Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Jim44]

Despite not coming up with any significant funding, King still seems to be the dog's bollocks with the hordes. If he is pulling the wool over their eyes, he is managing to do so without causing any unease in the ranks. Are they confident that he will come up with the goods when the crunch comes? Maybe he's keeping his powder dry till the eleventh hour, becoming the high profile saviour. If he is and has been all wind and p*ss, I think they'll string him up from a lampost on Edminston Drive if he ever shows his head outside South Africa.

[Dashing Bob S]

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

My head has no clue what will happen, as I'm not close enough to the action.

My gut feeling is that there are too many influential players with a stake in their future to let them go under. That said, most of us probably thought that in 2012 :)

The Court case about Green's legal costs will be a major hurdle. If they fall at that, they have a big problem.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I believe this to be the case. The only way they would go into admin is if another bunch of chancers were waiting in the wings and it was touted as a 'strategic move'.

[grunt]

This is fun. Don't think it's been here before. http://footballisfixed.blogspot.co.u...n-rangers.html

[Spike Mandela]

I want them to go under again purely to keep this thread going another 3 pr 4 years. iI's my goto thread when I want a laugh or something interesting to read. My comfort blanket.

[Bishop Hibee]

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

Okay, I have posted this many times before, so I suppose once more won't make a difference

I have 2 reasons for thinking it's the same club:-

1. when the assets of RFC were sold to Sevco, the price included £5 for the name, the brand, the badge etc. In business terms, the goodwill, which is another name for a company's history and standing. (overpriced, IMO ) So, legally, the football club (which is what Rangers' goodwill is based on) was transferred to Sevco.

2. notwithstanding that, a club is more than its assets. It's an intangible, emotional thing, that is often impossible to define. The team kept the name, kept the same colours, played at the same stadium in front of the same supporters who sang the same songs and waved the same flags. Emotionally, IMO, they are the same. I've often asked the question.... had that happened to us, and it very nearly did, would we have seen ourselves as the same club? I'm pretty sure most of us would.

Not sure about 1. but I reluctantly have to agree with 2. What gets me is if they truly have supporters who aren't rabid UJ waving, NI obsessed, racist and bigoted chanting bams i.e. famine song and 'add-ons' for The Sash etc. that was their chance to move the club forward. I conclude they didn't have the bottle or they are in a tiny minority.

[GordonHFC]

It doesn't really matter if Oldco and Newco are the same or not. I hate both Rangers and The Rangers 😊

[Jim44]

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

I want them to go under again purely to keep this thread going another 3 pr 4 years. iI's my goto thread when I want a laugh or something interesting to read. My comfort blanket.

I think you might be a tad disappointed about them going under again but as an alternative, why not settle for this thread continuing till Sevco qualify for the Champions League. The unlikeliness of that happening is greater than the chances of them hitting the skids again.

[greenginger]

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

Apologies if this has been debated already. I've not read back through this thread.

Anyway, my point is this:

The Court of Session's recent verdict made it quite clear that EBTs were illegal and gave oldco Rangers an unfair sporting advantage over all the other clubs. Having held this unfair advantage in every match for a decade it's hard to see how anyone, even the SPFL, could argue that titles & cups gained in this unfair way should be retained.

I won't be holding my breath though waiting for them to be stripped of those titles & cup wins.

And is there any real difference between Rangers and their EBT cheating and our neighbours at Tynecastle and their tax scams.

IIRC the first involved Vlad getting players to sign for Kaunas F C and then loaning them to Hearts. Their wages paid tax free in Lithuania although the players were playing in the UK. Eventually just before a tax tribunal began in 2012 Hearts agreed to pay £ 1.5 million back tax, but of course went bust before they paid anything.

Then there was Vlad's private deal with Rudi Skacel. Half his wages paid and taxed here and the other half sent from Lith to his Czech bank account. All detailed at Edinburgh sheriff Court thanks to his tiff with his agent.

[jacomo]

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

Apologies if this has been debated already. I've not read back through this thread.

Anyway, my point is this:

The Court of Session's recent verdict made it quite clear that EBTs were illegal and gave oldco Rangers an unfair sporting advantage over all the other clubs. Having held this unfair advantage in every match for a decade it's hard to see how anyone, even the SPFL, could argue that titles & cups gained in this unfair way should be retained.

I won't be holding my breath though waiting for them to be stripped of those titles & cup wins.

Stripping any club of past titles is a bit pointless I think. The fans of that club will still believe they won them, and fans of runners up or beaten finalists won't suddenly be celebrating an extra cup.

Punishing them now, however, makes sense. Seeing as they bought all that history.

See Marseille - still listed as European Cup winners in 93, but demoted to Ligue 2 for match fixing.

[AndyM_1875]

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

Apologies if this has been debated already. I've not read back through this thread.

Anyway, my point is this:

The Court of Session's recent verdict made it quite clear that EBTs were illegal and gave oldco Rangers an unfair sporting advantage over all the other clubs. Having held this unfair advantage in every match for a decade it's hard to see how anyone, even the SPFL, could argue that titles & cups gained in this unfair way should be retained.

I won't be holding my breath though waiting for them to be stripped of those titles & cup wins.

That's not what the Court of Session said. EBT's were not illegal at the time. What did breach the tax laws was Rangers cack handed attempt to use them to top up salaries and that's what the judges focused on. Most EBT usage in other corporate environments has used shares rather than cash.

This precedent if not appealed (unlikely) will allow HMRC to go after many of the big English Premiership & former Premiership clubs.

[Deansy]

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

Not sure about 1. but I reluctantly have to agree with 2. What gets me is if they truly have supporters who aren't rabid UJ waving, NI obsessed, racist and bigoted chanting bams i.e. famine song and 'add-ons' for The Sash etc. that was their chance to move the club forward. I conclude they didn't have the bottle or they are in a tiny minority.

Tiny minority !!. All clubs have a small % of their support who are an embarrassment to their club, cause trouble etc, etc. With the Hun it's a mirror-opposite, with the Hun it's a small % of their fans who AREN'T an embarassment etc, etc. Ffs, even their management are known for causing trouble - 'Stupor Sally' with his infamous 'I want them named' speech which was nothing more than a call to arms or letting the hounds off the leash !!

[pundy man]

No difference between the cheating cousins apart from 45 miles. Tax dodgers and religious bigots and not an ounce of regret of what their clubs did. They will remain shamed for the rest of their history and we should take all opportunities to never let them forget there sorded and disgusting past .

[Onion]

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

Stripping any club of past titles is a bit pointless I think. The fans of that club will still believe they won them, and fans of runners up or beaten finalists won't suddenly be celebrating an extra cup.

Punishing them now, however, makes sense. Seeing as they bought all that history.

See Marseille - still listed as European Cup winners in 93, but demoted to Ligue 2 for match fixing.

Not sure Ben Johnston would agree with that. Only reason it might not work in Sevco's case is that the media would be doing everything the can to keep it out of the media Rangers financial doping has made fools of everyone.

[JeMeSouviens]

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

That's not what the Court of Session said. EBT's were not illegal at the time. What did breach the tax laws was Rangers cack handed attempt to use them to top up salaries and that's what the judges focused on. Most EBT usage in other corporate environments has used shares rather than cash.

This precedent if not appealed (unlikely) will allow HMRC to go after many of the big English Premiership & former Premiership clubs.

Spot on. Ironically, David Murray's ad hoc £6M was probably ok under the rules at the time but the players' appearance payments guaranteed by side letter weren't.

[brog]

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

And is there any real difference between Rangers and their EBT cheating and our neighbours at Tynecastle and their tax scams.

IIRC the first involved Vlad getting players to sign for Kaunas F C and then loaning them to Hearts. Their wages paid tax free in Lithuania although the players were playing in the UK. Eventually just before a tax tribunal began in 2012 Hearts agreed to pay £ 1.5 million back tax, but of course went bust before they paid anything.

Then there was Vlad's private deal with Rudi Skacel. Half his wages paid and taxed here and the other half sent from Lith to his Czech bank account. All detailed at Edinburgh sheriff Court thanks to his tiff with his agent.

I had almost forgotten this GG, thanks for the refresh! One slight amendment, IIRC the £1.5m was a fine for Yams transgressions rather than tax owed, though I'm sure the calculation was based on tax avoided. There was never however IMO any prospect of Yams ever paying that money, especially given at that time Yams were already stiffing most of their suppliers. Lest we forget!

[brog]

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

I had almost forgotten this GG, thanks for the refresh! One slight amendment, IIRC the £1.5m was a fine for Yams transgressions rather than tax owed, though I'm sure the calculation was based on tax avoided. There was never however IMO any prospect of Yams ever paying that money, especially given at that time Yams were already stiffing most of their suppliers. Lest we forget!

Let me correct myself, it was PAYE that Yams avoided but they settled on £1.5m rather than the £2m or so claimed by HMRC. I'm sure I posted at the time that HMRC were being suckered as Yams were never going to pay. I think if HMRC had played hardball at that time Yams would also have been liquidated.

[portycabbage]

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

Okay, I have posted this many times before, so I suppose once more won't make a difference

I have 2 reasons for thinking it's the same club:-

1. when the assets of RFC were sold to Sevco, the price included £5 for the name, the brand, the badge etc. In business terms, the goodwill, which is another name for a company's history and standing. (overpriced, IMO ) So, legally, the football club (which is what Rangers' goodwill is based on) was transferred to Sevco.

2. notwithstanding that, a club is more than its assets. It's an intangible, emotional thing, that is often impossible to define. The team kept the name, kept the same colours, played at the same stadium in front of the same supporters who sang the same songs and waved the same flags. Emotionally, IMO, they are the same. I've often asked the question.... had that happened to us, and it very nearly did, would we have seen ourselves as the same club? I'm pretty sure most of us would.

Cheers for that!

I think the tricky thing about asking "what is a football club?" is that it is a mixture of tangible and intangible things. They're businesses as well as the bits you mention, which (IMO) is why it makes sense to talk of them having employees, tax obligations, accounts, being in financial trouble etc. I don't think it makes sense to say the alternative, that the goodwill,history or standing has signed a striker or that the badge has defaulted on tax!

I think I find the idea of transferring or buying and selling history a strange one too - like when Charles Green was saying sevco bought the cup wins etc (so that's the same ones twice!), not long after saying the history would be gone if the CVA failed. Also, if the club were transferred to sevco, and sevco are owned by RIFC there seem to be several separate things which are all "Rangers" in some way.

[Jim44]

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

Apologies if this has been debated already. I've not read back through this thread.

Anyway, my point is this:

The Court of Session's recent verdict made it quite clear that EBTs were illegal and gave oldco Rangers an unfair sporting advantage over all the other clubs. Having held this unfair advantage in every match for a decade it's hard to see how anyone, even the SPFL, could argue that titles & cups gained in this unfair way should be retained.

I won't be holding my breath though waiting for them to be stripped of those titles & cup wins.

This argument about whether to remove or leave titles and cups could go on and on. How about leaving their successes in the records but mark every appropriate one with an asterisk and the footnote that those marked were 'attained with an unfair advantage'. A bit like in athletics where a time is non-counting because of a strong following wind, only in Sevc's case a really damning indictment.

[lucky]

I just had a quick look at the list of recipients of the EBTs to refresh my mind on who the chancers were. Sadly we gave one a testimonial and several are now working in the media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-34118126

Surely they should be liable for tax on these payments or at the very least have repay the "loans" which would then go into the pot to pay the creditors?

As for the titles, I could not care one jot. Their over spending and tax avoidance forced all Scottish clubs to over spend and bring in players that they could not afford. Hibs ended up with £15m debt due to excess spending.

[MrSmith]

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

Spot on. Ironically, David Murray's ad hoc £6M was probably ok under the rules at the time but the players' appearance payments guaranteed by side letter weren't.

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

This argument about whether to remove or leave titles and cups could go on and on. How about leaving their successes in the records but mark every appropriate one with an asterisk and the footnote that those marked were 'attained with an unfair advantage'. A bit like in athletics where a time is non-counting because of a strong following wind, only in Sevc's case a really damning indictment.

Not a bad idea as I think no club would accept a tainted trophy. Make sure for generations to come that those who cheated were dealt with albeit eventually and marked as cheats.

[MrSmith]

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

I just had a quick look at the list of recipients of the EBTs to refresh my mine on who the chancers were. Sadly we gave one a testimonial and several are now working in the media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-34118126

Surely they should be liable for tax on these payments or at the very least have repay the "loans" which would then go into the pot to pay the creditors?

As for the titles, I could not care one jot. Their over spending and tax avoidance forced all Scottish clubs to over spend and bring in players that they could not afford. Hibs ended up with £15m debt due to excess spending.

for me, that list shows every bit how the filth bought players they most definitely couldn't afford and effectively killing off any competition from other teams.

[jacomo]

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

Not sure Ben Johnston would agree with that. Only reason it might not work in Sevco's case is that the media would be doing everything the can to keep it out of the media Rangers financial doping has made fools of everyone.

Or Lance Armstrong.

But these are individual athletes using illegal performance-enhancing drugs to gain an advantage. Different scenario.

[Dalianwanda]

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

Or Lance Armstrong.

But these are individual athletes using illegal performance-enhancing drugs to gain an advantage. Different scenario.

Yeah but Rangers were taking performance enhancing players illegally :-)

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I just had a quick look at the list of recipients of the EBTs to refresh my mind on who the chancers were. Sadly we gave one a testimonial and several are now working in the media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-34118126

Surely they should be liable for tax on these payments or at the very least have repay the "loans" which would then go into the pot to pay the creditors?

As for the titles, I could not care one jot. Their over spending and tax avoidance forced all Scottish clubs to over spend and bring in players that they could not afford. Hibs ended up with £15m debt due to excess spending.

They aren't loans. That's what the judgment is all about.
And the tax on the payments is what was claimed by HMRC in the liquidation.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[AndyM_1875]

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

Yeah but Rangers were taking performance enhancing players illegally :-)

Performance enhancing is Quite a description for numpties like Bilky Dodds and Alex Rae.

[Kojock]

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

Or Lance Armstrong.

But these are individual athletes using illegal performance-enhancing drugs to gain an advantage. Different scenario.

Drug doping or financial doping are both cheating in my book.

[weecounty hibby]

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

Performance enhancing is Quite a description for numpties like Bilky Dodds and Alex Rae.

The thing is though that Hibs, along with every other club outside of Celtic would have been greatly improved by having them in their squads. We couldn't compete financially as der hun was cheating

[Eyrie]

I'd strip them of all trophies won during the period of the illegal payments and simply leave the winner as "void" rather than award it to the runner up. That would highlight for future generations the price of cheating and unlike the asterisks idea would deny their fans any opportunity to claim those titles.

[AndyM_1875]

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

The thing is though that Hibs, along with every other club outside of Celtic would have been greatly improved by having them in their squads. We couldn't compete financially as der hun was cheating

I'm not convinced these players would ever have come to Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen etc. Their basic salaries even without the top up were way beyond what any of us were paying even during our big spending days.
Without the tax avoidance wheeze it would have been lumped in to the clubs debt.

[Ozyhibby]

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

I'm not convinced these players would ever have come to Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen etc. Their basic salaries even without the top up were way beyond what any of us were paying even during our big spending days.
Without the tax avoidance wheeze it would have been lumped in to the clubs debt.

Or the players would have signed for clubs in England and Rangers would have had to do with signings of a level Celtic could afford.
Rangers could afford Stefan Klos in goals while Celtic made do with Rab Douglas.
Celtic had a deal agreed with Nacho Novo and Rangers came in at the last minute and out bid them by offering him a tax free package.
Trying to claim this made no difference is ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk