Has it been removed??Quote:
Originally Posted by RossHibs
EDIT: I see that there are strong rumours that it was a fake.
Printable View
Has it been removed??Quote:
Originally Posted by RossHibs
EDIT: I see that there are strong rumours that it was a fake.
FTTT released? Lot of twitter chat. Anyone know?
Who you getting it from on Twitter so I can follow follow lol?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
@THE_TBK: FTT(T) arrived!!!!! Account going back into 'lockdown'. May post up some redacted elements!!
#ProperGander
Ewan Murray@mrewanmurray Green adds: "Why wouldn't Barcelona want to play Rangers home and away as opposed to playing Getafe. They would sell (those) games out."
Tom English@TomEnglishSport
Charles Green says Barcelona and Real Madrid would love to have Rangers in La Liga. He must be having one hell of a boozy lunch.
15mhttps://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profil...036_normal.JPGTom English@TomEnglishSport
Charles Green tells Associated Press that Manchester United "not hostile" to Rangers joining Premiership. Response from Utd: "We're hostile"
Excellent interview (imaginary or otherwise) in Scotland on Sunday questioning Mr Green's integrity
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...fing-1-2643329
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
That's a fantastic article, though very well hidden on their website.
If you were a suspicous type, you might even imagine that they didn't actually want people to read it :wink:
And another in The Independent:Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...d-8326419.html
"his sales pitch for the shadow club's forthcoming share issue sounded as if it had been conceived during a particularly hectic happy hour on Sauchiehall Street"
May be interesting to note that yet another Rangers newco was set up on Friday.
"Rangers Football plc" (registered office: Ibrox Stadium)
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/dc...d0/compdetails
The only directors are FFW Secretaries Ltd and Edward Laurence Lumb (who is a solicitor with FFW).
hmmm - Edward Laurence 'Succulent' Lumb :hmmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
Quote:
Originally Posted by YehButNo But
Reading between the lines it means they'll be stealing more of our team in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
FTT result in, Rangers win of sorts. Not due tax but former directors, players etc liable as EBTs considered a loan. Oh dear.
Surely this opens a whole new can of worms. Could loans be called in by liquidators?
Result is here....Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...51/TC02372.pdf
I'll be a while :greengrin
It reads like the script of Reservoir Dogs. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Reading that would give an Aspirin a headache. I gave up...
First sentence reads: "We have been unable to reach a unanimous view".
It's bloody hard going.
At first sight, this is the most significant paragraph:-
Accordingly, the assessments made fall to be reduced substantially. It was
conceded that advances in favour of certain players are taxable and liable to NIC, and
35 we have found that in certain other limited instances, there may be a similar liability.
To that extent the assessments should stand. In these circumstances we expect that it
is sufficient that we allow the Appeal in principle
That suggests that some of the payments from the EBT are indeed taxable. Given the curious way of naming the witnesses, one can't tell who got what, and what is taxable. That may be significant when the SPL make their decision.
For the most part, though, it looks as if the payments have been treated as loans. That means they are recoverable. I am not sure, though, whether that is recoverable by the Trust(s), or by the company. If the latter, that will have a positive effect on the dividend to creditors.
However, the recovery of the loans is not straightforward, IMO. Given that we are talking about some foreign-based players, as well as events that happened some years ago, there will be resistance. Expect long Court cases.
From what I've read it summarises as club in the clear, individuals liable and possibly to be pursued. So it's still guilty, as the tax should have been paid, albeit the individuals responsibility to repay the loan or pay the tax.
For the period it was used an unfair advantage was still gained through it's use though.
Blow me, if I was Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster, I'd be running for the hills.
Can we speculate on what may happen with regards to the Hearts case based on this verdict? I appreciate that Hearts didn't use EBTs.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Not how I read it, GG. It does say that the assessments have to be reduced substantially... not removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Naw :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Stevie Reid
HMRC on Rangers tax case
"We are disappointed that we have lost this stage of the court process and we are considering an appeal."
Good-oh.
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Does this mean that they can't be considered to have used dual contracts by the SPL?
That's my question - even though the EBTs were loans and not payments, did Rangers still use dual contracts and therefore illegally register players or does this even matter any more?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie Reid
That's not clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie Reid
The Tribunal say that there are some payments that are liable to PAYE & NI. Unfortunately, though, it's not clear who received those payments.
That will have to be clarified before the SPL can go any further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YehButNo But
charles greene kills me he really does, the boy that just couldn't stop lying, comical charlie
:fibber:
Good luck getting Billy Dodds to pay up.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
:greengrin
Glamour signings in Scottish division three was never feasible any way!