Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[lapsedhibee]

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

Because they're thick gullible forelock tuggers who believe what they're told to believe by any voice which emanates from Ibroke.

Forelock a bit superfluous there.

[degenerated]

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

Forelock a bit superfluous there.

More like an Eddie Large perm or perhaps a mullet.

[DaveF]

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

My email address is banned from FollowFollow. Not sure why as I've never registered with them before.

Some ******nugget with a predilection for Hunular activity has written a complaint to the BBC regarding Jim Spence. Fellow FollowFollow fudknockers have congratulated him for his letter.

I simply sought to copy and paste quotes from Walter Smith, James Traynor, Richard Gough and Chuckles Green similarly saying what Jim Spence said.

Why are the Huns not taking them to task for their comments?

They'll do an email check. You should probably change your address from [email protected] then you might get in

[greenginger]

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/e...T9Z75GBGBXASQ1

Gremlins in the Exchange this morning ?

Rangers International drop 100% a fall of £ 48 Billion !


Error discovered and page taken down on Stock exchange site Pity!

[green glory]

For the experts. I'm assuming the figure at the bottom of the page is literally all they have?



image-404502684.jpg

[CropleyWasGod]

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

For the experts. I'm assuming the figure at the bottom of the page is literally all they have?



image-404502684.jpg

No, it's not. It's the amount of their share capital.

There's no indication from that Annual Return as to how much cash they have. That would come from the accounts.

[green glory]

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

No, it's not. It's the amount of their share capital.

There's no indication from that Annual Return as to how much cash they have. That would come from the accounts.

Ok cool. You might enjoy this rather more.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2013/B6.pdf

[matty_f]

Was there ever an outcome to the big tax case appeal appeal?

[JeMeSouviens]

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

Was there ever an outcome to the big tax case appeal appeal?

See link in previous post. The appeal has been considered and referred on to the Upper Tier Tribunal. It could have been referred back to the original FTT (the Huns requested that) but the judge rejects that approach based on a couple of things, that it would inevitably have led to a further appeal and that the FTT stuffed up:

The majority simply failed in its duty to make findings from
disputed evidence. One was left with the impression that,
since HMRC did not rely on an
allegation of sham, the majority took every document at face value and did not ask itself
what was the true purpose of the arrangements. HMRC’s submissions on that point
were
recited but not addressed.

Another interesting snippet:

Before coming to the detail of the case it is worth making a preliminary
observation.
I have referred above to the strong feelings of many football supporters.
Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as having a special status.
In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should nevertheless
not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a “club”, in the sense of
an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common
purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its
shareholders. From that perspective it has no special status, and there is no reason why
its tax affairs should not be as open to scrutiny as those of any other profit making
organisation. The players, too, have no greater right to conceal their tax affairs from
public scrutiny than any other taxpayer. The fact that they are in the public eye is
irrelevant.

Huns'll no like that.

Also, other than HMRC officers and others who only gave evidence on condition of anonymity, the persons involved (mainly Huns) will be named and shamed in future reports.

[Leithenhibby]

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

See link in previous post. The appeal has been considered and referred on to the Upper Tier Tribunal. It could have been referred back to the original FTT (the Huns requested that) but the judge rejects that approach based on a couple of things, that it would inevitably have led to a further appeal and that the FTT stuffed up:



Another interesting snippet:



Huns'll no like that.

Also, other than HMRC officers and others who only gave evidence on condition of anonymity, the persons involved (mainly Huns) will be named and shamed in future reports.

Good start to the weekend

[green glory]

image-1368683963.jpg

[Part/Time Supporter]

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

Ok cool. You might enjoy this rather more.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2013/B6.pdf

Curious this seems to have only come to light today. Deloittes were talking about it three weeks ago.

https://www.taxpublications.deloitte...0?OpenDocument

Good old Scottish media on the ball as usual.

[JeMeSouviens]

The Hun rebel "requisitioners" seem to have all but given up. Frank Blin has walked away. The Huns' nomad (nominated advisor, basically a regulator on behalf of the stock exchange) are refusing to support Paul Murray as a candidate for the board.

Looks like advantage Spivs.

[jonty]

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...eal-by-ecojon/

Revealed - Rangers given secret no-title-stripping guarantee

The letter: http://www.scribd.com/doc/168302228/...rtaking-Letter

[Spike Mandela]

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

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...eal-by-ecojon/

Revealed - Rangers given secret no-title-stripping guarantee

The letter: http://www.scribd.com/doc/168302228/...rtaking-Letter

WOW! Scandalous if legit. What are the chances of the MSM running with this one? Who's got the balls to do it, surely there must be some media organisation prepared to run with it.

[Part/Time Supporter]

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

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...eal-by-ecojon/

Revealed - Rangers given secret no-title-stripping guarantee

The letter: http://www.scribd.com/doc/168302228/...rtaking-Letter

That isn't correct.

The letter is a guarantee that Sevco would not have any action taken against them by the SPL for the matters considered by Lord Nimmo Smith.

If such a guarantee had been given to Rangers then Lord Nimmo Smith would not have even been able to fine them (as he in fact did).

[CropleyWasGod]

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

That isn't correct.

The letter is a guarantee that Sevco would not have any action taken against them by the SPL for the matters considered by Lord Nimmo Smith.

If such a guarantee had been given to Rangers then Lord Nimmo Smith would not have even been able to fine them (as he in fact did).

IIRC, it was the Old Company that was fined.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/r...ng-on-rangers/

Newco bears no responsibility for the rule breaches.

"There is no allegation that the current owner and operator of the club, The Rangers Football Club Limited (“Newco”), contravened the SPL Rules or could be held responsible for any breach by Oldco." (p1)

A fine has been imposed on Oldco covering all rule breaches.

"In all the circumstances the Commission has imposed a fine of £250,000 on Oldco." (p1)

[Part/Time Supporter]

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

IIRC, it was the Old Company that was fined.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/r...ng-on-rangers/

Newco bears no responsibility for the rule breaches.

"There is no allegation that the current owner and operator of the club, The Rangers Football Club Limited (“Newco”), contravened the SPL Rules or could be held responsible for any breach by Oldco." (p1)

A fine has been imposed on Oldco covering all rule breaches.

"In all the circumstances the Commission has imposed a fine of £250,000 on Oldco." (p1)

That's my point. This document reveals that the SPL gave a guarantee to Sevco that they wouldn't be punished for the crimes of oldco, which meant that any punishment by LNS would only fall upon the oldco. This effectively meant that title stripping was **more** likely, not less, because that would have been the only effective punishment on the oldco, because it was already being liquidated and the SPL will only get pennies in the £ (if that) from the fine.

Green wouldn't have minded that because it wouldn't have harmed Sevco financially. In fact it may have helped Sevco financially because of the righteous indignation it would have induced amongst the Huns. What he was concerned about was the potential for a massive fine being handed down on Sevco that they may not have been able to afford.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

That's my point. This document reveals that the SPL gave a guarantee to Sevco that they wouldn't be punished for the crimes of oldco, which meant that any punishment by LNS would only fall upon the oldco. This effectively meant that title stripping was **more** likely, not less, because that would have been the only effective punishment on the oldco, because it was already being liquidated and the SPL will only get pennies in the £ (if that) from the fine.

Green wouldn't have minded that because it wouldn't have harmed Sevco financially. In fact it may have helped Sevco financially because of the righteous indignation it would have induced amongst the Huns. What he was concerned about was the potential for a massive fine being handed down on Sevco that they may not have been able to afford.

Yeah, I thought that was your point. I was kinda hoping someone would tell me that my thinking was wrong.

I'm not really getting the "conspiracy" thing here. Much as I'd like to believe some of the wilder stories, I am not sure this is one of them.

[Part/Time Supporter]

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

Yeah, I thought that was your point. I was kinda hoping someone would tell me that my thinking was wrong.

I'm not really getting the "conspiracy" thing here. Much as I'd like to believe some of the wilder stories, I am not sure this is one of them.

Yup.

To quantify the massive fine concept, you had Celtic bloggers arguing that Rangers should be fined tens of millions for loss of income to the other clubs, mainly Celtic. ie if you accept that Rangers players with EBTs were ineligible, each club should have finished one position higher in the league (except Celtic sometimes and Hearts in 2005/06), then those clubs would have benefitted from greater SPL prize money, European qualification and so on. Obviously the biggest part of this would have been Champions League payments.

[Pedantic_Hibee]

Personally, I take it upon myself to correct every journalist on twitter who refers to The Rangers as Rangers. It might be futile, but I will never acknowledge The Rangers as anything other than a team who were formed in 2012 and have only one trophy to their name.

[Seveno]

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

Personally, I take it upon myself to correct every journalist on twitter who refers to The Rangers as Rangers. It might be futile, but I will never acknowledge The Rangers as anything other than a team who were formed in 2012 and have only one trophy to their name.

And have lost every match that they have ever played against Hibernan.

[jonty]

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

That isn't correct.

The letter is a guarantee that Sevco would not have any action taken against them by the SPL for the matters considered by Lord Nimmo Smith.

If such a guarantee had been given to Rangers then Lord Nimmo Smith would not have even been able to fine them (as he in fact did).

Exactly. And who holds the titles?

Allegedly, according to the font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia,

with the SPL chairman Neil Doncaster saying "it is an existing club, even though it's a new company"

[Spike Mandela]

zaliukas rejects them.....

http://sport.stv.tv/football/240875-...ontract-offer/

[Part/Time Supporter]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/...club-statement

RANGERS FC have tonight informed Police Scotland of deeply offensive and threatening comments that have been made on the Follow Follow website. These remarks have placed a director and his family in a state of fear and alarm.

This Club is shocked by the kind of physical violence being mentioned and is sure the vast majority of Rangers' support will share our alarm and disgust. This type of rhetoric can never be deemed acceptable.

Rangers FC cannot tolerate this behaviour and intend to take an extremely robust approach to this sort of conduct. The board finds it inexplicable that some so called supporters of the club are bringing Rangers into disrepute and these people are not welcome at Ibrox.

The board is also aware that certain individuals are holding meetings and inciting fans to unruly behaviour. This has also been reported to the police.

May or may not be related to this...

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...-chris-graham/

Tonight has brought some interesting news which has caused consternation and weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the Rangers faithful.

It is not clear yet if the two stories which have come out on Twitter tonight are connected – or if the issues are separate.

Almost simultaneously the BBC’s Chris McLaughlin and famous Rangers supporter, and star of screen and the internet Chris Graham tweeted the following.

Mr McLaughlin is regularly on the ball with his scoops from Ibrox, despite the BBC being “banned”. Tonight he tweeted that Rangers had referred comments against a director to the police. The comments were from a website which he later stated was Follow Follow (a popular gathering place on the internet for post-modern humour and witty discussion about football)

Chris Graham also chipped in. He revealed to the world that “the dysfunctional Rangers Board” was “threatening to sue” him. His response? “I’ll see them in court.”

Can this be the same matter?

Well, possibly not.

The police do not deal with civil matters. In fact, if the police have the chance to classify something as a “civil matter” to get the complainer out of the police station, they will take every opportunity to do so.

A threat to sue on the other hand would come by way of a letter or email from the excellent form of solicitors engaged by Rangers.

Following upon Mr Leggat having to remove a post from his blog last week, this seems to suggest that the Board at Ibrox is taking up the fight although, much to the chagrin of Rangers supporters (or at least those on Twitter and the Internet) the targets seem to be Rangers supporters!

Considering how vocal Rangers fans are about silencing critics of their team (or “Rangers haters” as they are known down the Copland Road) it might seem ironic that the legal big guns are turned on those who love the club.

Now, regular readers will know that Mr Graham was instrumental in bringing my media career to an end before it even started by his telling the BBC he would not appear on a radio broadcast I had been asked to join. Some might think that I would be delighted at this latest occurrence. Schadenfreude is a normal human emotion (though I keep mixing that up with Schweinsteiger).

But, as someone who has already been on the receiving end of a letter from Rangers lawyers (received at 10.30 pm telling me to remove material from the blog by midnight), I must say that there is something unsavoury about efforts by big companies to gag people who are wanting to comment on the company’s affairs.

In my case it was an allegation that commenting on the terms of the supposed presentation to prospective institutional investors in the run up to the IPO was a breach of confidentiality and allegedly “market abuse”. In fact the letter included the remarkable threat that, if the IPO failed to raise the sums looked for, then Rangers would sue me for their losses! Whilst that was very gratifying in terms of my perceived influence, it was rather heavy-handed (especially as the document I was reporting on came from that excellent and secret source Mr Google).

It is ironic that websites and message boards can be a haven for some of the most vile and threatening abuse. Anyone who has put their head over the parapet of the Rangers saga in recent years will have experienced this. Almost all have been prepared to put up with it – working on the basis that there is so much of it that trying to stop it is like emptying the Clyde with a thimble. If it goes over the score though people do react and I can commend Mr Dingwall of Follow Follow for removing threads referring to me when I have drawn to his attention comments which go far, far over the score.

I have detailed knowledge of two people who made reports to Strathclyde Police, as it then was, about abusive and threatening online comments about them. Neither obtained satisfaction. One was told that he had to print all of the material off as the police could not look at it online. In the other case the police denied having received any complaint at all – until the fax receipt proving the 22 pages had reached their office was found, at which time the story immediately became one that the matter had been investigated and found not to have involved a breach of the criminal law.

But when genuine critics are being threatened with action for speaking their minds…

One other ironic feature is that reaction against the Board for this alleged action – whilst, when it was known that I had been subject of an “injunction” (which I was not – because injunctions do not exist in Scotland and no court action was ever raised) there was rejoicing and some commenters were delighted with the prospect of me ending up in Barlinnie.

It might seem hypocritical for folk to welcome gagging of one’s enemies but to condemn such action against one’s friends.

But that should not distract from the premise that Rangers could be seen as doing something which, on a larger and more notorious scale, McDonald’s did in the so-called McLibel case – with the result that the longest libel trial in English legal history ensued and the burger company’s reputation was seriously damaged.

It is fair to say that the various owners of Rangers over recent years, and those looking to be owners, have experienced allegations of all sorts of misbehaviour, some (such as many of the posts on this blog based on research, analysis and public statements) whilst others elsewhere are based on rumour, innuendo and wild unfounded speculation.

But, despite that, the move to threating and taking legal action against critics does seem to be based on economic factors, rather than anything else.

It strikes me that the Rangers Board is over-reacting – having seen off the “Rebels” at least for now – they are now striking at their own.

As readers of this blog know, I am not keen on censoring free speech – so although it might surprise some readers – I stand firmly on the side of Chris Graham here. Let him say his piece and let it be defeated by debate, if the Board can do so. Gagging people rarely works. Even when views are unpalatable, it is better to hear them and let people make their own judgements rather than create martyrs whose opinions become hidden. If someone is talking rubbish, let us hear that, so we can judge for ourselves.

Now, all we need is to see if those on the Rangers side who are being gagged appreciate that they have looked to do the same to others.

Posted by Paul McConville

[Jack Hackett]

So do we think Police Scotland will actually do something about this vile site this time?

[The Falcon]

Rangers annual results showing an operating loss of £14m on a turnover of £19.1m. They have learned a lot from their experience.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headli...annual-results

[Hibby70]

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

Rangers annual results showing an operating loss of £14m on a turnover of £19.1m. They have learned a lot from their experience.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headli...annual-results

Hope this new club go the same way as that similar named one.

[Weststandwanab]

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

Rangers annual results showing an operating loss of £14m on a turnover of £19.1m. They have learned a lot from their experience. All going to plan then.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headli...annual-results

All going to plan then. I wonder if there will be another share issue to pay for the 2013/14 operating loss.

[Onceinawhile]

Their wage bill is about our turnover!

Not sure how a division 3 team spent 33 million!