Just back from hols, did the Currents get their full SFA membership in time for this weekend's glamour clash with Peterhead?
Printable View
Just back from hols, did the Currents get their full SFA membership in time for this weekend's glamour clash with Peterhead?
Full membership just announced official.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19120224
That's everyothing done and dusted then. Can we close this thread, get on with the fitba and ignore the huns until such times as we play then again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
You really think so? :greengrin
Still got the actual liquidation process and the EBT investigation to come. This thread will run and run.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
Everything that's significant, yes. It's been a good distraction and I'm gratified to see the huns get their just desserts but it's time to move on and concern ourselves with our own team again.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
They will have no material impact on the huns going forward, everything outstanding is for the historians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Disagree completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
If BDO decide that the transfer of the assets to Sevco was significantly below Market Value, then that could have serious implications. If the property goes back to RFC for sale on the open market, what then for the football club? If , alternatively, Sevco have to stump up the full value, can they afford it?
As for the EBT commission, the penalties that may be imposed on Sevco could be substantial as well.
Oh but it will if they are held responsible (given they now have OldCo licence) for the 'sins of the Fathers':greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
So they could be punished, i hate using that phrase, for the cash their father whored? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by down-the-slope
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Hard to argue that it wasnt IMO. D+P could/will say that was the best offer available but they will have to show, will they not, that other avenues were explored including selling the assetts independent of each other and that Greens offer was most beneficial for the creditors. Given that Davis alone has "moved" for £800k it might be a difficult gig.
Maybe not but the deplorable behavior of most of their club officials over the bit has still to be answered for. Just wait until the titles and cups go, Sally'll go silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-19112996
Five men have been arrested over alleged offensive singing at last weekend's Brechin v Rangers match.
i'l be much happier when 45,000+ are finally arrested for the singing at the hun v killie game last febuary :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
It will be a long wait, but this is Sevco and not Rangers. Rangers died. :agree: Hopefully the police will be better at enforcing public order on Sevco in SFL3 than they were with Rangers in the SPL. Those indulging in discriminatory chants are there to be lifted in these small grounds, even if it's just lifting the ring leaders.
Billy Dodds has now issued a denial that he had a side contract at Ibrox and says that no-one else did either.
Reading through the article, he seems to think that giving up the money he was entitled to under his contract and then receiving the same sum through an EBT doesn't count. Are we honestly expected to believe that he gave up £190k in his hand on the off chance that at some point he might successfully apply for a loan from the EBT? Far more likely that this was agreed to in advance, in which case it's surely a contractual entitlement which would mean that it should be taxable in HMRC's eyes (based on what I've read here).
And even allowing for him pleading he's only a thick footballer, the question remains of whether this contractual payment was notified to the SPL as required.
PS: Why have the BBC listed this story as a lead item on their SPL page and not on their Third Division page? It's got sweet FA to do with an SPL club and everything to do with a Division Three team.
Nothing to do with Sevco apparently. Everything to do with the ex-SPL team called Rangers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyrie
Glad to see that the polis are hopefully getting to grips with thisQuote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
There is apparently a line of thinking that if HMRC cant recover the tax from Rangers then those that DO have a "side letter" knew what they were doing and were party to a fraud, therefore HMRC may go after the beneficiaries (I doubt they will though) should Rangers be unable to pay, which they cant.
I am told its a bit like taking advice that it's ok to batter James Traynor because he's a twat when, fundamentally it turns out, despite doing a public service, it would be against the law and you would be charged. Claiming umpteen thousand guys said it would be fine is not a defence.
Despite all this Dodds, as a UK national, should have a P45 from that period which would detail the payment, failing that the minimum he should have is a P60 which would detail money recieved and tax paid. His accountants will have this, the same ones that persuaded him to invest (for tax purposes) in film companies, so they just produce them and he has nothing to worry about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyrie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyrie
It'd be interesting to know why he thinks that avoiding £24m tax amounted to "a small advantage". Something approaching six times our annual wage bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doddsy
Dodds would be well-advised to keep his mouth shut on this subject (and any other subject to be fair). His story changes every time he tells it, but he consistently confirms that the EBT scheme was not being operated properly and he makes it clear that he never considered the payment to be a loan. The implication there is that he or his advisers knew full well what the arrangements were and, as you say that lays him open to attack from HMRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
On your point about Jim Traynor, no jury in the country would convict. In fact they'd probably insist you do it again.
I am struggling - really struggling - to decide which of Dodds and McCoist is the thicker. :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
As Billy Dodds has said, again, that the tax was already paid on the £190k he received am I right in thinking that the amount of the Big Tax Case is, or should be, the higher amount? The debate appeared to be that (over the amount owed) was that the tax had already been deducted, or the lower amount if tax had not been taken. Surely both Dodds and Bomsong have now confirmed that this was a method of paying wages and that the payments were already net of the taxes liable, which Rangers did not pass to the exchequer.
Such activity is a crime, is it not?
Fairly obvious answer. Because the SPL are running the enquiry!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyrie
Where else would it be filed? The General Assembly of the United Nations?
That's right. IIRC Dodds said in one of his stories that the payment was to cover the amount due to the end of his contract, which means it should have been taxed in the normal way. If the £190k was net of tax, the gross amount would be well over £300k and the tax would be £120k+. In this case RFC have effectively defrauded Dodds by telling him that his tax was paid over to HMRC as well as defrauding HMRC itself. Given the apparent frequency and the extended period over which these type of payments occurred that has to be criminal behaviour. If the payment was gross (i.e. before tax) the tax element would be about £80k, but the payment should not have been made gross under UK rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
Dodds' problem now is that he has stated that he knew the payment came from an EBT but was never considered to be a loan. He or his advisers would be expected to know that this was a scheme for evading tax and so they become accomplices in the fraud. In short, if the tax is payable by Dodds the amount would be £80k, if it's payable by RFC - which would be HMRC's argument - it would be over £120k.
You could probably blast them both through the Hadron collider a couple of times to establish who has the greater density but a quick analysis might be to say that Dodds is marginally thicker but Sally is the wider of the two?Quote:
Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee
As we both know, Cav, HMRC are very good at getting some of their evidence from the media. It wouldn't surprise me if Dodds gets a wee letter from them. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Given that Harper Macleod were appointed weeks ago; they have taken their time .Quote:
Originally Posted by H18sry
I ddo hope the SFL, take full cognizance of this information from the ever compliant hordes of Mordor and then treat it with the utter contempt it deserves.Quote:
Originally Posted by H18sry
The one good thing about the travails of SEVCO and their supporters is that at least it stops you being totally suicidal thinking about Hibs(mind, I hope I'm not tempting fate saying that before next weekend!)
:flag:
They are only collecting the evidence though, it's someone else that will actually make the decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
To be honest, I'd be wary of ANY Glasgow based organisation being able to carry out any task unbiased when it comes to Rangers. I reckon they'd be too worried about potential repurcussions to carry out a full and proper investigation and present all the facts. It is guaranteed to be skewed in favour of The Rangers.