Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

I think it's a great idea to boycott those that support the OF/Rangers during this.

Unfortunately/fortunately there are people who will always go to support the team irrespective of the other club because they want to support our team.

Also, people will lose track of who they should boycott and others won't like being suggested too that they should boycott . There will be no coordination or official list drawn up unless supporters clubs arranged something and circulated it.

It would be great to see the Rangers away end empty all next season. It won't happen though. Pity.

Any thoughts or suggestions on where Mark Daly got his information / documentation?
Would appear to me that a large number of these documents would be something that would be useful in lets say a tribunal case which has been ongoing :greengrin

A very insightful and interesting report from Mark Daly there :aok:

Conflict of interests must surely mean that the current admininstrators will be replaced.

Graham Speirs also comes across well, he asked questions of Rangers a long time before anyone else and was subsequently banished by David Murry.

This is only going to get more interesting :agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derek Dougan

With the lengths Mark Daly went to get his information, I'm just wondering if Mr Charles Green is maybe having second thoughts? Somehow I don't think he is squeaky clean :hmmm:

---

As I wondered a few pages ago, this is increasingly looking like a scam orchestrated by some or all of Murray, Whyte, Duff & Phelps and Green...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Brazil

Any thoughts or suggestions on where Mark Daly got his information / documentation?
Would appear to me that a large number of these documents would be something that would be useful in lets say a tribunal case which has been ongoing :greengrin

---

If, as we all suspect, Hector is the mole, then someone will be getting their jotters. At the heart of the Taxpayer's Charter is confidentiality, and this kind of leak runs a coach and horses through that.

Brilliant telly, though....:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cropley10

We should all remember as this unfolds that not that long ago Rangers (and Celt c) were desperate to get out of Scottish Football.

For anyone to tell us that we 'need' Rangers or any New Club called something like Rangers is ridiculous. If they could have gone they would, now they want us to save them!!

---

Correct. Self-serving hypocrisy.

I wonder how much Killie would stand to lose if all fans were to boycott? Been to RP once and there was about 2000 Hibbes there, last day of the season.

I imagine Hearts are similar to us in terms of away supporters. Aberdeen, UTD and Motherwell will be same boat with the other clubs all similar to eachother.

Obviously the Old Firm provide the most - not hard considering it'll be closer than an actual home game for some Rangers fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

If, as we all suspect, Hector is the mole, then someone will be getting their jotters. At the heart of the Taxpayer's Charter is confidentiality, and this kind of leak runs a coach and horses through that.

Brilliant telly, though....:greengrin

---

So what benefit or issues will this give the HMRC? Will it help speed up the tribunal decision making process or put additional pressure on the person/s making this decision?

paul murray interview

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18185328

Former Rangers director Paul Murray has called for a probe of Duff & Phelps's handling of the football club's period in administration



"the only time craig whyte has panicked was when he thought other administrators(other than duff and duffier) were going to be appointed"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Brazil

So what benefit or issues will this give the HMRC? Will it help speed up the tribunal decision making process or put additional pressure on the person/s making this decision?

---

It should have no bearing on the BTC decision. That process will continue, in the same way and at the same pace.

However, it may persuade HMRC to petition the Court for a change in administrator. I say "may" because remember that this is just one side of the story. The question of "conflict of interest" is just that, for the moment... a question. If HMRC, or any other creditor, become convinced that there is genuine substance to that allegation, then they should consider such action.

I take it those who say we should be boycotting here and boycotting there don't actually follow Hibs? To boycott Killie v Hibs is to boycott Hibs as well. Absolutely ludicrous.
I'm getting fed up of the whole thing now, and as far as I'm concerned Killie and who have you can think what they like. I'm only interested in Hibs, and the views of other club chairmen is not going to prevent me from supporting my team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

paul murray interview

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18185328

Former Rangers director Paul Murray has called for a probe of Duff & Phelps's handling of the football club's period in administration



"the only time craig whyte has panicked was when he thought other administrators(other than duff and duffier) were going to be appointed"

---

No.... CW panicked at the end of the Malmo game. :agree:

And, may I be the first to offer Mr. Murray a plate of sour grapes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes

I think the moral justification for the SPL allowing newco Rangers back into the SPL is waning fast. This whole saga is being shown to be a mess of mammoth proportions. The previous viewpoint which Doncaster and his SPL chums were banking on was along the lines that Rangers were the victims of one man, Mr Whyte, and therefore the Club were not totally culpable. Tonight's BBC allegations shift most of that blame onto David Murray and question the role of the administrators.

How the SPL ultimately deal with newco Rangers will be very much under the spotlight, more so than ever. If they re-instate newco Rangers they may not be able to fall back on the wegie press to defend their position:wink:

---

Why the fuss about conflict of interest now? People were saying this on here and elsewhere on the day Duff and Phelps were appointed as they had advised Whyte on the takeover. When HMRC challenged the appt of D and P in court I am sure their lawyer would have mentioned this. It is not a new revelation surely?

Here is a quote from the 14th Feb this year........


The administrators will be Duff & Phelps


HMRC initially objected to Duff & Phelps - said there were concerns of "public perception" if they were appointed.

Agree the idea/reasons behind it are fine Mo but what about lack of support for our players ? People will always go and this kinda thing has to be all or not at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Why the fuss about conflict of interest now? People were saying this on here and elsewhere on the day Duff and Phelps were appointed as they had advised Whyte on the takeover. When HMRC challenged the appt of D and P in court I am sure their lawyer would have mentioned this. It is not a new revelation surely?

---

It's the involvement of David Grier, and the evidence suggesting that, that is new. That wouldn't have been known at the time of D & P's appointment.

It's perfectly possible for a firm to manage an apparent conflict of interest, to the extent that it is no longer a conflict. However, it is a difficult thing to do, and not always desirable; "how it is" and "how it looks" are often very different.

If any such concerns were raised at the time, I am sure that D&P would have defended their appointment by confirming that any apparent conflict of interest would be appropriately managed. The evidence, though, suggests that they haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Why the fuss about conflict of interest now? People were saying this on here and elsewhere on the day Duff and Phelps were appointed as they had advised Whyte on the takeover. When HMRC challenged the appt of D and P in court I am sure their lawyer would have mentioned this. It is not a new revelation surely?

---

I dont think any of this is new (to us) Spike but the difference is that there now appears to be evidence to support the claims now. Whether it was there before and ignore, I dont know, but it cant be disregarded now that it is in the public domain.

Rangerstaxcase blog made some good and interesting comments about the difficulty they have had bringing this into the open when the authorities and the media have all been trying to suppress it.

Does anyone have any aspirin? :dizzy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carheenlea

I take it those who say we should be boycotting here and boycotting there don't actually follow Hibs? To boycott Killie v Hibs is to boycott Hibs as well. Absolutely ludicrous.
I'm getting fed up of the whole thing now, and as far as I'm concerned Killie and who have you can think what they like. I'm only interested in Hibs, and the views of other club chairmen is not going to prevent me from supporting my team.

---

I see where you are coming from, and agree any boycott hurts Hibs too. What do you suggest people do to protest?

Can you tell me what would be the point of going to football should the huns come through this still in the SPL?

How much cheating would it take before you decide enough is enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It should have no bearing on the BTC decision. That process will continue, in the same way and at the same pace.

However, it may persuade HMRC to petition the Court for a change in administrator. I say "may" because remember that this is just one side of the story. The question of "conflict of interest" is just that, for the moment... a question. If HMRC, or any other creditor, become convinced that there is genuine substance to that allegation, then they should consider such action.

---

Ok and sorry if this has been discussed before - so if HMRC do decide to push for a change of administrators - is liquidation more likely - does HMRC stand to benefit more from liquidation or from a CVA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's the involvement of David Grier, and the evidence suggesting that, that is new. That wouldn't have been known at the time of D & P's appointment.

It's perfectly possible for a firm to manage an apparent conflict of interest, to the extent that it is no longer a conflict. However, it is a difficult thing to do, and not always desirable; "how it is" and "how it looks" are often very different.

If any such concerns were raised at the time, I am sure that D&P would have defended their appointment by confirming that any apparent conflict of interest would be appropriately managed. The evidence, though, suggests that they haven't.

---

I'll not forget the sheepish look on the face of the Administrator during the initial TV interview when the question of a possible conflict of interest was raised by one of the media.

Every picture tells a story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carheenlea

I take it those who say we should be boycotting here and boycotting there don't actually follow Hibs? To boycott Killie v Hibs is to boycott Hibs as well. Absolutely ludicrous.
I'm getting fed up of the whole thing now, and as far as I'm concerned Killie and who have you can think what they like. I'm only interested in Hibs, and the views of other club chairmen is not going to prevent me from supporting my team.

---

Your right, all I care about is Hibs too. However the reason I have been fed up more than happy in recent years is because other clubs have been spending more than they can afford such as Killie. Now if these clubs all want to stick together and let each other off lightly then as far as I'm concerned anything that the fans can do to stop this is fine with me. Boycotting included.

Ultimately it would all be about Hibs as I am not prepared to be every other clubs whipping boys just because we are the only ones who want to play by the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Brazil

Ok and sorry if this has been discussed before - so if HMRC do decide to push for a change of administrators - is liquidation more likely - does HMRC stand to benefit more from liquidation or from a CVA?

---

First question... a new administrator would need time to get acquainted with the case, maybe a few weeks. I don't think there is enough cash to sustain a delay like that. So, in short, yes, liquidation is more likely.

Second question ... I think every creditor stands to make more from liquidation, but the administrators still seem to disagree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

First question... a new administrator would need time to get acquainted with the case, maybe a few weeks. I don't think there is enough cash to sustain a delay like that. So, in short, yes, liquidation is more likely.

Second question ... I think every creditor stands to make more from liquidation, but the administrators still seem to disagree with that.

---

Thanks CWG - certainly going to be an interesting week coming up - these revelations, the SPL vote, the SPL investigation and the Green bid - plenty to keep you busy :greengrin

Aberdeen supporters raging at Stuart Milne and threatening a boycott of season tickets if he agrees to let the weedgie newco into the SPL, in the Scotsman.

Once the tax man has finished with RFC, do they go after the players for un-paid tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverhibee

Once the tax man has finished with RFC, do they go after the players for un-paid tax.

---

Not sure they can Silver - surely its the employers responsibility - not the individual?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by churchy

Agree, if the cheating goes unpunished then the implication is that the rest of us only exist to prop up a successful Rangers, ta ta SPL.

---

:agree: And you have to ask those that remain, just how much more cheating will it take for them to join those who have left? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverhibee

Once the tax man has finished with RFC, do they go after the players for un-paid tax.

---

No. As BB says, any mismanagement of an employee tax situation is entirely the fault of the employer, unless it can be proved that there was collusion with the employees. (over to you, Thommo? :greengrin)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

No. As BB says, any mismanagement of an employee tax situation is entirely the fault of the employer, unless it can be proved that there was collusion with the employees. (over to you, Thommo? :greengrin)

---

CWG, excuse my stupidness on this as i don't really have a clue about these things, but what is a "double tax" mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverhibee

CWG, excuse my stupidness on this as i don't really have a clue about these things, but what is a "double tax" mean.

---

It's not really "double tax", but "double contracts". The allegation is that RFC employed players on two contracts. One was "normal", and subject to PAYE, and disclosed to the SFA/SPL. The other related to contributions to a Trust, from which the players could draw loans, which were not repayable. In the second case, no tax was paid by anyone, and the contracts were allegedly not registered with the SFA etc.

So, it's a double-whammy in terms of bad behaviour. Underpayment of tax, and non-disclosure of the contracts.