Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Lungo--Drom]

Like some closed railway station back in the days of Dr. Beeching in the 1960s.

Broken windows, holes in the roof, rubble lying on the ground, weeds growing through cracks in the concrete, graffiti on the walls, burnt out cars lying in the middle of the pitch, rubbish blowing about in the wind, tumbleweed blowing past the rusty holes where the goal posts used to be. Like Govan's very own version of inner city Detroit...

I can hardly wait :D

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

Looking forward to taking photos of an overgrown pitch and weeds growing in the stands at Ibroke.

[RyeSloan]

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

I think it will be difficult, too.

As you say, the HMRC verdict will give a decent basis. But, how likely is it that anyone is going to break ranks and say "oh yes, we were at it."?

Does there HAVE to be a tax implication for the double contracts issue still to be, ermmm, an issue?

Is it not a case of one contract being lodged with the SPL saying Player X will be paid Y and another contract being held in the Big Hoose saying Player X will be paid Y + Z.

Whether or not Z is liable for tax or not does not take away the fact that one document said Y while the other Y + Z

Or is this too simple an analysis?

[Broken Gnome]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18108973

Glorious. World slowly becoming a better place.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Does there HAVE to be a tax implication for the double contracts issue still to be, ermmm, an issue?

Is it not a case of one contract being lodged with the SPL saying Player X will be paid Y and another contract being held in the Big Hoose saying Player X will be paid Y + Z.

Whether or not Z is liable for tax or not does not take away the fact that one document said Y while the other Y + Z

Or is this too simple an analysis?

I am struggling to see why there wouldn't be a tax aspect to a double-contract situation. Ignoring the EBT for one minute... if we pretend that hasn't happened.... the whole point of the double-contract scenario was to avoid tax. I can't see why else they would have done it.

The point I was making is that, because the double-contracts suited everyone (the club, the players, the directors), it's going to be very difficult to get anyone to break ranks and admit to it.

[down-the-slope]

The more I read out of Ibrox and the comments of some of there 'fans' the more I see they just don't understand the pain is caused by themselves....shooting yourself in the foot is ......well stupid
Kerr says it is unreasonable to hold Rangers to account for Whyte's actions
"We need to be careful that we don't end up hurting ourselves at the same time'' Kerr (rangers assembley)

shotgun04.jpg

[The Falcon]

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

I am struggling to see why there wouldn't be a tax aspect to a double-contract situation. Ignoring the EBT for one minute... if we pretend that hasn't happened.... the whole point of the double-contract scenario was to avoid tax. I can't see why else they would have done it.

The point I was making is that, because the double-contracts suited everyone (the club, the players, the directors), it's going to be very difficult to get anyone to break ranks and admit to it.

Perhaps if all the players involved were to offer to meet the tax liabilities it would show their commitment to and genuine affection for The Rangers. After all, did none of them (or their agents) smell a rat when they were asked to sign not one, but two, contracts, with the first the only one being liable for UK tax.

If Rangers cant/wont pay then I dont see anything wrong with pursuing the players for the unpaid tax. After all (if) they did sign a contract (or two) then the income should have been declared on their tax returns somewhere.

[theonlywayisup]

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

The more I read out of Ibrox and the comments of some of there 'fans' the more I see they just don't understand the pain is caused by themselves....shooting yourself in the foot is ......well stupid
Kerr says it is unreasonable to hold Rangers to account for Whyte's actions
"We need to be careful that we don't end up hurting ourselves at the same time'' Kerr (rangers assembley)

shotgun04.jpg

I tell you, Rangers fans are revolting!

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Perhaps if all the players involved were to offer to meet the tax liabilities it would show their commitment to and genuine affection for The Rangers. After all, did none of them (or their agents) smell a rat when they were asked to sign not one, but two, contracts, with the first the only one being liable for UK tax.

If Rangers cant/wont pay then I dont see anything wrong with pursuing the players for the unpaid tax. After all (if) they did sign a contract (or two) then the income should have been declared on their tax returns somewhere.

The moon is made of (Charlie) Green cheese an all.

[HFC 0-7]

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

I am struggling to see why there wouldn't be a tax aspect to a double-contract situation. Ignoring the EBT for one minute... if we pretend that hasn't happened.... the whole point of the double-contract scenario was to avoid tax. I can't see why else they would have done it.

The point I was making is that, because the double-contracts suited everyone (the club, the players, the directors), it's going to be very difficult to get anyone to break ranks and admit to it.

As far as I am aware is that the SPL arent looking into the double contract from a tax point of view. They are looking at it from a breach of rules. I am sure the SPL must be informed of every payment made to the players, so if there are double contracts I am sure they will be punished based on breaking that particular rule not for avoiding tax.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

As far as I am aware is that the SPL arent looking into the double contract from a tax point of view. They are looking at it from a breach of rules. I am sure the SPL must be informed of every payment made to the players, so if there are double contracts I am sure they will be punished based on breaking that particular rule not for avoiding tax.

That is indeed why they are investigating it. But, again, since so many people would have benefitted from it (principally from a tax position), it will be difficult to prove...

[HFC 0-7]

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

That is indeed why they are investigating it. But, again, since so many people would have benefitted from it (principally from a tax position), it will be difficult to prove...

Would there not be a hole in their accounting though? They must have provided the SPL with one of the contracts. If thats the case would their not be a massive difference between their spending on salaries and what was provided to the SPL. For the big tax case, would they not have investigated the situation to find out if there were dual contracts and if one them were being witheld from the SPL. If they did investigate that and found that they were witholding information from the SPL then that, to me, would prove an element of guilt from Rangers side in that they were trying to keep it hush and knew it wasnt above board.

[Just Alf]

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

for those legally inclined...

http://web3dlaw.wordpress.com/2012/0...mainstreamers/

If you don't read anything else tonight, read this.... for once a really, really clear picture of the Huns current reality!

(it's long tho )

[Jack]

As I understand it these multi national type players, for want of a better description, have their deals contracted to a net figure - so that different tax regimes in different countries don't matter.

Multiple contracts do exist, for playing, image rights etc. but I'd imagine they must all be registered and have tax properly paid on them. This is where they seem to have a bit remiss in completing the trail. Oops, forgot to register that one and pay tax on it, 75 times :-(

[camhibby1]

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

Perhaps if all the players involved were to offer to meet the tax liabilities it would show their commitment to and genuine affection for The Rangers. After all, did none of them (or their agents) smell a rat when they were asked to sign not one, but two, contracts, with the first the only one being liable for UK tax.

If Rangers cant/wont pay then I dont see anything wrong with pursuing the players for the unpaid tax. After all (if) they did sign a contract (or two) then the income should have been declared on their tax returns somewhere.

I said weeks ago when discussing the complicity in all this of apologists for Rangers, that I do not believe players, even those who have taken a cut/deferment? in wages should be seen as victims in this - younger and academy players perhaps - but not full-time professionals who have agents. These guys were signing contracts for weekly wages equivalent to the average guy's yearly salary. No-one will convince me that players didn't know what was up - some might be thick but it's stretching the unintelligent/naivety bit just a tad.

[ScottB]

Interesting that based on the Rangers Tax Case blogs tweets, he / they seem to suspect that Green is nothing but a front for whatever Whyte's endgame is... Alex Thomson also seems to be hinting at D&P having backed the wrong horse over other potential buyers...

[ehf]

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18108973

Glorious. World slowly becoming a better place.

So they travel to away games but stay outside? What a Grade A bell-end!

[Brando7]

I'm wondering why the police not grabbed Craig White for tax fraud yet? are they even looking into this?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I'm wondering why the police not grabbed Craig White for tax fraud yet? are they even looking into this?

Simply paying taxes late is not seen as fraud, otherwise there would be millions more in our jails. In most cases, late payment of tax is a sign of a business in trouble, or bad management.

One would have to prove that there was genuine intent to defraud the Revenue.

[Bostonhibby]

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18108973

Glorious. World slowly becoming a better place.

Why don't we help them out? Scotland in the form of fans of the other clubs in Scotland could boycott them first? And isn't the national team England anyway for many of them?

[D7 Bohs]

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

Does there HAVE to be a tax implication for the double contracts issue still to be, ermmm, an issue?

Is it not a case of one contract being lodged with the SPL saying Player X will be paid Y and another contract being held in the Big Hoose saying Player X will be paid Y + Z.

Whether or not Z is liable for tax or not does not take away the fact that one document said Y while the other Y + Z

Or is this too simple an analysis?

No.

Or shouldn't be. Derry city were busted down a division here on the basis of ONE player on a double contract. Since Derry's peculiar situation means they play in the league of one jurisdiction and pay tax in another, it never came up AFAIK.

[Jim44]

Green was meeting Doncaster and Regan today. I heard a bit of a report saying that Green was heartened and optimistic at what was discussed. Is he only playing mind games, as reports yesterday suggested Regan was going to take a hard line with Green about the membership of his phantom consortium.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Green was meeting Doncaster and Regan today. I heard a bit of a report saying that Green was heartened and optimistic at what was discussed. Is he only playing mind games, as reports yesterday suggested Regan was going to take a hard line with Green about the membership of his phantom consortium.

This is how it went (I hope)

Green "Will Rangers be in the SPL next year?"

Doncaster "Nope"

Green "Will Rangers be booted out of the SFA?"

Regan "Yup"

Green "So I'll get the properties for next to nothing?"

Regan and Doncaster "Looks like it"

Green " Ya beauty....I am heartened and optmistic."

[CropleyWasGod]

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

No.

Or shouldn't be. Derry city were busted down a division here on the basis of ONE player on a double contract. Since Derry's peculiar situation means they play in the league of one jurisdiction and pay tax in another, it never came up AFAIK.

Interesting.

I would still wager, though, that the whole point of that situation was to avoid tax.

[Brando7]

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

Simply paying taxes late is not seen as fraud, otherwise there would be millions more in our jails. In most cases, late payment of tax is a sign of a business in trouble, or bad management.

One would have to prove that there was genuine intent to defraud the Revenue.

But he not planning to pay it tho is he, well not the full ammount anyway I would call that tax evasion

So murray will be crapping it then come the big tax case?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

But he not planning to pay it tho is he, well not the full ammount anyway I would call that tax evasion

So murray will be crapping it then come the big tax case?

In Whyte's case, you would have to prove that he never intended to pay it, ever. Even at that, it would be RFC who got done initially. To me, it is just a case of a business in severe difficulties. The Revenue are always one of the first creditors to get bumped.

SDM's case is a bit less clear-cut to me. I am sure he would hide behind the defence that he was acting on advice received. To be fair, a lot of companies were taking that same line at the time... it's "unfortunate" for them that HMRC didn't agree with their interpretation of the law.

However, HMRC might press charges to make an example of him... but it would, again, be difficult to prove "wilful" fraud.

[grunt]

more interesting stuff:

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...nsfer-embargo/

especially like this bit:

I may have missed it, but I have seen little if any apology for the non-payment of £13 million in tax, nor for the fact that HMRC will not see much, if any of that, whilst at the same time there is no chance of anything from the Big Tax Case being paid. Nobody has yet explained to me how Rangers did not benefit from the £13 million. There was over £3 million in Rangers bank when Duff & Phelps moved in. Presumably that was the balance of the money left, after the rest had gone paying the bills, including wages of players that Rangers would not otherwise have been able to afford to keep!

This is such a clear-cut case of taking an unfair advantage, as described by Neil Doncaster, that I cannot see why the SPL has not acted to withhold prize money. After all, the SPL proceeded against Hearts under the utmost good faith rule for being, allegedly, one day late. Here, by use of money which was due to HMRC, Rangers maintained their place in the league, to the point where the 10-point penalty has proved meaningless. Almost every team in the SPL below Rangers should be one step up the prize money ladder. Why is no one mentioning this?

[down-the-slope]

i do hope there will be some SFA comings and goings at Hampden tomorrow - pleading owners / protesting morons etc will add to the afternoon entertainment

[grunt]

This bit was interesting too. A slip of the tongue?

Rangers - Sandy Jardine, spokesman for the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund, added: “Rangers supporters will be shocked and bitterly disappointed by this decision and will find it hard to take that the club has been so heavily punished for the actions of individuals.”

Comment - Ah. Now this is an interesting comment. Sandy Jardine says that fans will find it hard to take it that the club is being punished for the actions of “individuals”. This is the official Rangers website, so I suspect an argument that he had been misquoted or take out of context would not work. Is this the only acknowledgement so far by Rangers that there were more people to blame than Mr Whyte? Maybe someone will ask Mr Jardine to whom he is referring.

[TrickyNicky]

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

If you don't read anything else tonight, read this.... for once a really, really clear picture of the Huns current reality!

(it's long tho )

Here are some probable outcomes - quoted from Web.3D.Law


Where does this leave RFC (IA)? Here is what I see as the potential outcomes in no particular order…


Option 1 – Sell assets, namely players raising cash for a CVA pot. Ticketus and HMRC will have to agree.. Right now, either of them could block a CVA on the 75% Creditors rule. Ticketus has about a £26M claim as an unsecured creditor. HMRC has about a £42 claim. (25M +9M PAYE +4M VAT on Ticketus deal, and 4M “wee tax case”). As the judgement from the ‘big tax case’ is not in yet, I’ll leave that out. I still see HMRC and Ticketus having to agree to any CVA and the only way they will agree is for a fire sale of all Rangers assets to raise the value of the CVA pot.
Rangers stay in the SPL, and with the transfer embargo in place, have to field a team of youngsters for a season.

Option 2: Rangers sell Ibrox and all the other fixed assets to keep the players. I know this is an unlikely outcome. While Ally’s rallying cry “we don’t do walking away” made for rallying the troops, when a players livelihood is on the line, it will be hard pressed not to walk away to the bank to collect a pay check from a club on much stronger foundations. Without any working capital and no legal right to buy players, the only way RFC can stay competitive is to sell their fixed assets – Ibrox, Murray Park, and the two car parks. Take the proceeds from the asset sale and stick it in the CVA pot. Hope all the unsecured creditors agree.
Rent Ibrox back from its new owners. Or play in Hampden and rent it from the SFA. Ouch. That would be a sore one. All the big name players go, with the exception of people like Lee McCulloch and one or two of the rising stars like Andy Little. This gives the club some working capital. They can’t rely on Ticket sales to raise funds anymore because of the Ticketusdeal and the season ticket deals.

Option 3: The big tax case comes back against Rangers and holds up the levy already placed on Rangers. HMRC moves for liquidation. All hell breaks loose and all the assets are sold off – players and fixed and creditors repaid pennies on the pound. Rangers are killed off by two decades of financial mismanagement. The blame lies at Sir David Murray’s door as much as it is Craig Whyte’s.

Option 4: This is the ‘NewCo’ option and would involve literally start all over again by applying to get back into the SFA. Sell all players and sell all fixed assets. A possibility would be to rent Ibrox and Murray Park back from its new owners. The transfer embargo has ensured those 40 players on RFC rosters have a place to play. It just means that they can’t buy anyone for 12 months over the age of 18.
The competence of the panel and the reasoning behind the decision has now been explained. Let’s say we see, either an oldco RFC in the SPL next season, or a “NewCo” RFC next year.
Under the ‘oldco’ outcome, we will see a club with no stadium, no players, under an effective transfer embargo, and either playing at Ibrox rented from its new owners or Hampden, if Ibrox is sold off to developers. It will likely have been punished a further points reduction for still being in administration. It will likely be a shell club, well shy of its former glory. It will be Rangers though, and that will be what a lot of the fans will want to see.

Under the ‘newco’ option, it will not be Rangers and that will be a sore pill to take for a lot of supporters.

All of this gets settled and then the double contract announcement comes home to roost. The former RFC as a “newco” can’t be punished anymore, because it is, well new. The “oldco” can be. I think it will be appropriate and likely that the football community start to think of the totality of Craig Whyte’s actions as misdemeanours. If the double contract judgement comes back against Rangers, it will likely be referred to as a series of felonies – systematic long-term cheating and we will have to have a serious of conversations about how to deal with this. Do we invalidate all of the results over a year when EBTs and double contracts were in use? If that’s the case, I think we need to look at how much money clubs lost out on after amending all of the tainted results. Should compensatory damages be paid to all of those clubs that lost out on a second, 3^rd or 4^th place finish, because of a financially doped team? How much did clubs lose out on from not being able to play in Europe? What would be the difference in the amount each club would have received from the Commercial Fund? What would attendance have been if the playing field had been levelled? There will be a lot of questions to be answered. However, you and I will get there together.

[TrickyNicky]

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

This bit was interesting too. A slip of the tongue?

Rangers - Sandy Jardine, spokesman for the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund, added: “Rangers supporters will be shocked and bitterly disappointed by this decision and will find it hard to take that the club has been so heavily punished for the actions of individuals.”

Comment - Ah. Now this is an interesting comment. Sandy Jardine says that fans will find it hard to take it that the club is being punished for the actions of “individuals”. This is the official Rangers website, so I suspect an argument that he had been misquoted or take out of context would not work. Is this the only acknowledgement so far by Rangers that there were more people to blame than Mr Whyte? Maybe someone will ask Mr Jardine to whom he is referring.

Maybe it was the " NEDS " - (Non Executive Directors) Messieurs Greig and Mclelland.