Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[blindsummit]

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

Anyone know how they managed to have their Wiki page reinstated to make it look like Sevco 2012 = RFC 1872 The filth also still have the five stars above their Sevco badge according to the training clip I saw at Sevco Park. How is that allowed? They have no history to claim.

Indeed. The fix is well in.

Phoenix is the word that springs to mind again and again. If only someone with legal standing was willing to get them in court on this one. A creditor perhaps. It's amazed me how supine the creditors have been. If I was one of them and saw this phoenixism I would be lawyering up and getting sevco in court.

Of course if our so called governing body in the SFA, told them they couldn't do it, then that would help. Oh, I forgot, their purpose seems to be to fellate anything with the name 'rangers' attached. Silly me for thinking they might do the right thing.....

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Indeed. The fix is well in.

Phoenix is the word that springs to mind again and again. If only someone with legal standing was willing to get them in court on this one. A creditor perhaps. It's amazed me how supine the creditors have been. If I was one of them and saw this phoenixism I would be lawyering up and getting sevco in court.

Of course if our so called governing body in the SFA, told them they couldn't do it, then that would help. Oh, I forgot, their purpose seems to be to fellate anything with the name 'rangers' attached. Silly me for thinking they might do the right thing.....

On what grounds, though? There is nothing illegal in the way that has happened. It's a fairly common business occurrence. That might not sit well morally, but as the law stands there's nothing wrong with it. That's particularly true in tthis case where the owners and directors of the two companies are completely different.

[Hibs Class]

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

On what grounds, though? There is nothing illegal in the way that has happened. It's a fairly common business occurrence. That might not sit well morally, but as the law stands there's nothing wrong with it. That's particularly true in tthis case where the owners and directors of the two companies are completely different.

I don't think they are completely different - I can see a fair number of similarities.

[lucky]

Kevin Kyle has now signed up for a year with sevco

[blindsummit]

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

On what grounds, though? There is nothing illegal in the way that has happened. It's a fairly common business occurrence. That might not sit well morally, but as the law stands there's nothing wrong with it. That's particularly true in tthis case where the owners and directors of the two companies are completely different.

CWG will you please stop applying logic and reason onto my ill-informed rants .

[CropleyWasGod]

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

CWG will you please stop applying logic and reason onto my ill-informed rants .

I'm a hoot at parties.

[Famous5forever]

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

On what grounds, though? There is nothing illegal in the way that has happened. It's a fairly common business occurrence. That might not sit well morally, but as the law stands there's nothing wrong with it. That's particularly true in tthis case where the owners and directors of the two companies are completely different.

This is the problem sevco seem to know what they are doing and as long as there are none of the directors of oldco involved with newco then there is no Phoenix

[blindsummit]

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

I'm a hoot at parties.

I only get invited to them now if I sign in blood not to talk about Rangers, as my hockey loving Canadian pals are thoroughly sick of the subject now! So I just bore them with cosmology, multiverse theory and how we are all really living in a virtual universe. Serves them right

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I only get invited to them now if I sign in blood not to talk about Rangers, as my hockey loving Canadian pals are thoroughly sick of the subject now! So I just bore them with cosmology, multiverse theory and how we are all really living in a virtual universe. Serves them right

Which universe do Hibs win the SC in? Or is that beyond any cosmological reason?

[MrSmith]

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

Which universe do Hibs win the SC in? Or is that beyond any cosmological reason?

Well deep thought enabled me to answer this: 42

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Well deep thought enabled me to answer this: 42

This thread really does have it all.

Now that we have the meaning of life, is it time to close it?

[blindsummit]

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

Which universe do Hibs win the SC in? Or is that beyond any cosmological reason?

it's probably the same one where I'm a tall, god like, rich, talented rock star surrounded by a bevvie of gorgeous swimwear models. And wherever that is, it's long long way from this universe........

[VickMackie]

What would happen if the trust asked for their money back and the recipients paid it?

I know that won't happen but would that money just sit around waiting for people to request loans from it?

Also, on dodds. If people had to request funds in the form of a loan them how could he not have known it was a loan?

[The Falcon]

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

On what grounds, though? There is nothing illegal in the way that has happened. It's a fairly common business occurrence. That might not sit well morally, but as the law stands there's nothing wrong with it. That's particularly true in tthis case where the owners and directors of the two companies are completely different.

I think this is what gets a lot of folk CWG in that highly paid footballers evade paying taxes with apparent impunity and millionaires like Murray comes out with nonsense like "As the law stands, it is the right of every taxpayer to minimise his tax liability". I am sure Bob Mugabe is operating "as the law stands"

If a guy paints an elderly neighbours house for £20 he is expected to pay tax on it, yet millionaires are not? Not only do they not pay they think its their "right" not to pay.


And Rangers continue on more or less as before.

[Caversham Green]

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

What would happen if the trust asked for their money back and the recipients paid it?

I know that won't happen but would that money just sit around waiting for people to request loans from it?

Also, on dodds. If people had to request funds in the form of a loan them how could he not have known it was a loan?

That was something that crossed my mind too. According to Murray the trust has a massive debtor asset which is recoverable, no liabilities and the purpose of its existence has gone. In those circumstances I can only imagine that it would have to return the cash to RFC (IA) as it is collected.

I wonder when he's due to repay his £6.3m loan.

[LeighLoyal]

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

That was something that crossed my mind too. According to Murray the trust has a massive debtor asset which is recoverable, no liabilities and the purpose of its existence has gone. In those circumstances I can only imagine that it would have to return the cash to RFC (IA) as it is collected.

I wonder when he's due to repay his £6.3m loan.

This is a man whose business empire, including Rangers FC 1872-2012 (RIP) was built on £700m worth of chummy loans from Bank Of Scotland, including the acquisition of Rangers in 1988. Too bad his easy money clique were cleaned out by the Halifax merger or he could have written another IOU. I hope he is jailed.

[The Falcon]

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

What would happen if the trust asked for their money back and the recipients paid it?

I know that won't happen but would that money just sit around waiting for people to request loans from it?

Also, on dodds. If people had to request funds in the form of a loan them how could he not have known it was a loan?

Murray's statement also contained the following line;

"The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates."

If this is correct Rangers paid £47.65 into a scheme that loaned money to people, with interest, but none of this is either repayable or recoverable by Rangers. Was the £47.65m therefore a "gift" to the scheme? There are surely tax and financial regulatory issues involved in just "giving" that sum of money away, particularly to a commercial concern.

I am not up on the finer points of this but has Murray's statement helped Rangers at all or made it worse? Either Dodds and Boumsong are lying or Murray is. Time for Plodd I think.

[Kaiser1962]

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

What would happen if the trust asked for their money back and the recipients paid it?

I know that won't happen but would that money just sit around waiting for people to request loans from it?

Also, on dodds. If people had to request funds in the form of a loan them how could he not have known it was a loan?

Dodds, in the Herald article on 27th May was pretty unequivocal;

"The full story is that David Murray came to me and asked if I would receive a payment that was due to me, after tax, through the EBT trust. And I said that I would. It was money that was owing to me when I had six months left on my contract and I moved to Dundee United. After the tax was deducted, that money was put in the trust fund."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...n-tax.17704904

[Billy Whizz]

The crowd for the game last night against East Fife was given as just over 38,000. Everyone on Radio Scotland last night disputed that as they thought it was a full house of around 50,000.
I wonder if The Rangers are starting off how the old Rangers ended. I hope East Fife get their full share of this!

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Murray's statement also contained the following line;

"The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates."

If this is correct Rangers paid £47.65 into a scheme that loaned money to people, with interest, but none of this is either repayable or recoverable by Rangers. Was the £47.65m therefore a "gift" to the scheme? There are surely tax and financial regulatory issues involved in just "giving" that sum of money away, particularly to a commercial concern.

I am not up on the finer points of this but has Murray's statement helped Rangers at all or made it worse? Either Dodds and Boumsong are lying or Murray is. Time for Plodd I think.

I can't see any problem with this at all. Individuals and businesses often pay money into trusts, for a variety of reasons.

[Caversham Green]

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

I can't see any problem with this at all. Individuals and businesses often pay money into trusts, for a variety of reasons.

But what happens when the trust has an excess of liquid assets and the reason it was set up no longer exists? That's what Murray is claiming has happened here.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

But what happens when the trust has an excess of liquid assets and the reason it was set up no longer exists? That's what Murray is claiming has happened here.

Would that not be governed by the terms of the Trust? Into areas here that I'm not very good at, so I don't know.....

[Caversham Green]

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

Would that not be governed by the terms of the Trust? Into areas here that I'm not very good at, so I don't know.....

It was a rhetorical question really, but you're right. If there really was a repayment schedule as Murray claims I would guess that the cash would eventually have to be returned to the club (or its successor?). I suspect there's a bit of truth economy in Minty's statement though.

[StevieC]

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

It was a rhetorical question really, but you're right. If there really was a repayment schedule as Murray claims I would guess that the cash would eventually have to be returned to the club (or its successor?). I suspect there's a bit of truth economy in Minty's statement though.

So when BDO get started they can approach Dodds for the return of the £190k loan, as per the loan agreement, so it can be put into the pot for the creditors.

Let's see Mr Dodds squirm his way out of that one.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

It was a rhetorical question really, but you're right. If there really was a repayment schedule as Murray claims I would guess that the cash would eventually have to be returned to the club (or its successor?). I suspect there's a bit of truth economy in Minty's statement though.

Would it, though? Once the club had made its payments into the Trust, would that not be the end of it for them? I know that, again, this would depend on the Trust set-up... but, given that that the payments were expensed rather than set up as a debtor, it suggests that RFC didn't expect them back.

I am, of course, assuming that the RFC auditors did their job properly on this bit....

[CropleyWasGod]

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

So when BDO get started they can approach Dodds for the return of the £190k loan, as per the loan agreement, so it can be put into the pot for the creditors.

Let's see Mr Dodds squirm his way out of that one.

That's what Cav and I are debating, Stevie.

For me, that's not RFC's money. The "loan" was from the Trust. It's what happens to the Trust funds that we're not sure about.

Don't tell Dodds that, though... let him squirm...

[Caversham Green]

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

Would it, though? Once the club had made its payments into the Trust, would that not be the end of it for them? I know that, again, this would depend on the Trust set-up... but, given that that the payments were expensed rather than set up as a debtor, it suggests that RFC didn't expect them back.

I am, of course, assuming that the RFC auditors did their job properly on this bit....

The club wouldn't expect the cash back in the normal course of events so, as a going concern it would treat them as an expense and the recovery when the EBT scheme came to an end as windfall income. If the EBT was genuinely operating as a lender I would expect it to recycle recovered loans as new employee requirements arose. Writing the loans off now would be unfair to all those employees who have already repaid their loans (pause for laughter to die down).

All that isn't really borne out by the apparent facts though, and that suggests to me that Murray is talking nonsense.

Edit: Just to clarify in the light of StevieC's post, I don't think BDO will be able to pursue the employees, I'm just examining the holes in Murray's claims.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

The club wouldn't expect the cash back in the normal course of events so, as a going concern it would treat them as an expense and the recovery when the EBT scheme came to an end as windfall income. If the EBT was genuinely operating as a lender I would expect it to recycle recovered loans as new employee requirements arose. Writing the loans off now would be unfair to all those employees who have already repaid their loans (pause for laughter to die down).

All that isn't really borne out by the apparent facts though, and that suggests to me that Murray is talking nonsense.

Do we know who the Trustees are?

[greenginger]

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

Would it, though? Once the club had made its payments into the Trust, would that not be the end of it for them? I know that, again, this would depend on the Trust set-up... but, given that that the payments were expensed rather than set up as a debtor, it suggests that RFC didn't expect them back.

I am, of course, assuming that the RFC auditors did their job properly on this bit....

Trust Deeds are usually recorded in Books of Council and Session and are available for public inspection.

[Caversham Green]

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

Do we know who the Trustees are?

No, but I'm sure they were independent and didn't pay up Billy Dodds contract under instruction from RFC - that would be illegal. They simply loaned him an amount that happened to be the the same as he would have got on severance and he will no doubt repay it all plus interest in the fullness of time.