Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[CropleyWasGod]

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

No, CWG, I have no idea if they were but this is Scotland and the vested interests of the Huns are, generally looked after by those in power, giving a reasonable possibility that they were of that ilk. You only have to look at the number of Jambos entrenched in senior positions within Edinburgh Council to realise how likely it is that their counterparts in the West are likely to have similarly vast numbers in HMRC and the judiciary.

So you "have no idea if they were", yet you still assume that they are?

Even if they are, you then make the assumption that their football allegiances come before their professional responsibilities. That's quite an accusation.

[Dan Sarf]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/gre...6/rangers-hmrc

[Weststandwanab]

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

http://www.theguardian.com/media/gre...6/rangers-hmrc

But more importantly !

Dave King Statement as per the Herald:

Because of my ongoing interest in the future direction of the club I have deliberately avoided immersing myself in the day-to-day "noise level" that is being played out in the media. By doing this I had hoped to serve as a bridge between non-aligned stakeholders and the club, as well as seeking a way forward that could accommodate all interests. I no longer believe that I can achieve this with the board that is presently in place. I consequently wish to update the fans on my current position.

Late last year I travelled to Scotland in an attempt to find a way forward that would accommodate all parties and ensure sound corporate governance and sound financial planning for the club. Unfortunately, my efforts were in vain. During this period I made it clear to the board that I am a potential source of funding by way of a new capital injection. My prime condition is that any funds introduced by me would go into the club for the benefit of the team and the dilapidating infrastructure.

For the avoidance of doubt, I appreciate that the Rangers board has no obligation to engage with me or to agree with my vision for the future of Rangers. My assessment is that the business is not commercially sustainable in the short term and hence requires a level of soft investment. The board is focusing on right-sizing the business ie. cutting costs to match the income. It is correct that anyclub must, over the long term, operate within its means but in the short term Rangers needs a significant once-off financial boost that cannot be met from the current revenue stream. Without this we will not get back to where we should be. If we cut our costs to suit our present income we will remain a small club and Celtic will shoot through 10 in a row - and beyond - while we slug it out for the minor places. That is not the Rangers that I grew up with and not the Rangers that we should be passing down to our children and grandchildren.

Such a soft investment will only come from a fan based group that regard their return as winning trophies in the top flight. I have been such an investor and want to be so again. I would like to lead a fan-based initiative to acquire an influential shareholding in the club.

I hope that the board will belatedly recognise the importance ofcommunicating with fans on the true state of the club's finances.Financial transparency should now be a non-negotiable requirement of the fans prior to investing in season tickets. It is an easy deflection for the board to suggest that it has had insufficient time or that it is restricted by AIM regulations. That is simply not true. Legitimate concerns about the club's financial position have been voiced for a long time. It should have been the board's number one priority to provide the comfort that the fans need - if it is able to do so. Craig Whyte employed exactly the same reasons for avoiding disclosure of the true financial state of the club during his ill-fated period of ownership.

The board has previously dealt with queries around the club's finances by giving categoric assurances that there was sufficientfunding until the end of the season. We now know that these assurances were untrue and that emergency financing has been put in place on terms that are not commercial and that indicate the desperate financial position that the club is in. This lack of transparency on the present and projected funding position isextremely worrying. The Craig Whyte purchase would never have happened if the true source of "his" funds had been known. Similarly, the fans would not have purchased season tickets at that time if they had known that their funds were going out of the club. The fans lost their cash and almost lost their club. So now, at this critical time, I remind fellow supporters of the old adage - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

The fans have no proper insight into the owners of the club and who represents which shareholders on the board. The board has strenuously resisted any attempt by the fans to find out who key shareholders are. What is known is that the current board members have a very minor stake in the club. Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own". It is not in Rangers culture to have spin-doctors that feed information to the media in an attempt to damage our own players, management, potential investors, and supporters. Much of what has been fed to the media is clearly untrue or exaggerated.

Ultimately, it is in the hands of the existing shareholders (through the board) to decide to issue new shares to investors. There is a clear reluctance to do this at the present time and the reasons for this can only be speculated upon. Undoubtedly, the club requires a significant injection of new equity from existing or new shareholders but this will take some time to put in place. A proper financial evaluation will have to be undertaken and all the necessary AIM requirements etc. complied with. Clearly, by not having acted sooner the board is making it clear that it has decided to rely on the fans' cash once again.

The big question is- "What can fans do to protect themselves but still assist the team and management"? Fans must remember that the purchase of a season ticket is essentially an individual loan from the fan to the company until such time as all games are played. No banker would lend money to a company without knowing its true financial position. Unless the board departs from its present stance of opacity the fans will be asked to lend money to the company with no security and with no comfort that the loan advance is not going into a financial black-hole. It must be stressed that the board was happy to give security to Laxey Partners for the recent facility as well as a massive return on this short-term loan. It seems wrong that, if the board gets its way, these new loans will be repaid from interest free and unsecured loans provided by long suffering fans.

If the board does not provide disclosure to the fans then it is time to draw a line in the sand. I propose that the fans buy the season tickets only on one of the two following bases;

1. The fans pay the season ticket money into a trust and the funds are released to the club on a "pay-as-they-play" basis.

2. The fans pay the season ticket money into a trust and the funds are released in full to the club but against security of the club property until such time as all games are played. In that way the fans will have some protection from a future event of failure if the board cannot bridge the funding gap that clearly exists.

Additionally, the fans should insist on a board appointee prior to renewing their season tickets, to look after their interests.

I also suggest that the following questions be put to the board on condition that satisfactory answers must be given prior to fans agreeing to make cash from season ticket sales available to the club.

1. Will the board provide legally binding assurances that the club is a going concern and has sufficient funds and/or facilities in place for the 2014/2015 season.

2. Will the board undertake that none of the proceeds from season ticket sales will be used to settle any financial obligation that arose prior to receipt of the season ticket monies by the club.

3. Will the board confirm that the club assets continue to be unencumbered.

4. Will the board explain its previous statements that the club had sufficient cash resources to last until the end of the season.

I previously invested 20 million pounds in the club and lost it all.Like all Rangers fans I continue to loyally support the team and the manager. I am willing to provide funding again but I do not believe that Rangers should be under the control of one owner/benefactor. We have already seen the damage that has been caused at Rangers (and many other clubs) when the club becomes a hostage to thefluctuating whims and wealth of a single owner. I see my role as being the lead investor of a like-minded consortium that will invest in the club, along with the supporters, without the "short-sightidness" of an immediate return on investment. An immediate return on investment will guarantee a non-immediate return of the team to the top flight.

The fact that it believes it can proceed as it is doing without financial transparency makes two major statements about the board's thinking. First, they have correctly understood the fierce and unbending loyalty that Rangers fans display towards the club and the team at a time of common difficulty. Secondly, they have seriously misunderstood this loyalty as being something they can take for granted and offer nothing in return. We shouldn't allow that to continue. At this critical juncture, the fans control the funding that the board is relying on. How we proceed will determine our club's future.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

But more importantly !

Dave King Statement as per the Herald:

Because of my ongoing interest in the future direction of the club I have deliberately avoided immersing myself in the day-to-day "noise level" that is being played out in the media. By doing this I had hoped to serve as a bridge between non-aligned stakeholders and the club, as well as seeking a way forward that could accommodate all interests. I no longer believe that I can achieve this with the board that is presently in place. I consequently wish to update the fans on my current position.

Late last year I travelled to Scotland in an attempt to find a way forward that would accommodate all parties and ensure sound corporate governance and sound financial planning for the club. Unfortunately, my efforts were in vain. During this period I made it clear to the board that I am a potential source of funding by way of a new capital injection. My prime condition is that any funds introduced by me would go into the club for the benefit of the team and the dilapidating infrastructure.

For the avoidance of doubt, I appreciate that the Rangers board has no obligation to engage with me or to agree with my vision for the future of Rangers. My assessment is that the business is not commercially sustainable in the short term and hence requires a level of soft investment. The board is focusing on right-sizing the business ie. cutting costs to match the income. It is correct that anyclub must, over the long term, operate within its means but in the short term Rangers needs a significant once-off financial boost that cannot be met from the current revenue stream. Without this we will not get back to where we should be. If we cut our costs to suit our present income we will remain a small club and Celtic will shoot through 10 in a row - and beyond - while we slug it out for the minor places. That is not the Rangers that I grew up with and not the Rangers that we should be passing down to our children and grandchildren.

Such a soft investment will only come from a fan based group that regard their return as winning trophies in the top flight. I have been such an investor and want to be so again. I would like to lead a fan-based initiative to acquire an influential shareholding in the club.

I hope that the board will belatedly recognise the importance ofcommunicating with fans on the true state of the club's finances.Financial transparency should now be a non-negotiable requirement of the fans prior to investing in season tickets. It is an easy deflection for the board to suggest that it has had insufficient time or that it is restricted by AIM regulations. That is simply not true. Legitimate concerns about the club's financial position have been voiced for a long time. It should have been the board's number one priority to provide the comfort that the fans need - if it is able to do so. Craig Whyte employed exactly the same reasons for avoiding disclosure of the true financial state of the club during his ill-fated period of ownership.

The board has previously dealt with queries around the club's finances by giving categoric assurances that there was sufficientfunding until the end of the season. We now know that these assurances were untrue and that emergency financing has been put in place on terms that are not commercial and that indicate the desperate financial position that the club is in. This lack of transparency on the present and projected funding position isextremely worrying. The Craig Whyte purchase would never have happened if the true source of "his" funds had been known. Similarly, the fans would not have purchased season tickets at that time if they had known that their funds were going out of the club. The fans lost their cash and almost lost their club. So now, at this critical time, I remind fellow supporters of the old adage - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

The fans have no proper insight into the owners of the club and who represents which shareholders on the board. The board has strenuously resisted any attempt by the fans to find out who key shareholders are. What is known is that the current board members have a very minor stake in the club. Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own". It is not in Rangers culture to have spin-doctors that feed information to the media in an attempt to damage our own players, management, potential investors, and supporters. Much of what has been fed to the media is clearly untrue or exaggerated.

Ultimately, it is in the hands of the existing shareholders (through the board) to decide to issue new shares to investors. There is a clear reluctance to do this at the present time and the reasons for this can only be speculated upon. Undoubtedly, the club requires a significant injection of new equity from existing or new shareholders but this will take some time to put in place. A proper financial evaluation will have to be undertaken and all the necessary AIM requirements etc. complied with. Clearly, by not having acted sooner the board is making it clear that it has decided to rely on the fans' cash once again.

The big question is- "What can fans do to protect themselves but still assist the team and management"? Fans must remember that the purchase of a season ticket is essentially an individual loan from the fan to the company until such time as all games are played. No banker would lend money to a company without knowing its true financial position. Unless the board departs from its present stance of opacity the fans will be asked to lend money to the company with no security and with no comfort that the loan advance is not going into a financial black-hole. It must be stressed that the board was happy to give security to Laxey Partners for the recent facility as well as a massive return on this short-term loan. It seems wrong that, if the board gets its way, these new loans will be repaid from interest free and unsecured loans provided by long suffering fans.

If the board does not provide disclosure to the fans then it is time to draw a line in the sand. I propose that the fans buy the season tickets only on one of the two following bases;

1. The fans pay the season ticket money into a trust and the funds are released to the club on a "pay-as-they-play" basis.

2. The fans pay the season ticket money into a trust and the funds are released in full to the club but against security of the club property until such time as all games are played. In that way the fans will have some protection from a future event of failure if the board cannot bridge the funding gap that clearly exists.

Additionally, the fans should insist on a board appointee prior to renewing their season tickets, to look after their interests.

I also suggest that the following questions be put to the board on condition that satisfactory answers must be given prior to fans agreeing to make cash from season ticket sales available to the club.

1. Will the board provide legally binding assurances that the club is a going concern and has sufficient funds and/or facilities in place for the 2014/2015 season.

2. Will the board undertake that none of the proceeds from season ticket sales will be used to settle any financial obligation that arose prior to receipt of the season ticket monies by the club.

3. Will the board confirm that the club assets continue to be unencumbered.

4. Will the board explain its previous statements that the club had sufficient cash resources to last until the end of the season.

I previously invested 20 million pounds in the club and lost it all.Like all Rangers fans I continue to loyally support the team and the manager. I am willing to provide funding again but I do not believe that Rangers should be under the control of one owner/benefactor. We have already seen the damage that has been caused at Rangers (and many other clubs) when the club becomes a hostage to thefluctuating whims and wealth of a single owner. I see my role as being the lead investor of a like-minded consortium that will invest in the club, along with the supporters, without the "short-sightidness" of an immediate return on investment. An immediate return on investment will guarantee a non-immediate return of the team to the top flight.

The fact that it believes it can proceed as it is doing without financial transparency makes two major statements about the board's thinking. First, they have correctly understood the fierce and unbending loyalty that Rangers fans display towards the club and the team at a time of common difficulty. Secondly, they have seriously misunderstood this loyalty as being something they can take for granted and offer nothing in return. We shouldn't allow that to continue. At this critical juncture, the fans control the funding that the board is relying on. How we proceed will determine our club's future.

A lot of good points in there. However, just a tad hypocritical to say "Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own"." He is doing exactly that.

I have no doubt that this will whip up the masses, and there will be another round of protests ,fringe-meetings, public statements and the likes. It will not help TRFC in raising capital... as if anything could just now... and can only contribute negatively (or positively, depending on how one looks at it ) to the soap-opera.

I note that nowhere does he put himself up for the Board. I think he knows that will never happen. Instead he mentions "the fans should insist on a board appointee".... the best he can get there is someone to be his puppet.

Love it.

[Weststandwanab]

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

A lot of good points in there. However, just a tad hypocritical to say "Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own"." He is doing exactly that.

I have no doubt that this will whip up the masses, and there will be another round of protests ,fringe-meetings, public statements and the likes. It will not help TRFC in raising capital... as if anything could just now... and can only contribute negatively (or positively, depending on how one looks at it ) to the soap-opera.

I note that nowhere does he put himself up for the Board. I think he knows that will never happen. Instead he mentions "the fans should insist on a board appointee".... the best he can get there is someone to be his puppet.

Love it.

CWG between that and the Jambos I am loving it too so much so I have just extracted a bottle of 2004 Amarone from the cellar which should be ready to quaff about the time Sportsound starts.

[jacomo]

Don't understand what Dave King is up to. He's had opportunities to invest before but didn't take them, he worries about the financial health of the club but criticises their recent efforts to balance the books, and he doesn't trust the Board but he doesn't want to be on the Board.

He seems to be offering jam today to the supporters and is advocating a season ticket boycott unless certain conditions are met... I can't see the Board of any football club agreeing to those conditions.

Whatever he's up to, this will stir up the hornets' nest. Notice that he doesn't mention 'the manager' by name, either... in the murky world of the Rangers this will be seen as a snub.

[AndyM_1875]

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

A lot of good points in there. However, just a tad hypocritical to say "Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own"." He is doing exactly that.

I have no doubt that this will whip up the masses, and there will be another round of protests ,fringe-meetings, public statements and the likes. It will not help TRFC in raising capital... as if anything could just now... and can only contribute negatively (or positively, depending on how one looks at it ) to the soap-opera.

I note that nowhere does he put himself up for the Board. I think he knows that will never happen. Instead he mentions "the fans should insist on a board appointee".... the best he can get there is someone to be his puppet.

Love it.

As Tom English noted. Dave King went and talked to the media.
He's still talking to the media......

Ho hum.

[AndyM_1875]

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

Don't understand what Dave King is up to. He's had opportunities to invest before but didn't take them, he worries about the financial health of the club but criticises their recent efforts to balance the books, and he doesn't trust the Board but he doesn't want to be on the Board.

He seems to be offering jam today to the supporters and is advocating a season ticket boycott unless certain conditions are met... I can't see the Board of any football club agreeing to those conditions.

Whatever he's up to, this will stir up the hornets' nest. Notice that he doesn't mention 'the manager' by name, either... in the murky world of the Rangers this will be seen as a snub.

King could have picked up Rangers in 2010 and also in 2012. On both occasions he could have got the club for a song and whilst due to his SARS Tax convictions he might not be ok to be installed as Chairman he could have put his own people in to run the club.

But he didn't. He just as Tom English said went and blabbed away in the papers.
He's all fart and nae *****!

[Mr White]

"If we cut our costs to suit our present income we will remain a small club"

I think it's fair to say that some lessons will never be learned over there.

[Spike Mandela]

Dave King wants Rangers. The Rangers fans want his money whether he is a convicted tax cheat or not. The MSM want Dave King at Rangers. The propaganda won't stop until this is acheived.

[jacomo]

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

"If we cut our costs to suit our present income we will remain a small club"

I think it's fair to say that some lessons will never be learned over there.

This is what I don't understand. Why spend more money now when - even with Swally at the helm - they are cruising back up through the divisions? Surely the time to spend is the season after next?

[Iggy Pope]

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

So you "have no idea if they were", yet you still assume that they are?

Even if they are, you then make the assumption that their football allegiances come before their professional responsibilities. That's quite an accusation.

I think Bill's allusion goes beyond mere football allegiances and perhaps suggests social and religious bias. Undeniable, 1955 or not!

[Seveno]

Isn't wonderful to see a man trying to claim the moral high ground when he is a convicted criminal.

It could only happen at Castle Greyskull. No, wait a minute, it could happen somewhere in the west of Edinburgh

[AndyM_1875]

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

I think Bill's allusion goes beyond mere football allegiances and perhaps suggests social and religious bias. Undeniable, 1955 or not!

What's undeniable? That 2 QCs, Practising members of the faculty of Advocates, who have built their career & reputations on their abilities to forensically examine cases having studied for degrees and Diplomas In legal practise and then gone through Deviling and passed assessment for entry to the Scots Bar are suddenly going to compromise their professional integrity over a relatively minor tax case because it involves a football team.
Really ?

Or perhaps the truth was it was just that HMRC didn't produce a good enough case and too much of it was based around "we didnae think this was right" which isn't going to impress anyone.

Just a thought.

[Weststandwanab]

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

What's undeniable? That 2 QCs, Practising members of the faculty of Advocates, who have built their career & reputations on their abilities to forensically examine cases having studied for degrees and Diplomas In legal practise and then gone through Deviling and passed assessment for entry to the Scots Bar are suddenly going to compromise their professional integrity over a relatively minor tax case because it involves a football team.
Really ?

Or perhaps the truth was it was just that HMRC didn't produce a good enough case and too much of it was based around "we didnae think this was right" which isn't going to impress anyone.

Just a thought.

Distinctly possible ! Deviling now that takes me back but do not under estimate the Friday G & T brigade.

[AndyM_1875]

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

Distinctly possible ! Deviling now that takes me back but do not under estimate the Friday G & T brigade.

This is still one conspiracy theory I wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

[ancient hibee]

Is this Dave King fellow by any chance related to the Dave King who sat on the Rangers Board while they went spectacularly bust after he was busy committing financial crimes in South Africa thus raising enough money to give Rangers £20million.Or is he the reincarnation of Dave King a dreadful comic of 30 years ago who was on the box every Saturday night.

[JeMeSouviens]

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

What's undeniable? That 2 QCs, Practising members of the faculty of Advocates, who have built their career & reputations on their abilities to forensically examine cases having studied for degrees and Diplomas In legal practise and then gone through Deviling and passed assessment for entry to the Scots Bar are suddenly going to compromise their professional integrity over a relatively minor tax case because it involves a football team.
Really ?

Or perhaps the truth was it was just that HMRC didn't produce a good enough case and too much of it was based around "we didnae think this was right" which isn't going to impress anyone.

Just a thought.

Have you read the minority opinion? Dr Poon (the tax expert of the 3 on the FTT) was impressed. I don't think the majority acted out of some sense of Hunnery btw, EBTs were always playing on the difficult edge of aggressive avoidance so it was a pretty grey area. My totally non-expert hunch is HMRC will win their appeal though.

[banchoryhibs]

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

Have you read the minority opinion? Dr Poon (the tax expert of the 3 on the FTT) was impressed. I don't think the majority acted out of some sense of Hunnery btw, EBTs were always playing on the difficult edge of aggressive avoidance so it was a pretty grey area. My totally non-expert hunch is HMRC will win their appeal though.

I agree. The First Tier Tribunal decision was remarkable in as much as the two judges who found in favour of Der Hun arrived at their decision by taking a very narrow and restricted view of the case presented before them. They were indirectly criticised for this by Lord Bishopp when he was asked to rule on what was, and was not, admissible to be brought before the Upper Tier Tribunal and, I would say, directly criticised by Heidi Poon in her dissenting decision.

There may have been many reasons to take such a narrow view, one of which could have been an acknowledgement that a ruling over the tax treatment of EBT payments / loans should be taken by a higher Court. What is significant is that the facts are being allowed to be re-presented to the Upper Tier Tribunal, normally only points of law are allowed to be discussed.

Tax cases are ultimately decided in the Supreme Court and along the way the decision can come down on one side in one Court then the other in the next hearing so HMRC losing the first round is not in any way decisive. It's not called the FIRST Tier Tribunal by accident.

This issue has a long way to go, not because it's The Rangers but because tax avoidance via EBTs was marketed to a very large number of people and there is a huge amount of money at stake across the UK. Other cases have gone through various levels of hearings but, for one reason or another, none have made it to the ultimate arbitrator, The Supreme Court.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Have you read the minority opinion? Dr Poon (the tax expert of the 3 on the FTT) was impressed. I don't think the majority acted out of some sense of Hunnery btw, EBTs were always playing on the difficult edge of aggressive avoidance so it was a pretty grey area. My totally non-expert hunch is HMRC will win their appeal though.

I'm one of the sad individuals who read it all. I still found stuff to disagree with on both sides, and there was a lot that was over my head. It doesn't surprise me that there was disagreement between the three, but nowhere was there any sense of bias.

Except on page 16, paragraph 90, where the guy in the sash said "Suck the rope"..... which I think was a typo.

[Weststandwanab]

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

This is still one conspiracy theory I wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

It still exits today !

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

Is this Dave King fellow by any chance related to the Dave King who sat on the Rangers Board while they went spectacularly bust after he was busy committing financial crimes in South Africa thus raising enough money to give Rangers £20million.Or is he the reincarnation of Dave King a dreadful comic of 30 years ago who was on the box every Saturday night.

One and the same.

[AndyM_1875]

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

Have you read the minority opinion? Dr Poon (the tax expert of the 3 on the FTT) was impressed. I don't think the majority acted out of some sense of Hunnery btw, EBTs were always playing on the difficult edge of aggressive avoidance so it was a pretty grey area. My totally non-expert hunch is HMRC will win their appeal though.

I did read the report and I won't pretend to follow or understand all of it. Much of it i couldn't get into at all and I've read some dry heavy legal stuff in my time. The QCs would be working on the absolute legal definitions & interpretations just as Dr Poon thought there was a case of Evasion going on. Talking to a couple of lawyer mates recently, they're still far from certain that the entire verdict of the FTTT will be overturned.

My own hunch is that we might all be left scratching our heads again after the appeal finishes as we may not get a straight yes/no answer.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I did read the report and I won't pretend to follow or understand all of it. Much of it i couldn't get into at all and I've read some dry heavy legal stuff in my time. The QCs would be working on the absolute legal definitions & interpretations just as Dr Poon thought there was a case of Evasion going on. Talking to a couple of lawyer mates recently, they're still far from certain that the entire verdict of the FTTT will be overturned.

My own hunch is that we might all be left scratching our heads again after the appeal finishes as we may not get a straight yes/no answer.

We didn't get one in the FTTT either, despite how it was reported in the MSM.

[Bill Milne]

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

So you "have no idea if they were", yet you still assume that they are?

Even if they are, you then make the assumption that their football allegiances come before their professional responsibilities. That's quite an accusation.

Might, however, explain why two so-called professionals wafted through the appeal without making any real attempt at justifying their decision while the dissenting female gave a detailed rebuttal. The evidence being led in the current tribunal implies some bias on the part of the two blokes allowing the appeal. Yes, my supposition may be fanciful but the prescence of, lets say, Donald Finlay QC in legal circles may give rise to a reasonable suspicion that there are more like him buried in legal ranks.

[greenginger]

Was there not something omitted in the submissions by the HMRC legal team that seemed really stupid, and that allowed the two parties who rejected the HMRC claims enough wriggle room to justify their findings ?

[AndyM_1875]

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

Might, however, explain why two so-called professionals wafted through the appeal without making any real attempt at justifying their decision while the dissenting female gave a detailed rebuttal. The evidence being led in the current tribunal implies some bias on the part of the two blokes allowing the appeal. Yes, my supposition may be fanciful but the prescence of, lets say, Donald Finlay QC in legal circles may give rise to a reasonable suspicion that there are more like him buried in legal ranks.

Doesn't explain anything and nobody "wafted" through the appeal.
Your supposition is both fanciful and misplaced. If you read the report you will see that both MIH and HMRC are criticized at points.

As for Donald Findlay, he is a Defence Advocate specialising in court work in high profile criminal cases usually involving violent crime and has absolutely nothing to do with this relatively minor tax case.

[Bill Milne]

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

Doesn't explain anything and nobody "wafted" through the appeal.
Your supposition is both fanciful and misplaced. If you read the report you will see that both MIH and HMRC are criticized at points.

As for Donald Findlay, he is a Defence Advocate specialising in court work in high profile criminal cases usually involving violent crime and has absolutely nothing to do with this relatively minor tax case.

Well, since I actually said my supposition may be fanciful, it puts my argument in the position of being my own personal opinion. I note nobody took issue with my comments about the number of highly placed Jambos in Edinburgh Council. Why should HMRC and our judiciary be any different?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Well, since I actually said my supposition may be fanciful, it puts my argument in the position of being my own personal opinion. I note nobody took issue with my comments about the number of highly placed Jambos in Edinburgh Council. Why should HMRC and our judiciary be any different?

Do these highly-placed Jambos put their football allegiances before their professional duties?

And, you have now introduced HMRC into your argument. If, as you suggest, they are Rangers-friendly, why would they be pursuing this particular case with such vigour?

[greenginger]

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

Do these highly-placed Jambos put their football allegiances before their professional duties?

And, you have also introduced HMRC into your argument. If, as you suggest, they are Rangers-friendly, why would they be pursuing this particular case with such vigour?

I think the HMRC case is now being controlled by the head honchos down south who want a test case to knock all the other EBT operators with.

Thinking back to Rangers CVA voting back in 2012, I think the Duffers and commentators were getting signals from the local HMRC offices that killing off Rangers was not their preferred option but then the decision was taken out of their hands.

As for our local council, the Main Stand at the PBS is still open 12 years after they were given notice by the Council that the safety certificate would not be renewed indefinitely.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I think the HMRC case is now being controlled by the head honchos down south who want a test case to knock all the other EBT operators with.

Thinking back to Rangers CVA voting back in 2012, I think the Duffers and commentators were getting signals from the local HMRC offices that killing off Rangers was not their preferred option but then the decision was taken out of their hands.

As for our local council, the Main Stand at the PBS is still open 12 years after they were given notice by the Council that the safety certificate would not be renewed indefinitely.

Killing off companies is very rarely HMRC's preferred option. It hasn't been that way for at least 10 years, when they started to understand the commercial aspects.