Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Can't believe Regan hasn't taken the time to watch the programme. If I was aware of a high ranking member of my organisation having been on TV the night before I would want to see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Just not been very vigorous in following it up.

---

Does anybody really believe that the SPL are willing or capable of a thorough investigation into this matter? What are the chances of any damning documentation not being shredded by now. Doncaster has made it clear he wants Rangers in the SPL at all costs so it's unlikely that he would push an investigation to find evidence which would preclude their possible membership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Can't believe Regan hasn't taken the time to watch the programme. If I was aware of a high ranking member of my organisation having been on TV the night before I would want to see it.

---

hes at a fifa conference abroad apparently

Can anyone confirm the difference between Murray borrowing £6m from BoS to buy Rangers and Whyte buying Rangers with money from Ticketus? Programme last night made it clear SDM never put a penny of his own money in.

(Infact I think Whyte put a pound of his own in so technically he paid more by himself.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carnoustiehibee

hes at a fifa conference abroad apparently

---

Guys on here have managed to post copies. If he wanted to see it he could have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Can anyone confirm the difference between Murray borrowing £6m from BoS to buy Rangers and Whyte buying Rangers with money from Ticketus? Programme last night made it clear SDM never put a penny of his own money in.

(Infact I think Whyte put a pound of his own in so technically he paid more by himself.)

---

Murray would have borrowed that money using his existing resources and relationship with BoS. Whyte borrowed the Ticketus money based on Huns buying tickets for the next few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Guys on here have managed to post copies. If he wanted to see it he could have.

---

They're doing all they can to avoid this...

if a DVD of the documentary was delivered direct to their house by a pink elephant ridden by Ali McCoist they'd still somehow deny any knowledge of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/2...NEW_normal.jpg
No date given for deadline, but I'm told next couple of weeks could be crucial. If #Rangers don't comply, sanctions could follow. @BBCchrismclaug 19 minutes ago

BBC Scotland has learned the #SPL has set a deadline for #Rangers administrators to provide info they need on possible dual contracts. @BBCchrismclaug 20 minutes ago

---

Yeah right, how many delayed meetings would they need to have before imposing sanctions.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Couple of things to clarify:

EBTs were until 2010 a legitimate (if morally dubious) tax avoidance scheme. The key, however, is that the payments were made on a discretionary basis, not contractual and were not made as compensation for duties normally carried out in the course of someone's employment.

So, if I own a successful business and have a load of cash in the bank and decide to benevolently be nice to all my staff by paying £100K into their trusts, that's fine. If I agree with them to give them half their wages that way, that's not fine. In the Huns' case, the £6M to Dodgy Dave and some of the other payments to directors are possibly ok. The payments to players and managers are more than likely not.

The side letters are evidence of guilt but are not a pre-requisite for guilt. If the Huns have 50 players all getting dodgy payments through an EBT but HMRC can only find side letters for 40 of them, the tribunal can still infer that the other 10 were also getting the dosh on a dodgy basis and find the Huns liable for the tax on all 50. Even if there were no side letters but there was other evidence (witnesses, internal emails etc) they could still be found liable.

Similarly, the SPL/SFA rules forbid payments to players for playing made in addition to what's in their registered contract. They don't have to have had a 2nd contract, although obviously that does provide evidence that such payments took place.

---

A good summary there JMS - a further point is that the payments are at the discretion of the trust which should be independent of the employer. Although there's a scenario where they could theoretically be a legitimate exercise I think in practice they were always just a tax fiddle.

The reason the tax case is taking so long is that they need to consider each indivdual case to establish the quantum of tax underpaid and with the numbers involved that a fairly hefty proposition. In the case of the SPL investigation though, they only need to establish innocence or guilt, and really only in one case so that RFC then have a case to answer. I think they should be asking questions of some of the players and their agents from the BBC's list.

I still can't fathom why they haven't spoken to the president of the SFA, or why he is still in that position.

​who owns ticketus? has anyone actually looked into this?

Read the 9000 posts in the rangers thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Can anyone confirm the difference between Murray borrowing £6m from BoS to buy Rangers and Whyte buying Rangers with money from Ticketus?

---

About 15 league titles?? :dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wembley67

Read the 9000 posts in the rangers thread!

---

no.

just tell me, hahahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Can anyone confirm the difference between Murray borrowing £6m from BoS to buy Rangers and Whyte buying Rangers with money from Ticketus? Programme last night made it clear SDM never put a penny of his own money in.

(Infact I think Whyte put a pound of his own in so technically he paid more by himself.)

---

As P/TS has said, the money Murray used was effectively his in that he would have to repay it to BoS out of his other resources. Whyte effectively sold an asset of the club to buy the club, which is a sort of circular equation and is illegal.

That being the case, Grier and Duff and Phelps should have alerted the authorities whenever they became aware of the arrangement under 'money-laundering' rules. What they should not have done is talk to the directors about it, which is what they claim to have done in the BBC programme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Does anybody really believe that the SPL are willing or capable of a thorough investigation into this matter? What are the chances of any damning documentation not being shredded by now. Doncaster has made it clear he wants Rangers in the SPL at all costs so it's unlikely that he would push an investigation to find evidence which would preclude their possible membership.

---

Dont think they are to be honest given Doncasters utterings.

The Herald quoted Donkey on the 6th May

"We are in the middle of some detailed investigations about player payments allegedly made out-of-contract at Rangers and that investigation will continue," he said. "There will either be a prima facie case here against Rangers and it will be a disciplinary procedure, or there will be no prima facie case. I just don't know. The investigation is ongoing."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

The Herald quoted Donkey on the 6th May

"We are in the middle of some detailed investigations about player payments allegedly made out-of-contract at Rangers and that investigation will continue," he said. "There will either be a prima facie case here against Rangers and it will be a disciplinary procedure, or there will be no prima facie case. I just don't know. The investigation is ongoing."

---

The only thing that is accurate in that statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Can anyone confirm the difference between Murray borrowing £6m from BoS to buy Rangers and Whyte buying Rangers with money from Ticketus? Programme last night made it clear SDM never put a penny of his own money in.

---

About the same difference as the Glazers buying Man U with Man U money . Just a bit slicker.

There are about sixty different companies called Ticketus X Ltd where X is a different number for each company. I believe they are all subsidiaries of Octopus Investments Ltd. I suspect Octopus is owned by a number of corporate and individual shareholders - I don't know any names though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

There are about sixty different companies called Ticketus X Ltd where X is a different number for each company. I believe they are all subsidiaries of Octopus Investments Ltd. I suspect Octopus is owned by a number of corporate and individual shareholders - I don't know any names though.

---

cheers man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee

Ah right, ta - they asked for information in March. And two months later there's an unspecified deadline for it to be produced. Still shocking imo!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

On whose part, though? I would suggest D & P, in that they haven't responded, apparently.

We don't know how many reminders have been sent, or whether the deadline was set a while back.

---

D&D, certainly, but the SPL - lax or wot? Not really surprising, in the light of all Donkey's pish, but still shocking. In failing to even get their 'investigation' off the ground in >2 months, showing themselves to be slovenly or corrupt bassas! (Think I'll go with corrupt.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

A good summary there JMS - a further point is that the payments are at the discretion of the trust which should be independent of the employer. Although there's a scenario where they could theoretically be a legitimate exercise I think in practice they were always just a tax fiddle.

The reason the tax case is taking so long is that they need to consider each indivdual case to establish the quantum of tax underpaid and with the numbers involved that a fairly hefty proposition. In the case of the SPL investigation though, they only need to establish innocence or guilt, and really only in one case so that RFC then have a case to answer. I think they should be asking questions of some of the players and their agents from the BBC's list.

I still can't fathom why they haven't spoken to the president of the SFA, or why he is still in that position.

---

Caversham, can i ask, who administers the trust?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

Caversham, can i ask, who administers the trust?

---

Aye, ask away.


I won't be able to tell you though. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

Caversham, can i ask, who administers the trust?

---

Can I ask who trusts the Administrators? :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

There are about sixty different companies called Ticketus X Ltd where X is a different number for each company. I believe they are all subsidiaries of Octopus Investments Ltd. I suspect Octopus is owned by a number of corporate and individual shareholders - I don't know any names though.

---

I seem to remember reading that they operate a wee bit like Lloyds 'names'. Different investors put money into different projects, each one separate from the other. So it's not so much Ticketus or Octopus that would lose out but the individuals who happened to invest in the Rangers opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarneyK

Can I ask who trusts the Administrators? :greengrin

---

Not many I would imagine. However, if the creditors think that Duff and Duffer are best placed to get them more money back than anybody else they will not really care about a conflict of interest - perceived or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paisley Hibby

I seem to remember reading that they operate a wee bit like Lloyds 'names'. Different investors put money into different projects, each one separate from the other. So it's not so much Ticketus or Octopus that would lose out but the individuals who happened to invest in the Rangers opportunity.

---

I think that's about right - a lot of the Ticketus companies have been dissolved/liquidated, which suggests they might be investment projects that have failed or have now been completed.

Octupus are an investment house that run various forms of investments such as mutual funds, Enterprise Investment Schemes and Venture Capital Trusts amongst other things.

These can be invested in directly or also through your pension. EISs and VCTs offer various tax reliefs and are generally used by wealthier investors who recognise that there is a higher risk involved in these investments in the hope of higher returns (think along the lines of Dragons Den).

Ticketus is one of these. I would imagine that each number after Ticketus will relate to each deal that the company has done. Assuming that the Rangers deal falls through then that will simply be £27M written off the value of Ticketus. Some of their deals will be winners and others losers. The only people that lose out are the original investors and they knew the risks were high in the first place!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarneyK

Can I ask who trusts the Administrators? :greengrin

---

Craig Whyte!

I'm gutted that I missed the programme last night but true to form You guys have kept me posted :aok:
As always ... :wink:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1981765...ream/lightbox/