Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Surely the first thing to do is to establish whether Craig Whyte owns the Huns - or not.
Easy for D&P to say he is irrelevant, but I have a feeling it won't be quite as simple as that........,
Bring it on.
:party:
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Surely the first thing to do is to establish whether Craig Whyte owns the Huns - or not.
Easy for D&P to say he is irrelevant, but I have a feeling it won't be quite as simple as that........,
Bring it on.
:party:
As per the Scotsman article today that's also the expert view. Cue a battle for the assets while the club bleeds dry of cash. Possible prevention of any newco restarting at Ibrox.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrebus
As I don't think you had to be a genius to forsee this whole saga is getting extremely messy.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
It's similar to an acrimonious divorce. The solicitors rake it in, leaving the various parties penniless and homeless.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
I could almost feel sorry for 'em.
:whistle:
Wash your mouth out, young man!:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
IMHO, this is the best possible outcome for us rankgers haters. I would actually though, also prefer they somehow avoided the get out of liquidation, and instead suffered a long, drawn out, expensive legal battle between mutliple parties, crippling whatever vestigal club remains in place. Years of pain, suffering and failure for the ever dwindling band of loyal followers. Bring it on!Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
This whole thread is worth it for that word alone!:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by blindsummit
Though I suspect you might mean vestigial??:dunno:
"BBC Scotland's senior football reporter Chris McLaughlin" just stated that Murray would hope to have his bid in by Friday and take over by the middle of next week!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
PI$H!
Correct sir! that is indeed what I meant. I was typing on a tablet, in my defence, and I can't type for ordure :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
A great example there from the Rangers fans of how NOT to fly the Union Flag :flag::saltireflagQuote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Really?? No scheidt!!:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by blindsummit
Man you're reaching for it now :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Oh this just gets better!
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/179637540918263808
Brilliant.... this is like a David Lynch film.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Christian freaking Aid???
Love the comment... is that him that played for Hearts?
No! It's yours!Quote:
Originally Posted by blindsummit
I wouldnae go there, if I was you!:faf:
My sides are aching. this couldn't get any better :greengrin. I wonder if the pope will intervene now too :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Lol no. Channel 4's chief news correspondent and award winning war correspondent.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
He doesn't say what CA have said.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
This report on football financing is from 2011:-
http://www.christianaid.org.uk/image...eek-report.pdf
Yeah right.Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
"I want that house. I'll move in next week."
:rolleyes:
Actually, if he CAN move that quickly, without due diligence, hell freaking mend him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
He's going to be covering this in the 3rd part of his blog tomorrow. This week's gonnae be braw. :tee hee:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Duff and Phelps would not be likely to hand over the Ibrox keys until they have raised enough money to pay themselves.
They would'nt want to become creditors of the club and have to vote a CVA for themselves. :wink:
If the Pope blesses them, then they'll really know they're screwed.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindsummit
Finally the whole farcical situation is being investigated by real journalists so maybe the SFA and SPL won't be able to let Rangers wriggle off the hook so easily now. If any of you have ever read RangersMedia you'd be forgiven for thinking our tired old hacks up here had been somehow harsh on Rangers.
Just wait til they feel the force of an unbiased media.
The only problem is that the previous owner still thinks it is his house and will take legal action. The tax authorities thinks that they should have the house in lieu of unpaid taxes by the previous owner and the one before him.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The house costs around £6 million a year to run and another guy thinks that they have paid the rent in advance to use the hous for the next four years.
Yeah that'll be right!
:top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Not to mention that Christian Aid think it's being run as an opium den.
It's a 'big hoose' though so plenty room for all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Hallelujah! [in a non-religious way]Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Todd
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/game-on/#more-2281
More on the Alex Thomson call to the SFA.
The Sun are running a story this morning that there's interest from New York Investment bank group Fortress in the takeover of Rangers, with $27 billion of assets.
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scot...-for-Gers.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
ExclusiveBy KENNY McALPINE
Last Updated: 14th March 2012
A BILLION pound American investment bank is behind a sensational Rangers takeover bid.
SunSport can reveal that New-York based Fortress, which currently boasts assets of £27BILLION, has expressed definite interest with administrators Duff and Phelps and it is understood the Yanks' move is being taken seriously — while a Far East consortium from Singapore continue to weigh up their options.
An insider close to the deal told SunSport: "This American company has piles of cash behind them and they are turn-around specialists."
Fortress Investment Group was set up as a private equity firm in 1998 by mega-rich American duo Wesley Edens, 51 and Robert Kauffman, 48.
Four years ago dad-of-four Edens was ranked 962 on the Forbes World rich list with a personal fortune of around £770million.
Just one year earlier the magazine ranked Kauffman at 557 with a bulging bank balance of £1.1billion.
Fortress began as an equity company before expanding into hedge funds, real estate and debt securities.
It is unclear as yet if the corporate giants have been approached by Gers supporting businessmen trying to rescue the stricken club, who were plunged into administration last month over an unpaid tax bill.
Rival bidders are preparing to show their hands as the Friday deadline looms for new owners to prove they are serious about buying the stricken SPL champs.
Paul Murray and his Blue Knights, who include London-based John Bennett and Scott Murdoch and motor tycoon Douglas Park, still believe they are in pole position to snap up Rangers.
Ex-director Murray, 46, who has the backing of fans groups and ex-Gers gaffer Walter Smith, inists he is confident of formalising his bid in the next 48 hours.
Now he could face Stateside opposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Quote:
Originally Posted by HibeesLA
That's brilliant, it's upside down
:faf:
About the only truth in that report.Quote:
Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee
Fortress Finance backing bid for Rangers ?
Competition for Wonga on the Pay-Day Cheques front then.
http://www.ukpaydayreviews.com/one-month-loan
A big boy done it and ran away!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17364257
Sir David Murray holding court yesterday with the Scottish Football (pet poodle) Hacks and not an awkward question asked. :confused:
EBT's - " Categorically there were no dual contracts "
"There were no contractual entitlement on part of the players "
We are to believe all the foreign stars just came to Rangers taking a drop in salary with a hope that Santa would be good to them ?
" The Remuneration Trust was always mentioned in our accounts "
What does " Remuneration " mean Mr Murray ? my dictionary defines it as PAY !!!
The football press will never ask an obvious Question. :confused:
I heard Chick Young making a very vigorous defence of Campbell Ogilvie on Sportsound last night. Campbell apparently is happy to talk about everything however just not now and only to Chick. Havent been following this as
closely as some others however is not the main issue that Rangers were in effect using two different contracts, one of which was undisclosed to the SFA which apparently is illegal and which was the EBT type contract. If that is the case and it seems to be as indicated by Hugh Adam then surely Ogilivie must bear some responsibility.
The bold Chico seemed to be indicating that Ogilvie's role was much less than had been originally thought, he was apparently side tracked by some of Murray's lackies at the time and that EBT's havent as yet been proven to be illegal in terms of tax law (awaiting BTC judgement). No mention of the dual contract thing which you would assume given Ogilvie's current role he would know what was allowed and not allowed.
IMO Young's defence went a little further than it should as it came over as not just Ogilvie's view but that Young was agreeing with him that this was correct. How Chick would know this I dont know.
Maybe I am missing the point?
What Murray said was there was no contractual requirement for the players to receive about half their salary and they came and played for Rangers and the EBT money only came to the players out of the goodness of the Trustees hearts.
You would have to be one dumb son of a b*tch to believe that one.
Obviously the Scottish Hacks swallow it, fortunately the HMRC hav'nt. :agree:
I can't currently decide which of two disgusting rabbles I more want to see the back of: the Huns themselves, or the slavering media Hun-apologists. Young, Dodds, Smith, etc etc etc etc. If the current 'crisis for Scottish football' results in a mass clear out at BBC Scotland sports, that would be excellent. Keep Gordon and Spence and bin the rest, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Murray defends Ogilvie
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...eople.17017403
In essence, that is how Trusts work. It is up to the Trustees to decide how the money is distributed.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
However, in this situation, I would like to know who the Trustees are in each case. :cb
A concerted effort to-day from the Weegia.
Murray said: "We're confident that we have a strong case"Quote:
Originally Posted by moff1875
:faf:
Risible.
Wagons have been well and truly circled.Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
Too little, too late IMO.
Hopefully but the realist in me says that this will be swept under th carpet and the status quo will remain intact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
It's a point that is constantly being overlooked. When you're considering contractual obligations payments out of the trust are just as relevant to the case as payments into it. The question of who made the decisions about those payments, what those decisions were based on and who actually received the payments is surely just as important as whether there were any second contracts on paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Laudrup and Albertz should be asked whether they received any money from the trust, and if so, why.
http://i39.tinypic.com/657ezb.jpg
Glasthunbury??
There is reference to a letter detailing 2nd payments, is this letter referring to payments out of the EBT or are these separate issues? Have any papers released copies of the letter? When does a letter change from being a letter of intent to a legally binding document?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
A lesson in obfuscation if ever there was one.Quote:
Originally Posted by moff1875
But he was a director, and as such should have known about the use of EBTs. Collective responsibility is the whole point of having a board of directors.Quote:
"Campbell Ogilvie wasn't involved in paying people," said Murray.
That is not for Sir David Murray to decide.Quote:
When then asked if his position at the SFA was in any way conflicted because of the use of EBTs he added: "No. In no way, whatsoever."
That depends on how they were worded - again, not his decision to make.Quote:
They were never binding contracts, he said.
The use of EBTs was not illegal but, assuming HMRC win the case, the way RFC used them was - that's what the case is all about and an HMRC win will provide proof of illegal payments.Quote:
"It has to be made clear that the use of EBTs was in no way illegal," he said. Both Murray and McGill stressed that, even if the tribunal finds against Rangers, it is wrong to suggest that is proof of "illegal payments" to players.
The payments out of the EBT are, essentially, of no relevance to the SFA. It's the payments IN to the Trust that they should look at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio sledge
Once they have left RFC, they become the "property" of the Trust.
However, as Cav says, HMRC are interested in the payments in and out.
Radio 5 Live are holding a debate on their future on Mon at 7pm. I got an email offering tickets to be in the audience last night, strangely enough there are none available today...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/s...rangers_debate
The more attention this gets throughout the U.K. the less chance of a whitewash.
More and more tax-payers who would normally show no interest in Scottish football will pay attention to another business trying to avoid paying their way.
All good I.M.O.
Our captain Ian Murray went over to the Dark Side in 2005 right in the middle of the scam payments period.
I would not imagine his salary was augmented by EBT contributions but you never Know.
However , I am sure he must have heard talk about the dressing room about who was getting what.
Anyone on here know Murray well enough to pop a couple of questions ? :aok:
I would imagine that the EBT payments were reserved for the top (mostly overseas) players. In many cases their agents negotiate an 'after tax' wage that forced a number of clubs to go down the EBT route.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
No doubt he will now be in the bad books of Celtc fans for daring to suggest that they are part of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
More from Alex Thomson's Twitter.
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/179909629759864832
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
If the " after tax " wage is not on the contract registered with the SFA then additional payments must have been made. :agree:
This is so refreshing. Love it.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Even if the EBT scheme was not illegal, it was clearly used to entice players to Ibrox with the certainty of receiving substantial money.
It is downright immoral. They were cheating the taxman, the honest tax payer and the SPL. I wish someone would ask this of Murray - do you think it was a moral thing to do ?
I vote that we dump Doncaster and make Thomson the Chief Exec of the SPL.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That is a fantastic read and spot on in every way.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Wonder if he'll turn his attention to Hearts and their 'finances'? :pray:
Playing Devil's Advocate here, a little bit, but also putting some historical perspective on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Minimising tax is not a crime, as long as it is within the law. Whether it is immoral depends on your own morality. For example, your work giving you a mobile phone worth £200, rather than a pay rise, is going to cost you less tax and your employer less NI. Minimising tax? Yes. Illegal? No. Immoral? I doubt anyone would consider it so.
At the time, RFC and SDM, like many other football clubs and businesses, started using EBT's because it was reckoned to be the latest way of minimising tax. A client of mine, a wee property development business, with no overseas employees or high earning staff, was approached with a view to using one. Personally, I avoided them, on the basis that "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is....."
Now.... illegal they weren't. Tax saving they were. Immoral? That's where the argument starts. I have no doubt that RFC went into EBT's, on the basis of the advice they were given, and in the belief that they were a legitimate means of saving tax. Is that immoral?
Or... comparing the mobile phone/EBT cases, is the difference down to the size of the issues?
What ? Surely you don't think that there could be anything untoward with our friends at the PBS ? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by FranckSuzy
The difference is that the EBT is pretending to be something that it isn't. It is set up as a discretionary trust when we all know that discretion does not come into it. The players knew in advance what they were going to get and that they would never be asked to pay it back.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
Pathetic, truely pathetic.
So someone was raising £24m using future ticket proceeds from the club that Murray still owned and he knew nothing about it. Aye right.
He almost gets to the point in the end...he left the club high and dry and in need of substantial personal investment from the person who took over. He failed to make sure that person had the funds available.
It's quite clear Murray is at fault for not only in allowing Rangers to get into the state it was but also in selling it to someone that didn't have the required funding to 'save' the club from the disaster course Murray had put it on......
That's easy to say in hindsight, since we are all now in tune with what an EBT is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
At the time, though.... the players wouldn't consider the morality of it, they're only interested in what they get in their pocket.
Did RFC? We will probably never know that. Chances are it was sold to them as "cast-iron", with no caveats about the potential implications. Even if it weren't, and they were fully aware of the implications, chances are they have said "sod it... we will deal with that if HMRC ever knock on the door"... that is a common stance that businesses take.
Of course, given SDM's latest diatribe about CW, if they lose the BTC, he will no doubt claim that he was "duped" by his advisers.
You've got to assume that the players in question and/or their agents were told about the EBT and the payments they would be receiving from it before they signed. They presumably would have raised a doubt about the discretionary issue and what guarantee they would have that they would be paid as without any sort of guarantee they were only ever going to get the pay under the direct contract with RFC. Were there any sort of back letters or similar regarding these payments that might not amount to a second contract but were promissary in nature and effectively guaranteed payments from a discretionary trust? I dunno but part of me can see John Grieg giving an impassioned speech about the Mighty Rangers and their history etc etc along with a nudge and wink to say it will be paid. Still think a foreign player would want some sort of written guarantee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
I don't know exactly how an agent gets paid for negotiating a deal for his client but if it is on any sort of commission (on salary) type basis you would think they must have been aware of the future discretionary payments that their client would receive. It all smells really.
Making this all up as I go along of course but it gets you thinking.
Well I don't expect most football players to really understand the issues and their agents are unlikely to discuss the finer points of morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It is David Murray that I was holding to account. He will certainly have been fully aware of the issues and clearly chose to ignore them. But then, if you own houses in Edinburgh, Perthshire, Jersey, New Zealand and France, whilst owing the Bank £800m, I'm sure he had other things to occupy his mind.
The story goes that a 'back letter' was found and that is what HMRC have been using as ammunition. Might just be wishful thinking on someone's part but let's all keep our fingers crossed.
I'm not disagreeing with you in any of this, by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
It's always part of my job, as it is in yours, to point out to clients the risks involved in any course of action. To do that, I have to play Devil's Advocate a lot to tease out the real issues.
However, a lot of what I have said will be the "defence" used by SDM (and, of course, all the other directors. As Cav says, this is about collective responsibility )
The Sun allege that this is one of them:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3994/contractb.jpg
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3994/contractb.jpg
It could be anything, cobbled together by anyone, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
It could be pretty damning, though. :cb
If it is "real", this is "only" damning in terms of the SFA/SPL issues.
HMRC would be interested in both this and the workings of the Trust itself. As I understand things (and this may be urban myth, or maybe I dreamt it lol), the Tribunal have to look at every individual's situation in turn before they can come to a decision. Given the number of players (and, perhaps, executives) involved, one can understand why it is taking so long.
CWG - I get the feeling RTC blog is keeping it's powder dry for an opportune moment to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons with some implicating evidence. Bit of chatter on Twitter today gave that impression.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by moff1875
Problem is, as we've seen with that "contract", that it is very easy to throw something out there and make out that it's "evidence".
I'm not doubting the RTC blog, they have been on the case for a long time now, but they can be "duped" (there's that word again, thanks Sir David) as well.
To paraphrase Kevin Keegan, though, "Id love that... I'd really love it."
For sure. I await with interest too.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
SFA about to release a statement from Campbell Ogilvie according to Evening Times journo
They've copied Mikey's open letter.Quote:
Originally Posted by moff1875
To whom it may concern
Please see below the result of our internal disciplinery process. Mr Ogilvie (Left) was reprimanded by the SFA Board (right)
:yw:
The SFA
Much as one would expect, I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by moff1875
This bit....I was aware of the EBT scheme in operation at Rangers during my time at the club and, indeed, was a member. ..... is the first acknowledgement I have seen of any particular individual's involvement. It also confirms the rumour that it wasn't just about players.
That statement means that either chic young lied on sportsound last night or was lied to by Ogilvie.
Either way he was incompetent.
..or he is lying now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I may have missed this on this thread but just read this -
RT - Incredibly, #Rangers may not be in administration after all because of a technicality. Issue to be settled in court on Monday. #RFC
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw
Just heard that on BBC Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw
IIRC there was mention on this thread about D&P applying to be ad-mins 2/3 days ago.
It appears the original application hasn't been registered.
Yes I heard about this. Are HMRC not now seeking to impose their own admins, as should have been the case anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw
:pray:Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
CY a 'journalist'? There should be a public enquiry into that.
They might, but would need to prove that D&P are not acting in the best interests of the creditors.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
More likely it will be a formality to confirm the appointment. It appears someone forgot to tell the FSA, which they needed to do because the Huns had their own credit card a few years back.
It's so that the company (ie CW and the other shareholders) can't have them removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
The application is being made by the company (Rangers). As the administrators are agents of the company, appointed by the company previously, they have applied on behalf of the Company for this order.
The effect of it being granted would be that they become administrators under an administration order, rather than by a notice of appointment. One effect of this would be that they could no longer be removed by the company. This is perhaps an indication that Duff & Phelps (D&P) saw potential conflict with the Company in the form of Mr Whyte.
He was company secretary at Rangers as they trod the path towards insolvency. He then moved on to Hearts and was Managing Director as they went in a similar direction, only faster. It matter little if he was directly involved as both happened on his watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
After that he is rewarded with a post in the SFA charged with investigating such events.
Hunbelievable!
No he's not. He has recused himself from the RFC enquiry.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
There isn't one into Hearts yet.
Not sure how that would be done as a number of "non RFC contract" factors relating to any players financial position could influence the amount of income tax paid under PAYE and they could, as a minimum vary from year to year! :wink: :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Just a passing thought! :wink: :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
I understood that Duff and Phelps were seeking to become administrators without the say so of Craig Whyte. This is to cover themselves in the event of (inevitable) conflict with Whyte.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/
Exactly that. RFC could still, in theory, ask the Court to remove them. This motion, as I understand it, takes RFC out of the chain.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
So he knew that it was all a scam and the 'discretionary' aspect was just a heap of s**t.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
He rivals Murray in my morality index.
Mmmm..., again, he will blame the advisors. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
How long till the SFA are insolvent and will we learn that they have been running their own EBT ?Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
As an aside, is his Presidency a full-time paid post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
No, he just gets to 'borrow' £250,000 a year from the EBT. Tax free, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
@alextomo will get to the bottom of this ;) Actually I'm glad of his impartiality neverthless clearly has his finger right on the pulse after admitting he knew little of Scottish football but he's on the money with this query...
"@fitbafan who is Chick Young?
TweetDeck • 13/03/2012 19:41"