Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As I understand it:-

1. the pension fund (doesn't say if it was related to RFC), was thinking about lending RFC £2.9m.

2. it was only thinking about it!!

3. according to the pension fund, the money was held in the famous Collyer Bristow client account.

4. the money was paid over without authorisation (by the solicitors presumably) to RFC.

If all that is true, CB will get their erse felt by the Law Society at the very least. Lawyers on here will be able to tell you if it's criminal as well.

Robert Maxwell 2 the sequel. Does anyone know if Whyte has a rowing boat ?

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As I understand it:-
1. the pension fund (doesn't say if it was related to RFC), was thinking about lending RFC £2.9m.
2. it was only thinking about it!!

Hmm, seems pretty odd to me. I'm thinking of lending you some money. Here, hold onto it while I think about it...

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are Hearts now the second biggest club in Scotland in terms of wages?

Only when they pay them.

[aljo7-0]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As I understand it:-

1. the pension fund (doesn't say if it was related to RFC), was thinking about lending RFC £2.9m.

2. it was only thinking about it!!

3. according to the pension fund, the money was held in the famous Collyer Bristow client account.

4. the money was paid over without authorisation (by the solicitors presumably) to RFC.

If all that is true, CB will get their erse felt by the Law Society at the very least. Lawyers on here will be able to tell you if it's criminal as well.

They will be in trouble with the Law Society as using clients funds without their instructions is a significant breach of the Accounts rules.
They will be open to being sued by the Pension Fund for using./losing their money.
They could also be in trouble with the law as the definition of theft is depriving a rightful owner of the use of their property and paying out someones money to another without consent could be interpreted that way.
For the record I have never done te above so I'm only guessing

[green glory]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17323222

Pat Nevin tells it how it is.

The admins now telling us they can sell the club, even with the uncertainty over the big tax case. The deadline for a buyer is Friday. Cannae wait till then!!!

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They will be in trouble with the Law Society as using clients funds without their instructions is a significant breach of the Accounts rules.
They will be open to being sued by the Pension Fund for using./losing their money.
They could also be in trouble with the law as the definition of theft is depriving a rightful owner of the use of their property and paying out someones money to another without consent could be interpreted that way.
For the record I have never done te above so I'm only guessing

Plenty solicitors have been jailed for pockling Clients' Accounts, but for their own use. Is this the same?

(please say yes)

[aljo7-0]

To be honest I'm not sure - criminal law is not my thing. But by giving money to someone else they have deprived the Pension fund of ownership. OK they have not spent the money as such themselves but I don't see why it wouldn't be looked on as criminal.

If you gave me a coat to hold whilst you nipped to the loo and I then, without your consent, simply gave it away to someone who I knew was not the owner - your coat has been stolen and I've pretty much done it (even with nol personal gain). I would expect the police to be feeling my collar about that.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

To be honest I'm not sure - criminal law is not my thing. But by giving money to someone else they have deprived the Pension fund of ownership. OK they have not spent the money as such themselves but I don't see why it wouldn't be looked on as criminal.

If you gave me a coat to hold whilst you nipped to the loo and I then, without your consent, simply gave it away to someone who I knew was not the owner - your coat has been stolen and I've pretty much done it (even with nol personal gain). I would expect the police to be feeling my collar about that.

...it doesn't appear to be the "thing" of that Gary boy from Collyer Bristow either .

What did the coat look like?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17323222

Pat Nevin tells it how it is.

The admins now telling us they can sell the club, even with the uncertainty over the big tax case. The deadline for a buyer is Friday. Cannae wait till then!!!

Strictly speaking, they could.

It would take a helluva lot of brass neck on their behalf, and helluva lot of stupidity on a buyer's behalf, though.

Oh wait.... yeah.... that would work.

[aljo7-0]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

...it doesn't appear to be the "thing" of that Gary boy from Collyer Bristow either .

What did the coat look like?

Lovely - well worth nicking.

[ancient hibee]

There are going to be a lot of professional people thinking they may just have made a boo boo getting involved with Mr.Whyte and his get rich(now poor)quick scheme.

[ancienthibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

borrowed.

Manchester United have settled a multimillion-pound tax bill on behalf of their star players including Wayne Rooney, The Times has learnt.
The resolution by the Premier League champions of a dispute with Revenue & Customs (HMRC) over image rights payments signals a lessening of hostilities between football and the taxman that has spanned nearly a decade.
HMRC has focused on clubs in England’s top league over what it considers tax avoidance of millions of pounds. It reached fever pitch in recent weeks with the collapse of Rangers under liabilities of up to £75 million and the tax evasion trial of Harry Redknapp, the Tottenham Hotspur manager, who was acquitted on all charges.
The crackdown is on schemes that allow a player to receive a proportion of his salary as image rights in a separate company, in some cases offshore, which incurs significantly lower rates of tax. The payments are made in exchange for the club being allowed to use the player’s image for promotional work.
While the system is legal, HMRC believes that many players have exploited it to avoid paying the top rate of income tax, which was raised to 50 per cent two years ago. A 2010 court case between Rooney and his former agent revealed that the 26-year-old striker received £1.5 million a year in image rights under his old contract with United. This represented nearly a quarter of his £6.2 million salary at the time.
While HMRC has accepted that a player of Rooney’s stature could command substantial image rights fees, the debate has been about what constitutes a reasonable proportion of total salary.
This remains a grey area, although there will be closer monitoring of the number of promotional appearances a player makes for his club to ensure that the amount ascribed is at least representative. Rugby union is thought to have agreed a cap, which would be harder to implement in football.
There have also been questions about the legitimacy of such a tax structure for lesser known players at smaller clubs. The Portsmouth administration case in 2010 revealed that the defender Sol Campbell’s deal on image rights was worth £1.56 million a year. United is not expected to reveal the terms of its settlement in its next set of accounts but it is understood to be less than the £6.4 million declared last year by Chelsea.
In a bond issue prospectus two years ago, United said its potential tax exposure was £5.3 million but this related to national insurance contributions. The club, like most in the professional leagues, is covered by an indemnity clause in players’ contracts against claims by the tax authorities over image rights. This would require the player to reimburse the club. However, it is unclear whether clubs would pursue the debt or write it off.
Manchester United’s deal with HMRC, which was negotiated separately from a Premier League agreement covering 16 clubs and based on turnover, means that most of the top 20 English teams have settled tax liabilities from 2004 to 2010. HMRC said it would continue to negotiate with clubs yet to settle, which include Manchester City.
Some feel that sport is an easy target. “It should be remembered that in the 2011-12 season the Premier League is likely to contribute in excess of £1 billion to the Exchequer,” Pete Hackleton, a senior tax manager in the Sports & Entertainment Group at Saffery Champness, said.
Face value boosts pay
Eric Cantona was among the first of the foreign imports to recognise the value of his image off the field. The money for image rights is paid into a company set up by the player, which is liable for corporation tax of up to 26 per cent instead of income tax at the top rate of 50 per cent.
Some structures allow for a director’s loan from the company to the player, which is liable for only 2 per cent tax as a benefit in kind. The top rate kicks in only when the loan is written off.
When it comes to cashing in the proceeds of an image rights company, capital gains tax can be avoided by a player living abroad for three years and paying the money to himself as a dividend.
In 2000 HMRC lost a case against Dennis Bergkamp and David Platt, who argued that image rights were bona fide commercial payments. Under greater scrutiny, however, clubs will have to account for individual appearances of players on behalf of their sponsors.

So, can you summarise for the uninatiated, exactly what is the connection to RFC, a club in administration??

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So, can you summarise for the uninatiated, exactly what is the connection to RFC, a club in administration??

Other than providing yet another example of HMRC's belligerent attitude to tax avoidance in football in recent years, there's not a lot of similarity.

MUFC's case is very like Chelsea's, which was settled a few weeks back. It's about passing off some of the payments to players as payments for image rights. RFC's is, as we all know, about payments to Employee Benefit Trusts on behalf of players.

[ancienthibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Other than providing yet another example of HMRC's belligerent attitude to tax avoidance in football in recent years, there's not a lot of similarity.

MUFC's case is very like Chelsea's, which was settled a few weeks back. It's about passing off some of the payments to players as payments for image rights. RFC's is, as we all know, about payments to Employee Benefit Trusts on behalf of players.

I was thinking more of the inexorable slide into the bottomless pit of slime and mire that RFC has 'welcomed as their own'

Every day seem to bring another, and then another, and then another demonstration of the utter incompetence/legal avoidance of those at Castle Greyskull.

So what we now seem to have is that Craikie (Notso)Whyte instructs his lawyers to make a payment that neither he or they have the right to do so, and yet nothing seemingly is being done about it?

Or, will I be proved wrong in the morning, with a Fraud Squad announcement??

I do not think so!

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was thinking more of the inexorable slide into the bottomless pit of slime and mire that RFC has 'welcomed as their own'

Every day seem to bring another, and then another, and then another demonstration of the utter incompetence/legal avoidance of those at Castle Greyskull.

So what we now seem to have is that Craikie (Notso)Whyte instructs his lawyers to make a payment that neither he or they have the right to do so, and yet nothing seemingly is being done about it?

Or, will I be proved wrong in the morning, with a Fraud Squad announcement??

I do not think so!

I think it's probably wrong to make an assumption that nothing is being done about it. Gary Withey, the partner at the centre of things, has left Collyer Bristow. Being solicitors, they will not be showing their dirty washing in public. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if they have already approached the Law Society themselves.

[ancienthibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think it's probably wrong to make an assumption that nothing is being done about it. Gary Withey, the partner at the centre of things, has left Collyer Bristow. Being solicitors, they will not be showing their dirty washing in public. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if they have already approached the Law Society themselves.

Does it not strike you though, Mr Cropps, that this whole relationship between a legal firm and its client (which is at the heart of all of this) is deserving of the utmost public scrutiny at the soonest??

[greenginger]

Thinking again about this Jerome Pension Fund scam and the court bun fight for the £3.6 million that was with Whyte's lawyers.

I think it is certain that Jerome is due their £2.95 million back from Rangers, but the money that is left in the account is not theirs ,as it had already been released to Rangers and probably blown on January's wages.

If it turns out that Ticketus or HMRC are awarded the funds where does that leave Duff and Phelps ?Will they will be ordered to repay this money or will the pension fund just become another creditor ?

If the Administrators are instructed to repay the money immediately how can they comply with the Court ?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Does it not strike you though, Mr Cropps, that this whole relationship between a legal firm and its client (which is at the heart of all of this) is deserving of the utmost public scrutiny at the soonest??

Nope. Not in the slightest. The relationship between a solicitor and its client is based on confidentiality, and can only be open to public scrutiny with the expressed consent of the client, or where both parties are compelled to do so by force of law.

We may want to know. That doesn't mean we should do.

[ancienthibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

nope. Not in the slightest. The relationship between a solicitor and its client is based on confidentiality, and can only be open to public scritiny with the expressed consent of the client, or where both parties are compelled to do so by force of law.

bring it on!!!!!

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thinking again about this Jerome Pension Fund scam and the court bun fight for the £3.6 million that was with Whyte's lawyers.

I think it is certain that Jerome is due their £2.95 million back from Rangers, but the money that is left in the account is not theirs ,as it had already been released to Rangers and probably blown on January's wages.

If it turns out that Ticketus or HMRC are awarded the funds where does that leave Duff and Phelps ?Will they will be ordered to repay this money or will the pension fund just become another creditor ?

If the Administrators are instructed to repay the money immediately how can they comply with the Court ?

The Client Account is not divided up into "RFC's money/Craig's money/JPF''s money". It is a pot of money held on behalf of CW/RFCG.

With that in mind, if the Court decides that JPF are due their £2.95m first, they will get it from that account.

If the Court decides that, say, HMRC, are due all of the £3.6m in the account... then, as you say, JPF become yet another creditor.

I'm not sure the Court can instruct RFC to repay JPF's money. Again, one for the lawyers on here, but that would probably be a separate case. In fact, thinking aloud, the fact that RFC are in administration probably precludes that kind of judgement.

[CentreLine]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Now joined by another ex-Jambo.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...e-bid.17000787

And a little bit more info about how Ticketus are to be involved.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/03...6908-23785167/

As I thought, it's about providing cash until they (Ticketus) can get a way out. According to that report, that will happen when there is a share issue. Given the failure of the last share issue, that may not be as straightforward as they think.

Are Rangers still able to del in shares after they were suspended for failure to publish accounts?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are Rangers still able to del in shares after they were suspended for failure to publish accounts?

AFAIK, it was a shares exchange that they were suspended from. A mechanism for others to trade in RFC's shares.

I am not sure if this stops them from raising money through a share issue. Of course, if there are no audited accounts, a share issue would be difficult to sell.

You'd think all that kind of stuff would be sorted before the issue went ahead, though.

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think it's probably wrong to make an assumption that nothing is being done about it. Gary Withey, the partner at the centre of things, has left Collyer Bristow. Being solicitors, they will not be showing their dirty washing in public. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if they have already approached the Law Society themselves.

I read somewhere that Collyer Bristow were in danger of being liquidated themselves over a £50m liability dispute. Good for insolvency specialists!

[greenginger]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17310468


Just how thick are these BBC dickheads.

Analysing the events of Rangers liquidation they quote SPL reg.11 to work out what would happen to Ranger's SPL share and conclude any transfer would have to be approved by the SPL Board.

In matters of liquidation, SPL reg 14 is the relevant clause. Any transfer of share has to be approved by " the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution ".

A " Special " Qualified Resolution seems to be the appropriate type of resolution required and that must have 83% approval.


I don't know if the BBC sports dep. are being devious in trying to smooth the path for New-Co Huns or merely illiterate.

[johnrebus]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17310468


Just how thick are these BBC dickheads.

Analysing the events of Rangers liquidation they quote SPL reg.11 to work out what would happen to Ranger's SPL share and conclude any transfer would have to be approved by the SPL Board.

In matters of liquidation, SPL reg 14 is the relevant clause. Any transfer of share has to be approved by " the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution ".

A " Special " Qualified Resolution seems to be the appropriate type of resolution required and that must have 83% approval.


I don't know if the BBC sports dep. are being devious in trying to smooth the path for New-Co Huns or merely illiterate.

No, its ok, honestly.

Jim Traynor said last night on Sportsound that Rangers will be back in the SPL next season because its all about finance and sporting integrity doesn't matter.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17310468


Just how thick are these BBC dickheads.

Analysing the events of Rangers liquidation they quote SPL reg.11 to work out what would happen to Ranger's SPL share and conclude any transfer would have to be approved by the SPL Board.

In matters of liquidation, SPL reg 14 is the relevant clause. Any transfer of share has to be approved by " the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution ".

A " Special " Qualified Resolution seems to be the appropriate type of resolution required and that must have 83% approval.


I don't know if the BBC sports dep. are being devious in trying to smooth the path for New-Co Huns or merely illiterate.

One of the fascinating aspects of this whole affair for me is the fact that, for the most part, complicated issues are being reported on by sports and news journalists who don't have specialist knowledge in tax and insolvency matters. Whilst I don't doubt their intent on getting at the truth, sometimes their lack of specialism results in confusing reports and messages. (eg STV and their "VAT being deducted from wages" nonsense).

Working out exactly what the reporters have been told (not what they think they have been told) is a joy.....

[WindyMiller]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

One of the fascinating aspects of this whole affair for me is the fact that, for the most part, complicated issues are being reported on by sports and news journalists who don't have specialist knowledge in tax and insolvency matters. Whilst I don't doubt their intent on getting at the truth, sometimes their lack of specialism results in confusing reports and messages. (eg STV and their "VAT being deducted from wages" nonsense).

Working out exactly what the reporters have been told (not what they think they have been told) is a joy.....

For once the Scotsman have at least asked someone with a bit knowledge on financial matters; http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman...pert-1-2168928

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For once the Scotsman have at least asked someone with a bit knowledge on financial matters; http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman...pert-1-2168928

It's this side-article that I find very interesting. It helps to explain the Ticketus angle.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman...etus-1-2168802

[WindyMiller]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's this side-article that I find very interesting. It helps to explain the Ticketus angle.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman...etus-1-2168802

In your opinion.


Surely this bid by Murray is just pie in the sky?

[PaulSmith]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...x-shambles/850