee's employment rather than as discretionary awards to financially assist the employee. On that basis I thingk the 'double-contract' patter is a bit misleading at least as far as HMRC is concerned. They don't actually need a written contract for the scheme to fail, although it would help enormously if there was one - if a former employee was to say for example that he received £80,000 from the trust as part of his severance settlement, that to my mind would be a strong indication that the 'loan' was in fact a severance payment which should be subject to normal income tax rules, even if the arrangement wasn't actually written into any contract. Likewise, annual bonuses don't in any way fall into the circumstances that an EBT should cover IMO.

I don't know whether the SPL rules mirror the HMRC ones, but I can't see why they wouldn't and a guilty finding under the latter would surely be a strong indication of guilt under the former.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Neil Doncaster in today's Daily Mail

"I am baffled by the CVA/NewCo distinction"

"The distinction between the two is relatively fine.I am baffled as to why such a distinction is drawn"

" As if a CVA does'nt lead to the shedding of debt"

Who is the man trying to kid ? or is it possible he truly is an IMBECILE.

Distinctions between the two Neil. Try a worthwhile offer of say 30 - 40 pence in the pound, an offer in value far in excess of the break up value of the Company.
Or

A derisory offer of about 2 pence in the pound to ordinary creditors who respond by telling the offerer to go do one and a New Company is formed.

Another small difference is with the CVA it is the same Company/legal entity with a NewCo its a new Club. Not much difference eh Neil.

The man truly is out of his depth.

---

:agree: The obvious difference is in the 'A' of CVA - A=Agreement. The creditors have accepted the debtors proposal. With liquidation the creditors have no say in the matter and are effectively stuffed by the debtor.

I'm not convinced Doncater is just out of his depth though, I think he is deliberately playing down the major differences between the two because he is desperate to keep the huns in the SPL - his bonus probably depends on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

:agree: The obvious difference is in the 'A' of CVA - A=Agreement. The creditors have accepted the debtors proposal. With liquidation the creditors have no say in the matter and are effectively stuffed by the debtor.

I'm not convinced Doncater is just out of his depth though, I think he is deliberately playing down the major differences between the two because he is desperate to keep the huns in the SPL - his bonus probably depends on it.

---

Or, backhander from the Huns fighting fund ! :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Or, backhander from the Huns fighting fund ! :wink:

---

His desperation to placate the hordes of Mordor suggests implication of some kind. Maybe I'm just cynical.

IMO the sooner we're shot of The Quintessential British Cheats AND Doncaster, the sooner Scottish football will get off it's knees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

his bonus probably depends on it.

---

Now there's an interesting point .. I wonder what the answer would be if he was directly asked whether he would be personally affected financially with the Rangers situation and possible collapse of the TV deal he brokered?

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

:agree: The obvious difference is in the 'A' of CVA - A=Agreement. The creditors have accepted the debtors proposal. With liquidation the creditors have no say in the matter and are effectively stuffed by the debtor.

I'm not convinced Doncater is just out of his depth though, I think he is deliberately playing down the major differences between the two because he is desperate to keep the huns in the SPL - his bonus probably depends on it.

---

:agree: have said many times that the CVA 'dance' is just that..something to pass blame / placate the fans..Green im sure wants a clean NewCo...so the PR machines of Rangers (and to an extent SFA) is to 'sell' the NewCo as business as usual (note the 'we will not lose our history quotes' from Green regardless of vehicle)

NewCo IS liquidation in all but name. Remember the old saying..if it looks like it and smells like it usually is it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

:agree: The obvious difference is in the 'A' of CVA - A=Agreement. The creditors have accepted the debtors proposal. With liquidation the creditors have no say in the matter and are effectively stuffed by the debtor.

I'm not convinced Doncater is just out of his depth though, I think he is deliberately playing down the major differences between the two because he is desperate to keep the huns in the SPL - his bonus probably depends on it.

---

This article would suggest differently:

http://www.sportinglife.com/football...s.html&BID=425

Does anyone know if they kept them money due to go to charity from thAC Milan game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VickMackie

Does anyone know if they kept them money due to go to charity from thAC Milan game?

---

I'd hazard a guess that any funds of this sort will be directed towards the "fighting fund" rather than the club. That way those nasty creditors and the evil HMRC won't be able to get their hands on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibtastic

This article would suggest differently:

http://www.sportinglife.com/football...s.html&BID=425

---

taken from the above article ...
Meanwhile, Green told representatives of fans' groups on Thursday night that investors have already committed £20million to the stricken club.

if that is the case then why have they only offered £8.5m to the creditors :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibtastic

This article would suggest differently:

http://www.sportinglife.com/football...s.html&BID=425

---

Rather different when you read everything he has to say though.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...exit-1-2302872

I understand Doncaster is a lawyer by trade and as such I find it hard to believe he is 'baffled' by the distinctions made between CVAs and newcos. A great deal of what he says both in that article and elsewhere seem to be designed to mislead IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I think it's the SPL that is investigating the double-contract situation. The SFA is, I think, the appeals body.

That said, the double-contract thing IS, in the main, about tax avoidance. So, in the SFA's eyes, guilt in that case would be a second offence of the same type.

---

You could argue that if found guilty of double contracts, Rangers being able to field better players that they could afford was match fixing to a certain degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Interesting.

I would still wager, though, that the whole point of that situation was to avoid tax.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

There doesn't have to be, but in this case there is.

The tax implication is that any income derived from carrying out contractual duties should be taxable. The double contracts issue is that any payments made from playing football should be covered by one approved, registered contract.

In this case, HMRC contend that the EBT payments made to the players were made for playing football (and that the side letters prove this), so in effect the tax case and the double contracts issue overlap completely.

Plus it's a nice political benefit for the SPL/SFA if someone else (the FTT) find them guilty first. Thus I don't expect any move from the football authorities until after the FTT result is in.

---

Totally agree...my point was really aimed at the SPL in that I don't see the direct correlation between HMRC finding Rangers guilty of tax avoidance in terms of the EBT and the SPL finding them guilty of operating dual contracts.

The two issues are related but separate in terms of offences committed so the findings of one should not be reliant on the other.

In other words, to my mind, the SPL do not and should not be waiting for HMRC to make a tax verdict on the EBT before declaring if Rangers broke SPL rules. I would suggest that getting the facts on the table as quickly as possible would be in everyone’s interest.