Printable View
Fair play to you for giving a view at odd with the majority on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by flash
The more we hear about what went on at Rangers the angrier I get. Last nights programme laid waste to the 'Craig Whyte did it and ran away' argument. Murray is as big a shyster as Whyte. The removal of SPL status and titles won during their years of cheating should be the minimum punishment.
I agree with you that their fans have been wronged. As said above, though, Rangers have massive achievements to their name on the back of their dodgy financial dealings - at the expense of others, and in a way which distorted the financial outlook on the game in Scotland. A lot of the anger is about the fact that Rangers, the footballing authorities, and Chairmen of some other clubs appear to value Rangers' presence in the SPL ahead of sporting integrity, and the sporting interests of the other teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by flash
I don't think the current crisis has much in common with our dark days. We had to dig ourselves out of that, with the help of STF, and would almost certainly have not been offered the kind of assistance that Rangers, Doncaster et al are looking for. We would have been left to rot.
Exactly. Shyster no. 1 in our affair was David Rowland who simply wanted to sell the assets - football wasn't even a consideration. Rangers, on the other hand, have cheated to attract the best possible players to the club (often to the detriment of other Scottish teams) - their recent domestic and European "success" has extremely dodgy foundations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
I tended to have a little sympathy with Flash's view up until previous, what I thought were decent Rangers supporters way above the usual sectarian crap, posted on my son's FB before the final that we were just mini Tims and they hoped we get humped. Said decent huns have now received emails from me telling them that I hope their club just dies.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
This , plus they chased the big money from Europe to help fund this...it didn't work. They were willing to shaft every other club in the SPL, along with their cousins in the east end, by trying to join the EPL/ atlantic league, or any other league they could possibly get in bar Scotland and their fans backed them all the way. So i'm sorry if I can't feel anything for them or their fans except contempt.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Cheers for the replies- i agree with the gist of them.
I suppose what i am trying to say is rather than risk losing thousands of fans to the game at a particularly bad time i would much rather see those directly responsible held to account in a court of law.
There is no doubt that a newco should have to start from the bottom.
As ever though the fans will be the ones who suffer most.
George Adams, previous head of youth development at Ibrox, received a little over £30,000 through his EBT. Many of you may not have heard of this man (after all, he is hardly a household name), however, Mr Adams is the director of football at newly promoted Ross County, one of the teams who would theoretically have a vote in any decision to allow (or not allow) any NewCo Rangers back into the SPL. This is a conflict of interest. :agree:
I understand what you are saying, but there's one question you should ask every hun you know. And thats would you change all that glory, and quality signings they made if you knew what was going to happen now?Quote:
Originally Posted by flash
Each and every hun i know has said no, they wouldn't change a thing. These were the best days of their lives supporting them they tell me.
Well they need that balanced out now imo, and perhaps their opinion might be different the next time?
Yup....but compared to Campbell O who is head honcho at SFA who will be appeals body should SPL find against Rangers in 'double contracts'.....that is almost irrelevent.Quote:
Originally Posted by H18sry
There is going to be a lot more of this to come
Attachment 8296
Any photo shop experts stick Doncasters head on this :greengrin
This! They were more than happy to enjoy the good times, no questions asked. Payback!Quote:
Originally Posted by erskine-hibby
I can see them getting punished, but I still think they will get away with it. The SPL seem to be taking their time with the investigation. IMO, I think it will be concluded shortly after Ranges have reformed as a Newco and therefore the SPL will take the stance of, 'they are a new company now and by law we cant punish them for something another company has done'. Rangers continue in the SPL.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
If the SPL concluded their investigation now, and handed out the punishment and demoted them to division 3, the newco would have to start there. Doncaster is pushing this Newco being allowed straight back in. The SPL will say at the end of all this that they would have punished Old Rangers severely but their hands were tied as its now a different company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs13681
These EBT's have broken the SFA rules and the club should have it's membership withdrawn.
Takes the decision out of the SPL's hands.
If they're such a big club they can reform in the Juniors and work their way up.
Difficult choice - Tubeway Army or (Down the) Tube(s)way Army?Quote:
Originally Posted by crewetollhibee
Ogilvie should resign .. and if not he should be TOLD to step down.Quote:
Originally Posted by down-the-slope
Remember that Ogilvie also took this EBT scheme to Hearts when he left Rangers, so to say he knew nothing about players and side contracts must prove him to be an out and out liar.
An Observation;
Given that Celtic have now admitted that they used an EBT will those that are defending Rangers (SPL, Sportsound et al) use this to try to drag Celtic into this mess and argue that the quantity dosent matter but the fact that they did it should attract the same punishment. Albeit Celtic used it once and, when advised, they stopped it.
Furthermore this would be a good time for Hearts to admit theirs and it would make it difficult/awkward for firm penalties to be enforced against Rangers. and allow their own misdemeanours to slip under the radar.
As I said, just a thought.
I don't know the full details but think it was with Juninho and it was an inherited situation, perhaps Boro had been using an EBT on advice of an agent? As above as soon as Celtic knew it was dodgy they stopped itQuote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
Interestingly some Celtic fans are saying they would be happy to be stripped of their title that year.
The SFA arent involved just now, if rangers reform into a newco and the SPL allow them back into the SPL, then the SPl announce their findings I am not sure if they can then do anything legally to punish the newco.Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
Totally agree but if I was of a mind to try to ensure that Rangers remained in the SPL the argument would be that they did it. Dosent matter how long or how many.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe breezy
Of course this is nonsense and Celtic's EBT dosent even register when compared to others but, as I said, if you are trying to assist Rangers I can see how someone (Doncaster) might argue this point.
Incidentally ragerstaxcase.com won the 2012 Orwell Blog prize so a big well done to those guys for refusing to be silenced.
Trouble with the Yams tax scam is the side letters were all in Lithuanian and coded by the Enigma Fax Machine. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
However, I still think Skacel court case with his agent, due to return to Court next month will prove the player was getting a lot more cash for playing for Hearts than the amount recorded in is Hearts Contract.
His Contract, according to press reports was for 190,000 Euros per year, thats about £ 3000 per week. I don't think he came back for that considering what others were on at the PBS.
Celtic should also have every game the hidden EBT was used chalked off as 3-0 defeats as well. So in 2006, Aberdeen won the league and we finished second :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
Use of EBT's isn't illegal, not declaring it / using hidden contracts is as far as the SFA / SPL are concerned, that's the issue.
Besides everything else, the programme claimed to have evidence connecting this whole thing directly to the team that was put on the pitch via EBT payments to players as salary top ups.
Ergo players who were otherwise unaffordable became affordable
Better players who brought more success
CHEATING
If this is proven, they're goners.
That's a good point as it shows that another club went down this path, but on reflection (and presumably more competent financial advice than the Huns recieved) realised the error of their ways. The Yams case as always with them is difficult to comment on, simply as not enough of their finacial information is readible acessible. I have to say that as icreasing light is shed upon the goings on at Castle Greyskull, one can't avoid the impression that the finaacial advice they recieved was analagous to that proffered by someone after they've spent a lengthy period imbibibng alcohol!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
Hearts have been very farsighted in all this. It's now apparent that the reason that they didn't bother going for the CL title that year they were in it (because they would surely have won it, if they'd wanted to) was that they knew they'd eventually be stripped of it when their EBTs came to light. Previously I'd thought that the yams were living from one dodgy short-term fix to the next with players' wages and that, but here they've shown real vision. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by joe breezy
An EBT itself is not illegal, however using one to provide pre-agreed payments as part of an employment (supplementing wages basically) is tax evasion and this is why the taxman is after them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottB
The hidden contracts given to players make this illegal from a tax point of view and also against the rules of the sfa/spl.
I have a copy of the rules (I can email it to you if you want) and there are no rules 11, 13 or 14 - the rule are annotated by letter/number/sub-number like A1.1 and the sections that go up to number 11 and above don't bear much relationship to this issue. I think he must be referring to the Articles of Association which I don't have - I'll see if I can get a copy.Quote:
Originally Posted by bighairyfaeleith
From what I can see of the rules though, there is absolutely no provision for a newco, but there are a number of rules that could be read as specifically prohibiting one from joining the SPL.
If you or anyone else has any further dealings with Doncaster it might be worth asking him to forward copies of any documents he quotes.
Ah, the big cup they are always going on about. Only right for a giant like Hearts.Quote:
Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee
We are the people?Quote:
Originally Posted by flash
There's a few alright ones but not many..
Following the statement from the Killie chairman, Michael Johnston, who thinks that Rangers have been punished enough and no more sanctions should be taken against them, I think that supporters of all other clubs who oppose this view should boycott all matches at Rugby Park, and any other clubs that take Johnston's and Rangers side. If Johnston thinks that Rangers are key to his clubs existence, they may lose out on TV money and one or two visits of the current buns per season, but how much more would they lose if they played all season with no visiting supporters.
Tell me if you think this idea is rubbish or if you think that it might be a goer?
Big thank you to you for posting the links - some amazing "revelations" in there :top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
SPL Rules Effective 14th May 2012Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
http://www.scotprem.com/content/medi...MAY%202012.pdf
SFA Articles of Association
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resource...09Articles.pdf
12.1 The Board may arrange for an inspection of all such books, records and details for
any purpose, including but not limited to, National Club Licensing. Such inspection
may be conducted by the Board, such authorised employees of the Association, the
Association’s auditors or other professional advisers duly appointed by the Board
on giving to any club or recognised football body reasonable notice of its intention
to do so.
Furthermore, all payments, whether made by the club or otherwise, which are to
be made to a player solely relating to his playing activities must be fully recorded
within the relevant written agreement with the player prior to submission to this
Association and/or the recognised football body of which his club is in membership.
No EBT's are not illegal but if everything was above board and, more importantly, Rangers were supremely confident of their position, why the subterfuge, why the lack of cooperation? And if Billy Dodds is so sure that everything was legal and proper why did he lie on sportsound?Quote:
Originally Posted by MyJo
There is a definite incongruence between words and actions.
That's the articles of the SFA rather than the SPL, but the SPL rules are a newer version than I've got.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish
I've just ordered a copy of the SPL articles - I'll give my thoughts once I've had a chance to look at them.
A Sellick fans post but true
A short history of Rangers...
1872-1920 Normal Scottish club
1920-1989 Bigoted, sectarian institution, built on the hate pound
1988-2012 Buying trophies with money they didn't have. Officially multi-cultural but flirting with bigotry to retain the hate pound.
Financial doping/theft
1999-2012 Theft of money from Scottish clubs and tax authorities £500M+
2012-2015 Money expected to be lost from TV deal £50M
Scottish football verdict: Scotland needs Rangers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Articles of Association of The Scottish Premier League Limited
As at 15 April 2010
http://www.scotprem.com/content/medi...0(CURRENT).pdf
I think they've removed these from the SPL website (wonder why? :rolleyes:):
11. Except where such transfer is occasioned by the promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL the consent of the Board shall be required before the transfer of any Share shall be registered.
13. The Board shall refuse to register the transfer of a Share:-
(i) to a person who is not the owner and operator of a Club;
(ii) unless the instrument of transfer is lodged at the Office or at such other place as the Board may appoint and is accompanied by the certificate for the Share to which it relates;
(iii) except where the transfer arises on promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL, the consent of the Board has not been given to the transfer;
(iv) if the transferor and/or transferee shall fail to provide such evidence as the Board may require to show the respective rights of the transferor to make the transfer and the transferee to become a Member;
(v) if the instrument of such transfer is in respect of more than one Share; or
(vi) if the transferee or an Associate of the transferee shall own or have an interest in any other Share.
14. If:-
(i) a Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share; or
(ii) a trustee in sequestration, manager, receiver or administrative receiver shall be appointed in respect of a Member or any property of a Member, or an administration order shall be made in respect of a Member or any property of a Member or an order shall be made or an
effective resolution passed for the winding up of a Member otherwise than for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation;
then that Member or its manager, receiver, administrative receiver, administrator or liquidator or any other person entitled to the Share shall, on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposed transferee, transfer its Share to such other person as the Board shall direct at the price of £1 and the Club owned and operated by such Member shall forthwith cease to be a member of the League and the Club owned and operated by the transferee shall become a member of the League in its place.
He does seem to be an old firm appologist doesn't he, might be do with the geography of Lanarkshire but more likely his club are spending more than they should be and are dependant on the Old Firm fans coming to Rugby Park to keep his club in profit. Money talks for some clubs, especially those in the immediate shadow of the Old Firm.Quote:
Originally Posted by big-mo
What he can't see is that Rangers and Celtic are what is wrong with Scottish football and they are strangling the life out of the game in Scotland.
Hopefully the East Coast clubs won't cave in to the financial arguement and stand firm and bring down the cheating Hun. :agree:
Not a bad idea. Always enjoyed the trip to Ayrshire but there fans are diet huns. Im sure theres more cream buns leave from Killie each Sat to go to Ibrox than actually attend a Killie game.
Hit them were it hurts and don't gee them the cash
Thanks Hamish - I could have saved myself a quid there...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish
That says that admission is entirely at the board's discretion, which is not the impression Doncaster seems to have given BHFL. In any case, 13(i) could be argued to prohibit a newco since it is not the owner and operator of a club.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
excellently put!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain G
Are Killie not one of the clubs in real financial mess? It does appear to be a very short term view by him, but if theres a risk of his, or any club going bust due to a loss of revenue from Rangers not being in the SPL, you cant really blame them.Quote:
Originally Posted by big-mo
Not the stance I take mind you, Id be totally against a newco Rangers team being allowed back in, but I can understand where some of the smaller clubs are coming from in terms of a financial point of view.
Bit of a contradiction in terms, surely? I've got plenty of respect for Killie/Motherwell/St Mirren/Ayr fans etc who stick by their local team instead of following Rantic. That said, this is isn't a question about the fans of those clubs and all to do with the stance of each club - if they support a NewCo staying in the SPL then I think it's only fair that they face some sort of backlash from fans of other clubs (and maybe even their own?)Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthamptonHibs
This is where Doncaster has been bullsh*tting ever since the Huns went into administration. He has stated that the Huns share transfer should be dealt with by the SPL Board under Clause 11 when the correct treatment under SPL Rules would be Clause 14 (2).Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
"----an administration order shall be made in repect of a Member ----" the share transfer has to be approved by " theCompany in general meeting passing a qualified resolution "
That is all SPL members voting 90 % in favour of Rangers SPL share going to the new football club which will replace Tax Dodging F C in the SPL. It could be Dundee, Dunfermline, or even a new Rangers F C . but that is what the SPL Rules state and Doncaster should be removed if he can't stomach the prospect of applying the rules correctly.
I think you are way off the mark with that one SH. I have friends who are season ticket holders at Killie, Ive spent a lot of time in the company of Killie fans and I can assure you they hate Rangers just as much as us. I was speaking to a Killie fan yesterday and he is raging at Jonston's stance on the newco situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthamptonHibs
13. The Board shall refuse to register the transfer of a Share:-
(i) to a person who is not the owner and operator of a Club;
(ii) unless the instrument of transfer is lodged at the Office or at such other place as the Board may appoint and is accompanied by the certificate for the Share to which it relates;
(iii) except where the transfer arises on promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL, the consent of the Board has not been given to the transfer;
BHFL- I understand Mr Doncaster has said there are no rules relating to a newco within SPL Articles. Any chance you could email him asking him to clarify Article 13(iii)? Only reason I am asking is you will probably have a better chance of a reply.
BTW Hearts shareholders meeting today. I have asked a friend to ask what Hearts view on the newco route would be? Doubt he will have the gonads so if anyone else knows someone going to the meeting give them a call and ask them to do the same?
Hearts AGM at lunchtime today. I have asked a friend to ask what Hearts take is on a newco getting straight into SPL. Don't think he will have balls to ask the question. Anyone else got a friend going who might ask and if they do can you call them? Would love to know their thoughts as they have never said a word.
Ta
It is my humble but honest opinion that thousand s of fair minded fans of lots of clubs in scotland will be lost to the game forever if rangers are not properly punished for financial suicide. I don t know what that punishment should be but it must be fair and must be seen to be fair. i think the time for sweeping under the carpet is gone and if there is to be a broom involved it should be used to clean up the sfa, with a good clearout of the blazers behind the scenes who must have known what was going on. If not then the good men still in scottish football should let the fans know who these people are. i hope i make sense and think the questions must be asked and answered properly. what do you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthamptonHibs
Cant say Ive found that Davy ,always got on well with the Killie supporters ,but its up to themselves to get shot of that bellend Johnston,
if they dont I cant see many going to Rugby Park .
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by anglosaxonhibee
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!!
You saying that Satchel might be on the take and so would have been ineligible for the cup final? Now that has the potential to be the best news ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
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:
Just going by the types off songs they sing when i've been at the game "Hello Hello" etc, back that up with there chairmens thoughts on newco rangers. But fair do's i may off mis judged them, i'll listen to those that no them better. Hail Hail
The issue isnt the fans here, all power and respect to those supporting their local teams in the direct face of the In Firm. The issue here is Johnson and the club owners thinking they are reliant on the Old Firm coin, the sooner we can break the link between Old Firm dependence and independence of the rest of the Scottish game the better for all of us and the more competitive the league will get and the better and more interesting the Scottish game will get as all clubs have to get back to blooding their own local players again.Quote:
Originally Posted by LancashireHibby
OFGTF :agree:
Cheers for that!Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthamptonHibs
He's way off the mark with the comments re: your fans, but as for your Chairman greasing up....................... :bitchy:Quote:
Originally Posted by vanNISHtelroy
Already put a comment on with drawing my statement just angry with everything just now hail hailQuote:
Originally Posted by vanNISHtelroy
I was reasonably sure that we would support the NewCo if it came to it due to needing the money that comes from either of the ugly sisters but do find it difficult to read all the comments that MJ is giving everyone.
It was pretty obvious that with a debt of ~£9m (~£6m of that due to hotel I think) the bank would have an influence on our position on this issue.
Not in an annoying way after last week btw....but 15 years ago today Monty went up to lift the Scottish Cup!
But where do the Killie fans sit on the issues, are you happy enough for the NewCo to exist in the SPL when and if it arrives, or are you happy to finally see Rangers get what they deserve and die a horrible, nasty, ugly yet thoroughly deserving death? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by vanNISHtelroy
I think that the majority would be quite happy to see them get exactly what they deserved.
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:
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 Derek Dougan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Brazil
Brilliant telly, though....:greengrin
Correct. Self-serving hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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"
It should have no bearing on the BTC decision. That process will continue, in the same way and at the same pace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Brazil
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.
No.... CW panicked at the end of the Malmo game. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
And, may I be the first to offer Mr. Murray a plate of sour grapes?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
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:
I see where you are coming from, and agree any boycott hurts Hibs too. What do you suggest people do to protest?Quote:
Originally Posted by Carheenlea
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?
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Every picture tells a story.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carheenlea
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Brazil
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 :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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.
Not sure they can Silver - surely its the employers responsibility - not the individual?Quote:
Originally Posted by silverhibee
: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 churchy
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverhibee
So, it's a double-whammy in terms of bad behaviour. Underpayment of tax, and non-disclosure of the contracts.
Could the leak not be coming from the people that the SPL employed to do the investigating of EBT's?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That was my first thought. I'm guessing a new administrator at this stage would have no choice but to come straight in and liquidate. It seems nothing would be lost to play out the Green CVA pantomime for the time being. Once that finally plays out, and the CVA is ditched, would be the point to have D&P ousted .. and if it was proven they were negligent I'd make them sing for their Administrator fees (assuming they've not yet submitted a final bill).Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
BBC tweeting that SPL have set deadline for administrators providing info on possible double contract situation.
**** me this suggests to me SPL lagging a bit behind with investigation. Surprise, surprise.
Looks like last night's show has already had a positive effect (kicking the SPL up the bum).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
But surely the employee is remiss when he files his tax return if he does not disclose it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Don't have to disclose loans - only income.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
As i said i know nothing about all this tax stuff, what i do know is that the tax man has started to turn there attention towards football players from Scotland who were with the hvns about un-paid taxes that have not been declared to HMRC.
That's why i asked about the double tax thing. :aok:
It's all a bit baffling to me all this stuff. :greengrin
Has anybody else noticed the big name that isn't on the list of EBT beneficiaries???
Uncle Walter appears to be squeeky clean.
Swally, Hateley and Kenny Miller are missing as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
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