Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[JeMeSouviens]

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

Reading JJ's latest blog he seems to think MA might try to get King struck off as he was a director of a company (old co) that wilfully made false statements to HMRC. Also could King and D. Murray be charged with deception and fraud ?

Covered many, many times mainly by CWG. Yes, but you'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they set out with the intention of deliberately defrauding the revenue of money they knew they had a cast iron obligation to pay and not just to exploit what they thought was a loophole but later turned out not to be.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Reading JJ's latest blog he seems to think MA might try to get King struck off as he was a director of a company (old co) that wilfully made false statements to HMRC. Also could King and D. Murray be charged with deception and fraud ?

JJ, as ever, is playing fast and loose with the facts.

Directors can't be "struck off", as he puts it. They can be disqualified, which TBF is probably what he means.

They can't be disqualified for lying to HMRC. That might disqualify thousands

This is a list of red-card offences. Take yer pick......

allowing a company to continue trading when it can’t pay its debts

not keeping proper company accounting records

not sending accounts and returns to Companies House

not paying tax owed by the company

using company money or assets for personal benefit

[southsider]

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

Covered many, many times mainly by CWG. Yes, but you'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they set out with the intention of deliberately defrauding the revenue of money they knew they had a cast iron obligation to pay and not just to exploit what they thought was a loophole but later turned out not to be.

Did Campbell Ogilvie to oversea those contracts and did he choose not to disclose this to the SFA ? IMO they all knew what they were doing was illegal and they chose to carry on reguardless thinking the SFA were too scared (and still are) to challenge them. We need action and I hope our club is to the forefront of "sporting integrity" again.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Covered many, many times mainly by CWG. Yes, but you'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they set out with the intention of deliberately defrauding the revenue of money they knew they had a cast iron obligation to pay and not just to exploit what they thought was a loophole but later turned out not to be.

You calling me repetitive?

You're right, though. In simple terms, it's the difference between a conversation that goes "I know of a way to pay less tax, legitimately. Let's do it." and one that goes "I know of a way to pay less tax. It's against the law, but let's do it anyway."

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Did Campbell Ogilvie to oversea those contracts and did he choose not to disclose this to the SFA ? IMO they all knew what they were doing was illegal and they chose to carry on reguardless thinking the SFA were too scared (and still are) to challenge them. We need action and I hope our club is to the forefront of "sporting integrity" again.

They didn't "know" that what they were doing was illegal.

They believed that the scheme was legal and, up to a point, they were correct to do so. They screwed up on its operation, though.

[Ozyhibby]

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

Did Campbell Ogilvie to oversea those contracts and did he choose not to disclose this to the SFA ? IMO they all knew what they were doing was illegal and they chose to carry on reguardless thinking the SFA were too scared (and still are) to challenge them. We need action and I hope our club is to the forefront of "sporting integrity" again.

Amit is getting back to us on that last point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[southsider]

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

They didn't "know" that what they were doing was illegal.

They believed that the scheme was legal and, up to a point, they were correct to do so. They screwed up on its operation, though.

I think they knew all along but they did not think they would get caught. They would have done were it not for that pesky Hector. But what do I know I'm just a guy who goes to work each day and who would not know an EBT if you hit me round the lugs wi it

[Scorrie]

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

They didn't "know" that what they were doing was illegal.

They believed that the scheme was legal and, up to a point, they were correct to do so. They screwed up on its operation, though.

If they thought it was legal, why did they issue side letters / contracts? Apologies if this is a daft question...

[jacomo]

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

They didn't "know" that what they were doing was illegal.

They believed that the scheme was legal and, up to a point, they were correct to do so. They screwed up on its operation, though.

HMRC is one thing.

You've got to ask why they didn't declare these EBTs to the SFA, though.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

If they thought it was legal, why did they issue side letters / contracts? Apologies if this is a daft question...

It's not a daft question.

The side-letters may be the smoking gun, of course. Thus far, it seems that they are the flaw in what was otherwise an OK scheme. Was that evidence of being badly advised, or was it evidence of fraud?

[Ozyhibby]

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

It's not a daft question.

The side-letters may be the smoking gun, of course. Thus far, it seems that they are the flaw in what was otherwise an OK scheme. Was that evidence of being badly advised, or was it evidence of fraud?

Their concealment from both the revenue and that SFA suggests fraud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

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

It's not a daft question.

The side-letters may be the smoking gun, of course. Thus far, it seems that they are the flaw in what was otherwise an OK scheme. Was that evidence of being badly advised, or was it evidence of fraud?

Aren't they evidence that EBTs were an integral part of employment contracts? I thought this was the 'common sense' judgement.

[HoboHarry]

I'm struggling to fathom why UEFA are not asking questions of the SFA?

[Scorrie]

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

I'm struggling to fathom why UEFA are not asking questions of the SFA?

Perhaps they're waiting for due process to be done? The EBT decision is likely to be appealed by The Rangers / King. See how that pans out?

[Glesgahibby]

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

It's not a daft question.

The side-letters may be the smoking gun, of course. Thus far, it seems that they are the flaw in what was otherwise an OK scheme. Was that evidence of being badly advised, or was it evidence of fraud?

Double barrel
con the SFA and hopefully keep the tax man happy.
as we know the tax man wasn't happy!
the tax man has proved,not loans but earnings!
Now it's over to the SFA,will they disagree with the tax man???

[JeMeSouviens]

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

It's not a daft question.

The side-letters may be the smoking gun, of course. Thus far, it seems that they are the flaw in what was otherwise an OK scheme. Was that evidence of being badly advised, or was it evidence of fraud?

The side-letters are the smoking gun, but the scheme would still have been flawed without them (imo).

To successfully avoid tax, the payments into the EBT had to be made on the basis that they weren't as compensation for an employee carrying out their normal duties (aka emoluments). So:

- I say, that jolly nice employee of ours is a rather good egg, let's pay him a couple of £M in trust to keep him happy, is ok

but

- let's agree up front that our star midfielder will get £100K in trust per appearance for our football team that he's been employed to play for, isn't


Without the side letters, it would be more difficult to prove that the latter case was happening, but the payments *should* still be liable for tax. Football being the game it is, there was no way the players' agents were going to settle for a nod and a wink, hence the side letters and the ultimate unravelling.

[Smartie]

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

I'm struggling to fathom why UEFA are not asking questions of the SFA?

Glass houses and throwing stones?

UEFA have corruption issues of their own right now.

Although they might want to flex their muscles and be particularly heavy-handed on the next authority they rule over who misbehave?

On one level I'd love to see the SFA taken to task - the conduct of the people who held office at both Rangers and the SFA throughout this whole sorry ordeal is for me the greatest scandal.

Although I would hate to see the national team punished.

[JeMeSouviens]

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

You calling me repetitive?

You're right, though. In simple terms, it's the difference between a conversation that goes "I know of a way to pay less tax, legitimately. Let's do it." and one that goes "I know of a way to pay less tax. It's against the law, but let's do it anyway."

I was thinking more, "patient".

[Glesgahibby]

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

Perhaps they're waiting for due process to be done? The EBT decision is likely to be appealed by The Rangers / King. See how that pans out?

I think BDO"oldco"are the only ones who can appeal.
The rangers/king "newco or sevco" are a different entity.
If BDO appeal and lose they will pay costs and have a smaller pot.
if BDO appeal and win they won't pay costs and have the same pot.
A bit like putting a bet on to only win back your stake or lose your stake.

[Geo_1875]

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

I think BDO"oldco"are the only ones who can appeal.
The rangers/king "newco or sevco" are a different entity.
If BDO appeal and lose they will pay costs and have a smaller pot.
if BDO appeal and win they won't pay costs and have the same pot.
A bit like putting a bet on to only win back your stake or lose your stake.

If they appeal and lose HMRC get the pot (or most of it). If they appeal and win the other creditors get the pot. No skin off BDO's nose either way.

[CropleyWasGod]

[QUOTE=Geo_1875;4503303]If they appeal and lose HMRC get the pot (or most of it). If they appeal and win the other creditors get the pot. No skin off BDO's nose either way.[/QUOTE]

It is, though.

As has been said, they would incur costs in an appeal, unless another of the Murray companies takes them.

[Spike Mandela]

Celtic statement stirs up the Sevco hornets nest......twitter is a hoot.

http://www.celticfc.net/news/9522

[Treadstone]

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

Celtic statement stirs up the Sevco hornets nest......twitter is a hoot.

http://www.celticfc.net/news/9522

A bit less aggressive than Sevcos but plays to the hordes.

[jacomo]

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

A bit less aggressive than Sevcos but plays to the hordes.

A bit less aggressive?

Playing the home crowd is fine - every club is entitled to look after their own interests.

The Rangers statement - with its threatening sign off - was a disgrace.

[steakbake]

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

Celtic statement stirs up the Sevco hornets nest......twitter is a hoot.

http://www.celticfc.net/news/9522

I think it's a fair statement, to be honest. Direct. Have Hibs said anything?

Some might see it as trolling, but I think it's a relatively dignified response in comparison to King's arrogant, glib and shameless outburst yesterday.

[Spike Mandela]

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

I think it's a fair statement, to be honest. Direct. Have Hibs said anything?

Some might see it as trolling, but I think it's a relatively dignified response in comparison to King's arrogant, glib and shameless outburst yesterday.

Agreed and certainly mirrors my sentiments. You can feel Sevco fans seethe as well.

[tamig]

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

I think it's a fair statement, to be honest. Direct. Have Hibs said anything?

Some might see it as trolling, but I think it's a relatively dignified response in comparison to King's arrogant, glib and shameless outburst yesterday.

Rod made countless statements about sporting integrity back in the admin days. I think he invented the phrase. I can't see why our stance would change or why we'd need to reiterate it.

[wills]

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

Tbf he's got a point.

As far as I know they won Div 3 and Div 2 titles legitimately (albeit by spending a huge amount of money).

What other history do they have?

Quality 😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄

[Blaster]

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

Rod made countless statements about sporting integrity back in the admin days. I think he invented the phrase. I can't see why our stance would change or why we'd need to reiterate it.

I agree. No statement from hibs required

[steakbake]

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

Rod made countless statements about sporting integrity back in the admin days. I think he invented the phrase. I can't see why our stance would change or why we'd need to reiterate it.

No, I wasn't really asking for that reason. I just hadn't been aware of the club saying anything in light of the last couple of weeks. It might become necessary the more we get into descriptions of armageddon.

With the Celtic statement, though, I think they've probably had a lot of questions for a response. I don't see any problem with the one they've come out with.