Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Kato]

[Sir David Gray]

I'm seriously struggling with the concept of a club that's been in existence for around 6 months celebrating their 140th annivesary.

Really baffling.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I'm seriously struggling with the concept of a club that's been in existence for around 6 months celebrating their 140th annivesary.

Really baffling.

It's an extension of that concept, born in Gorgie, that we lovingly call Yamanomics. For once, the imitation is in reverse.....we can call it Hunanomics.

[hibs0666]

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

Notice that Octopus EIS tranche which involved Rangers ticket sales has matured and they have indicated a further payment may follow after outstanding court action

What do you mean by that mate?

[Jim44]

The 'The Rangers' bandwagon gains momentum this morning with Smith supporting the proposed boycott and waxing lyrical about the injustice against his beloved club. Gough adds to it by demanding that The Rangers should be catapulted back to the top league in hurried reconstruction.

[bathhibby]

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

It was actually £2.3m for Ibrox, the Car Park and the Training ground. The rest was for player registrations and any other assets.

I'm absolutely stumped how the figure has not been challenged

Apparently the Liquidator is considering challenging the sale in the Court of Sessions on the Grounds that Duff & Phelps did not get a fair price for the Creditors - good luck

[lapsedhibee]

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

The 'The Rangers' bandwagon gains momentum this morning with Smith supporting the proposed boycott and waxing lyrical about the injustice against his beloved club. Gough adds to it by demanding that The Rangers should be catapulted back to the top league in hurried reconstruction.

I now dislike media hun apologists more even than the bigoted, knuckle-dragging peepul who belt out ditties about the pope. At least the peepul are largely confined to football grounds, lodges, and so on. You can't so easily isolate yourself from Smith, Gough, Traynor, Young, Dodds and the like. They're like a persistent disease, being given oxygen by way of BBC airtime and column inches in the joke press. Utterly disgusting.

[Mr White]

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

Apparently the Liquidator is considering challenging the sale in the Court of Sessions on the Grounds that Duff & Phelps did not get a fair price for the Creditors - good luck

Presumably this action would be raised against duff and phelps liability insurance rather than against chuckles and his mysterious consortium though?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Presumably this action would be raised against duff and phelps liability insurance rather than against chuckles and his mysterious consortium though?

That's a fair assumption.

Although what D&P'S insurers might have to say about their future premiums.......

And that's before their professional regulators get involved......

[greenginger]

I was looking at the " pledges " to chuckie Greens AIM share launch and Cazenove Capital Management Fund is in for 2,450,000 shares,4.25%.
Cazenove are part of Old Mutual, one of the pillars of sound money, and manage MY pension FFS. Did Chuckie not pay a visit to Northern Ireland to " Drum " up support for the Newco last summer. I wonder how much UDA/UVF or what ever they call themselves these days, cash was also pledged.

I wonder if Cazenove and the other respectable investors know who their fellow share holders are, and if they will enjoy sitting next to Mad Dog and the Shankhill Butchers at Sevco AGM.

I think they should be told !
Checked my pension documents. it is Skandia who do the managing and are part of Old Mutual. Casenove provide the platform and manage several of the funds.
I don't have anything in the fund that is buying into Sevco. Pheww !

[s.a.m]

Craig Whyte's lawyers drop court action against ex-Rangers owner
STV 7 December 2012 12:06 GMT

FacebookTweetGoogle

Craig Whyte: Bought 85% stake in Rangers for £1 in May 2011.SNS Group
<a href="http://oas.stv.tv/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/local.stv.tv/glasgow/204658-craig-whytes-lawyers-drop-court-action-against-ex-rangers-owner/11354882921@Frame1" target="_blank"> <img src="http://oas.stv.tv/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/local.stv.tv/glasgow/204658-craig-whytes-lawyers-drop-court-action-against-ex-rangers-owner/11354882921@Frame1" alt="" /> </a>

The lawyers for former Rangers owner Craig Whyte’s have dropped legal action against him.
Mr Whyte, who bought an 85% stake in the Ibrox club from Sir David Murray for £1 last May, had instructed Bannatyne Kirkwood France and Co to sue the BBC last November.
He had instructed the firm in an attempt to sue the corporation over a documentary about him that it broadcast in 2011. The case against Mr Whyte was scheduled to call at Glasgow Sheriff Court this month.
However, on Friday the civil office confirmed that Bannatyne Kirkwood France had requested in advance that the case be dismissed.
It is believed the action was dropped by the lawyers after they reached an out-of-court settlement with Mr Whyte.
The Glasgow-firm had been instructed to begin proceedings against BBC Scotland over the documentary, Rangers: The Inside Story, which was shown last October. The programme revealed Mr Whyte had previously been banned from being a director for seven years in 2000.
No action was formally raised in the Court of Session in Edinburgh against the corporation, although a writ was served on the BBC in February this year.
After the documentary was screened, the Ibrox club withdrew from cooperating with the BBC, accusing those behind the programme of "muck-raking". Mr Whyte initially instructed London defamation law specialists Carter Ruck to commence immediate proceedings against the corporation, but it was not able to represent him in Scotland.
In February, Rangers were plunged into administration with debts of up to £124m. Insolvency firm Duff and Phelps was appointed but was unable to secure the future of The Rangers Football Club plc through a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) in June, before the club’s assets were sold to a newco owned by a consortium led by Charles Green in a £5.5m deal.
The oldco has been placed into liquidation by neutral insolvency firm BDO, which was appointed at the insistence of the company’s largest creditor, HM Revenue and Customs.
In October this year, Mr Whyte gave the BBC an exclusive interview about his reign at Ibrox. He claimed that Duff and Phelps knew about his use of a £27m deal with Ticketus for season ticket sales to effectively fund his takeover and wipe out the club’s £18m Lloyds Banking Group debt. The administrators have denied this repeatedly, while they are also involved in legal action against Mr Whyte and his former lawyers Collyer Bristow in England.
Earlier this year Harper Macleod, the law firm Mr Whyte instructed in divorce proceedings from his estranged wife Kim, lodged a bankruptcy petition against him at Inverness Sheriff Court over non-payment of a bill. However, the petition was withdrawn after a deal was reached out of court

[Seveno]

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

That's a fair assumption.

Although what D&P'S insurers might have to say about their future premiums.......

And that's before their professional regulators get involved......

As I am sure you are aware CWG, their Professional Indemnity Insurance will excludes Deliberate Acts i.e. where they knowingly carry out an action which they know is wrong.

Not that I am suggesting that this could have been the case.

[LeighLoyal]

I see Bradford were booted from the FA cup for fielding one inelligible player vs Brentford. The huns had whole teams of inelligible players for years. Nimmo, do your job!

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

No doubt they left that workings out for this, to their wages department.


QUOTE=FalkirkHibee;3439472]I'm seriously
struggling with the concept of a club that's been in existence for around 6 months celebrating their 140th annivesary.

Really baffling.[/QUOTE]

[ballengeich]

http://thedemiseofrangersinpictures.....html?spref=tw

It does seem quite believable that Green is fronting for Ticketus.

[PatHead]

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

What do you mean by that mate?

EIS schemes are typically sold in tranches or lots. They will invest in around 6-12 new companies who are either on the Aim stockmarket or hope to get on it. These are high risk investments and at the end of the term it is likely some of these companies will have failed. The hope is that the "survivors" make more than thr losers. It is a high risk investment but theere are very good tax breaks.

This scheme has now finished and what normally happens is the provider will total up the winners and losers then hand out any value left to the policyholders or ask if they wish to reinvest. This time they have done this with a note saying they hope to get more once the lawsuit is over.

[PatHead]

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

http://thedemiseofrangersinpictures.....html?spref=tw

It does seem quite believable that Green is fronting for Ticketus.

The problem with this article is a number of financial companies not shown on this list will have business relationships with Octopus.

[YehButNoBut]

They just posted this image on their Facebook page, they really make you boke.

Don't they know they have won eff all.


‎54 Titles - We're Still Going Strong.

[banchoryhibs]

Before I get peppered with accusations of spending my weekends at castle grayskull, or God forbid being a yam fud I'm just as unhappy about this as the next person but perhaps this is simply the stupidest thing that Chuckie could have done.

Yes, the financial company has gone bust but the SFA's QC confirmed that it was appropriate for the side letter / dual contract enquiry to continue as the "club" remained but with a different owner - just as many clubs change ownership from time to time. How many different companies have owned Hibs for example?

If you've read the Rangers Tax Case ruling (I have) the two judges who came down on Ranger's side did so on a very narrow interpretation of tax law set by a case that was not on all fours with the Rangers case. They did not say that there were no dual contracts but said that some were indeed taxable as earnings but the rest were not. Dr Heidi Poon, on the other hand, made it quite clear that there were dual contracts and indeed they were all earnings. All three agreed that there were some dual contracts.

Unlike most criminal not guilty verdicts tax court verdicts are very frequently appealed and the matter not decided until the argument has gone through various courts ending at the Supreme Court. They are certainly "not guilty" yet as HMRC has made it public that they will appeal.

Now for Chuckie's stupidity. He cannot claim that The Rangers can't be punished for the sins of the predecessor company as he is trumpeting it far and wide that "The Rangers" is actually "Rangers". The punishment will stick with the Club.

Given the uncertainty of the tax case - not uncertain at all if you read Poon's damning opinion, they can't say "Not guilty" "Not guilty" but they have to explain themselves. Now Mr Red did not do a very good job of this at the Tax Tribunal.

To quote Lord Hoffman,"Something may be real for one purpose but not for another."

Don't give up yet

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Before I get peppered with accusations of spending my weekends at castle grayskull, or God forbid being a yam fud I'm just as unhappy about this as the next person but perhaps this is simply the stupidest thing that Chuckie could have done.

Yes, the financial company has gone bust but the SFA's QC confirmed that it was appropriate for the side letter / dual contract enquiry to continue as the "club" remained but with a different owner - just as many clubs change ownership from time to time. How many different companies have owned Hibs for example?

If you've read the Rangers Tax Case ruling (I have) the two judges who came down on Ranger's side did so on a very narrow interpretation of tax law set by a case that was not on all fours with the Rangers case. They did not say that there were no dual contracts but said that some were indeed taxable as earnings but the rest were not. Dr Heidi Poon, on the other hand, made it quite clear that there were dual contracts and indeed they were all earnings. All three agreed that there were some dual contracts.

Unlike most criminal not guilty verdicts tax court verdicts are very frequently appealed and the matter not decided until the argument has gone through various courts ending at the Supreme Court. They are certainly "not guilty" yet as HMRC has made it public that they will appeal.

Now for Chuckie's stupidity. He cannot claim that The Rangers can't be punished for the sins of the predecessor company as he is trumpeting it far and wide that "The Rangers" is actually "Rangers". The punishment will stick with the Club.

Given the uncertainty of the tax case - not uncertain at all if you read Poon's damning opinion, they can't say "Not guilty" "Not guilty" but they have to explain themselves. Now Mr Red did not do a very good job of this at the Tax Tribunal.

To quote Lord Hoffman,"Something may be real for one purpose but not for another."

Don't give up yet

I would echo most of what you say, with one slight disagreement.

This is not about "guilty" or "not guilty". It is about the amount of the assessments that HMRC issued to RFC. What the media have spectacularly missed is the fact that those assessments were reduced, not removed. As you say, there were some instances where they were found to have paid remuneration that should have been taxed. As a result, RFC still have some liability to HMRC.

HMRC's appeal is not to make them "guilty" again, but to have the assessments reinstated at their original level.

[johnbc70]

Their share prospectus is online now, any finance experts had a look to see if it is pure fantasy? www.rangersshareoffer.com

[StevieC]

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

I would echo most of what you say, with one slight disagreement.

This is not about "guilty" or "not guilty". It is about the amount of the assessments that HMRC issued to RFC. What the media have spectacularly missed is the fact that those assessments were reduced, not removed. As you say, there were some instances where they were found to have paid remuneration that should have been taxed. As a result, RFC still have some liability to HMRC.

HMRC's appeal is not to make them "guilty" again, but to have the assessments reinstated at their original level.

Is there a list of which assessments were ruled in favour of HMRC? There were a few "pay-off" payments to people that were not players, and I'm wondering if these are the ones that were in HMRC's favour?
If there was a single player that was deemed taxable then I can't understand why it's not all of them?

[Caversham Green]

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

Before I get peppered with accusations of spending my weekends at castle grayskull, or God forbid being a yam fud I'm just as unhappy about this as the next person but perhaps this is simply the stupidest thing that Chuckie could have done.

Yes, the financial company has gone bust but the SFA's QC confirmed that it was appropriate for the side letter / dual contract enquiry to continue as the "club" remained but with a different owner - just as many clubs change ownership from time to time. How many different companies have owned Hibs for example?

If you've read the Rangers Tax Case ruling (I have) the two judges who came down on Ranger's side did so on a very narrow interpretation of tax law set by a case that was not on all fours with the Rangers case. They did not say that there were no dual contracts but said that some were indeed taxable as earnings but the rest were not. Dr Heidi Poon, on the other hand, made it quite clear that there were dual contracts and indeed they were all earnings. All three agreed that there were some dual contracts.

Unlike most criminal not guilty verdicts tax court verdicts are very frequently appealed and the matter not decided until the argument has gone through various courts ending at the Supreme Court. They are certainly "not guilty" yet as HMRC has made it public that they will appeal.

Now for Chuckie's stupidity. He cannot claim that The Rangers can't be punished for the sins of the predecessor company as he is trumpeting it far and wide that "The Rangers" is actually "Rangers". The punishment will stick with the Club.

Given the uncertainty of the tax case - not uncertain at all if you read Poon's damning opinion, they can't say "Not guilty" "Not guilty" but they have to explain themselves. Now Mr Red did not do a very good job of this at the Tax Tribunal.

To quote Lord Hoffman,"Something may be real for one purpose but not for another."

Don't give up yet

I agree with the gist of this, but as CWG says it's really a question of level of guilt rather than guilty or not guilty - we should try to make that clear as much as we can.

The point I want to make is about the bit in bold though. It really boils down to the philosophical question of what constitutes a club. As far as the law goes, the company that is now in liquidation was the club - that's the self-same law that they depended on to escape at least £55m worth of debt and the one that means they won't be liable for the final findings of the FTTT and HMRC's appeal. Comparing like with like, if you're talking about the defunct company owning Rangers rather than being Rangers, no other company has owned Hibs since 1903 and prior to that they were just incorporated under other legislation - they changed their legal structure in common with a large number of clubs around the UK at that time - probably a result of the 'modernisation' of company law in 1888.

In the eyes of the law Sevco Rangers are a brand new club - they would still owe all that money if they weren't and they must not be allowed to have it both ways.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Is there a list of which assessments were ruled in favour of HMRC? There were a few "pay-off" payments to people that were not players, and I'm wondering if these are the ones that were in HMRC's favour?
If there was a single player that was deemed taxable then I can't understand why it's not all of them?

You won't get such a list, unfortunately, due to HMRC's confidentiality duties. The assessments themselves are done year-by-year, rather than case-by-case, so they wouldn't of themselves be helpful.

The other problem is that the judgement was anonymised.... everybody involved was given a pseudonym, again for reasons of confidentiality. It's therefore difficult to be sure of which situations were deemed as loans and which not. That said, a few (on here and elsewhere) have made pretty good stabs at identification.... the general feeling is that some players were accepted (by both sides) to have received remuneration. (PTS is your bloodhound on this one... he'll be along in a minute....)

On your last point, one of the reasons that the case took so long was because every individual situation had to be reviewed by the FTTT. It seems, therefore, that not every case was the same..... hence the different conclusions.

[BarneyK]

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

I agree with the gist of this, but as CWG says it's really a question of level of guilt rather than guilty or not guilty - we should try to make that clear as much as we can.

The point I want to make is about the bit in bold though. It really boils down to the philosophical question of what constitutes a club. As far as the law goes, the company that is now in liquidation was the club - that's the self-same law that they depended on to escape at least £55m worth of debt and the one that means they won't be liable for the final findings of the FTTT and HMRC's appeal. Comparing like with like, if you're talking about the defunct company owning Rangers rather than being Rangers, no other company has owned Hibs since 1903 and prior to that they were just incorporated under other legislation - they changed their legal structure in common with a large number of clubs around the UK at that time - probably a result of the 'modernisation' of company law in 1888.

In the eyes of the law Sevco Rangers are a brand new club - they would still owe all that money if they weren't and they must not be allowed to have it both ways.

Absolutely. Forget any of this they bought the history nonsense. How can you buy a history of another club? They bought the right to use the name. They bought the assets. That's it. You can't buy another team's history. Absolutely ludicrous. As you say, if it's the same club then they pay back that historical debt. Simple as that.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Absolutely. Forget any of this they bought the history nonsense. How can you buy a history of another club? They bought the right to use the name. They bought the assets. That's it. You can't buy another team's history. Absolutely ludicrous. As you say, if it's the same club then they pay back that historical debt. Simple as that.

Being pedantic, one can buy another club's history. Had they bought the shares of OldCo, that history would have come with it.... but that history would also have included all of the liabilities.

As you say, though, only the assets were transferred.

[hibs0666]

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

Absolutely. Forget any of this they bought the history nonsense. How can you buy a history of another club? They bought the right to use the name. They bought the assets. That's it. You can't buy another team's history. Absolutely ludicrous. As you say, if it's the same club then they pay back that historical debt. Simple as that.

That's the legal argument. However a club exists in the heart of its support and there is no doubt that this is the same football team as far as they are concerned. It will be the same if the yams went under, and would be the same with Hibs too.

[BarneyK]

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

Being pedantic, one can buy another club's history. Had they bought the shares of OldCo, that history would have come with it.... but that history would also have included all of the liabilities.

As you say, though, only the assets were transferred.

Indeed

[CropleyWasGod]

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

That's the legal argument. However a club exists in the heart of its support and there is no doubt that this is the same football team as far as they are concerned. It will be the same if the yams went under, and would be the same with Hibs too.

I am with this argument too. It's the clash between the law and emotion that has been one of the fascinations of the case for me. It's also one of the reasons why the argument about whether it's the same club will never be properly settled.

[greenginger]

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

Their share prospectus is online now, any finance experts had a look to see if it is pure fantasy? www.rangersshareoffer.com

They are having a right go at number crunching on the Sevco thread over on Kerrydale Street.

Some interesting numbers and facts coming out but I'll wait until the dust settles before trying to make heads or tails out of it.

Does look like Chuckie and co. are lining their pockets rather nicely.