Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[beensaidbefore]

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

Not quite.

Football creditors have preference in an insolvency situation, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a Newco would pick them up. In the Rangers case, it was paid by the Newco, as a requirement of the 5-way agreement, in order to get their licence. In Hearts' case, Budge paid it as part of the CVA deal.

These were different arrangements, but the similarity is that neither HAD to pay them legally. If neither had happened (eg no "follow-on" situation), the football debts would still have been paid by the liquidator/administrator in preference to other creditors.

In this rumoured Porto action, if they go after Newco, that's a third scenario IMO, where the creditor ignores the demise of the OldCo and goes for (in their eyes) the substance of their loss, rather than the legal form.If they go after the OldCo, they will be a preferential creditor, to the detriment of HMRC and all the other ordinary creditors.

I think in this instance the players would be pursued by hmrc to recoup their losses. Lets hope so, a double whammy.

[21.05.2016]

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

As has been mentioned previously, there ciuld be a few ex players a bit worried. It seems that if old rangers cant make a satisfactory offer, it will be the players being pursued.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, I really don't know the ins and outs of the case but did the players KNOW they were being paid through illegal means? If they didn't then it's a little harsh to go after them personally. If they did however then yes indeed they are fair game and can't complain if they are pursued.

[Jack Hackett]

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

They are a Swiss magazine that covers the business side of Football. Probably the most widely read in the world although the business side of football would be a minority interest I think. Except in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry. Didn't make myself clear... I was referring to the Tax Justice Network.

Just googled them... No powers, but at least it's an international organisation, highlighting the state of our football affairs

[brog]

Campbell Ogilvie, to be heavily involved with one club stiffing its' creditors is unfortunate. To be involved with 2, to be a shareholder in one while MD of the other, to be in receipt of an EBT & then to become President of the SFA is beyond parody.

[beensaidbefore]

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

Sorry if this is a dumb question, I really don't know the ins and outs of the case but did the players KNOW they were being paid through illegal means? If they didn't then it's a little harsh to go after them personally. If they did however then yes indeed they are fair game and can't complain if they are pursued.

As far as i am aware this was made known to the players. Hiw it was 'sold' to them as an idea may have varied. Been told .hmrc will not pursue both club and players. Club first, players if unsuccessful.

I stand to be corrected though.

[beensaidbefore]

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

Campbell Ogilvie, to be heavily involved with one club stiffing its' creditors is unfortunate. To be involved with 2, to be a shareholder in one while MD of the other, to be in receipt of an EBT & then to become President of the SFA is beyond parody.

Nothing to see here. Please move on.

[Smartie]

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

Sorry if this is a dumb question, I really don't know the ins and outs of the case but did the players KNOW they were being paid through illegal means? If they didn't then it's a little harsh to go after them personally. If they did however then yes indeed they are fair game and can't complain if they are pursued.

I'm not sure if you can plead ignorance.

At the end of the day, it is your arse that is on the line and it is up to you to appoint advisors, accountants etc that know their stuff.

Of course, if you do find yourself in bother as a result of advice you have been given I'm sure you could sue your advisors and depending on what position they officially hold they might have some sort of indemnity insurance.

My brother works down in London and when he started to get a few media gigs everyone used to say "oh, you should go to see Jimmy Carr's accountant".

He didn't, but I believe all of those who did ended up in a lot of trouble and had to find significant sums of money for Hector a few years down the line.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

As has been mentioned previously, there ciuld be a few ex players a bit worried. It seems that if old rangers cant make a satisfactory offer, it will be the players being pursued.

Not sure what you mean by "suitable offer".

The HMRC assessment has now been confirmed as due. The amount payable will go into the pot along with the other ordinary creditors, and be paid the same dividend as them.

The amount recovered will have little bearing on whether the players are being pursued. That's more to do with principles and HMRC's attitude.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

The 'Airdrie United' episode is proof that the SFA bent their rules to accommodate the new Rangers.


Airdieonians FC went bust and a new club was formed by the purchase of Clydebank FC and the associated SFA licence. This new club was not allowed to change their name from Clydebank to the name of the now defunct Airdrionians (because of SFA rules) so had to call themselves Airdrie United instead.

Fast forward to 2012 and Rangers FC went bust. A new entity was formed and, lo and behold, they were (unlike Airdrie) allowed to use the name of the former club.

Different situation? Well, the owners of Airdrie United weren't happy about it and asked again for the right to call their club Airdieonians. Basically, the SFA didn't have a leg to stand on and allowed the renaming, despite their former ruling.

[21.05.2016]

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

I'm not sure if you can plead ignorance.

At the end of the day, it is your arse that is on the line and it is up to you to appoint advisors, accountants etc that know their stuff.

Of course, if you do find yourself in bother as a result of advice you have been given I'm sure you could sue your advisors and depending on what position they officially hold they might have some sort of indemnity insurance.

My brother works down in London and when he started to get a few media gigs everyone used to say "oh, you should go to see Jimmy Carr's accountant".

He didn't, but I believe all of those who did ended up in a lot of trouble and had to find significant sums of money for Hector a few years down the line.

Agreed but many of them aren't particularly bright, many of them see the big money figures and grab it. Your right though, its their responsibility to ensure they aren't being roped into anything dodgy.


I suspect their will be a few of them keeping a low profile for a while.

[Jack Hackett]

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

Campbell Ogilvie, to be heavily involved with one club stiffing its' creditors is unfortunate. To be involved with 2, to be a shareholder in one while MD of the other, to be in receipt of an EBT & then to become President of the SFA is beyond parody.

To paraphrase W. Shakespeare "Something is rotten in the state of Scottish Football"

[Smartie]

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

Agreed but many of them aren't particularly bright, many of them see the big money figures and grab it. Your right though, its their responsibility to ensure they aren't being roped into anything dodgy.


I suspect their will be a few of them keeping a low profile for a while.

I suspect so.

Looking at the sums of money involved too, I can't imagine many of them will have that kind of money just lying around any more. If bills were to come their way then I suspect a few assets might have to be liquidised (?) to pay any forthcoming bills.

This, of course, may be the best bit of the whole saga so far. The players, the board and the advisors all paying lawyers fortunes whilst pointing fingers in every direction other than at themselves, whilst the hordes turn on anyone that they see fit to along the way.

Muchos popcorn required.

[Captain Trips]

Just in case tax is required to be paid Lee Wallace will be dropping by from time to time to help Mr Taxman out:

Nacho Novo Last seen in Belfast.

FYI

[Jack Hackett]

I note with interest that when Rangers were found guilty, the SFA issued a statement within hours stating that, after 'consideration' , they would take no further action. The SPFL later released a statement saying they would 'consider' the implications... That was 5 days ago now, and not a cheep from them yet.

[Smartie]

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

I note with interest that when Rangers were found guilty, the SFA issued a statement within hours stating that, after 'consideration' , they would take no further action. The SPFL later released a statement saying they would 'consider' the implications... That was 5 days ago now, and not a cheep from them yet.

To be fair to the SPFL there are some serious implications to be taken into consideration. To take a bit of time is 100% the right thing to do.

It was the SFA rushing out their nonsense on the day who were wrong.

[beensaidbefore]

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

Not sure what you mean by "suitable offer".

The HMRC assessment has now been confirmed as due. The amount payable will go into the pot along with the other ordinary creditors, and be paid the same dividend as them.

The amount recovered will have little bearing on whether the players are being pursued. That's more to do with principles and HMRC's attitude.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Satisfactory, not suitable. If hmrc are satisfied that they have recouped 'enough' back. Who decides what is enough is another question.

I have heard that they are not intending to take more than what is 'fair'. That could mean pursuing individuals but not if they get a 'fair' amount from rangers. Make of that what you will.

[Fuzzywuzzy]

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

I suspect so.

Looking at the sums of money involved too, I can't imagine many of them will have that kind of money just lying around any more. If bills were to come their way then I suspect a few assets might have to be liquidised (?) to pay any forthcoming bills.

This, of course, may be the best bit of the whole saga so far. The players, the board and the advisors all paying lawyers fortunes whilst pointing fingers in every direction other than at themselves, whilst the hordes turn on anyone that they see fit to along the way.

Muchos popcorn required.

I believe Belize is nice......

[Jack Hackett]

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

To be fair to the SPFL there are some serious implications to be taken into consideration. To take a bit of time is 100% the right thing to do.

It was the SFA rushing out their nonsense on the day who were wrong.

It was more the speed of the 'do' SFA's response I was having the bigger dig at, hence the

I'm actually hoping the SPFL are taking so long because they realise they're up the proverbial creek, and will have to do something

Edit. The nonsense of the SFA's statement, is that Ogilvy was up to his neck in what was going on

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Satisfactory, not suitable. If hmrc are satisfied that they have recouped 'enough' back. Who decides what is enough is another question.

I have heard that they are not intending to take more than what is 'fair'. That could mean pursuing individuals but not if they get a 'fair' amount from rangers. Make of that what you will.

It was the word "offer" that jumped out at me, since it has a particular connotation in the tax context. The opportunity for Oldco to make any kind of offer passed many years ago.

HMRC won't actually know how much they are recouping for some time yet...maybe years. The Wavetower and Duff & Phelps cases still have to be settled before the creditors can get any sort of payout.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[beensaidbefore]

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

It was the word "offer" that jumped out at me, since it has a particular connotation in the tax context. The opportunity for Oldco to make any kind of offer passed many years ago.

HMRC won't actually know how much they are recouping for some time yet...maybe years. The Wavetower and Duff & Phelps cases still have to be settled before the creditors can get any sort of payout.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I'm not too up to speed on the correct terminology tbh. As you allude to though, the plan is not yet clear, which is why going after individuals could still be an option.

[Is It On....]

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

I'd still have the same view. If those clubs went after Newco, it would partly support that, no?

Indeed. I can't help thinking this is only start of the next chapter rather than the end of the story and that the SFA / SPFL could be moving towards a starring role. The potential for past indiscretions to be classed as football debt and therefore transferable to "NewCo" is always something I gave wondered about. On a connected matter, whatever happened to the money due to Rapid Vienna in respect of the Jelavic transfer in the dying days of Craig Whyte's reign?

[Offside Trap]

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

It was the word "offer" that jumped out at me, since it has a particular connotation in the tax context. The opportunity for Oldco to make any kind of offer passed many years ago.

HMRC won't actually know how much they are recouping for some time yet...maybe years. The Wavetower and Duff & Phelps cases still have to be settled before the creditors can get any sort of payout.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Yip, and as I've mentioned earlier in this thread, there is the not insignificant matter of the Disguised Remuneration loan charge which means tax and NIC is due on any loans which remain outstanding to EBTs as at April 2019. I know CWG posted an earlier link in this thread to a general Deloitte article which concluded with a "might be difficult to enforce" view from Deloitte on the April 2019 loan charge. I am pretty sure that the Deloitte view will have moved on since that article...

So I think there is every chance that the requirement to satisfy the April 2019 loan charge to HMRC will arrive BEFORE any creditors' payout from the liquidation pot. If you were Hector what would you do?

Or, thought about another way, if you were HMRC, would it pass the smell test to enforce the loan charge on other non-RFC EBT beneficiaries in April 2019 (of which there are thousands upon thousands across the UK and in which 99 times out of 100 the bill will ultimately be for the account of the employees/ex-employees themselves) yet somehow exempt the RFC loan beneficiaries (players, management) from the same charge just because their former employer went bust? Would seem to be a very unequal treatment...

Will be fascinating to see how HMRC play this one, particularly given how unusually public this case is....

[Ozyhibby]

Old Rangers up in the Court of Session tomorrow. No idea what it's about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Old Rangers up in the Court of Session tomorrow. No idea what it's about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Wavetower case?

Duff & Phelps?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Deansy]

We're all talking rubbish because according to an article in the 'Daily Rectum' (where else, of course !) with Arthur Numan who says -

'Title-stripping is nonsense because trophies were won fair and square'

You can't really argue with the fact that their players DID win their games/trophies and titles because they played the better football.

However, Arthur - and I strongly suspect, the 'Rectum' - all conveniently forget that the argument is that were it NOT for the dodgy tax-scheme, these players would NOT have been playing for Rangers - THAT wasn't 'fair and square' !

Oh aye,and Arthur himself was a recipient of some £510,000 via EBT according to whatever EBT-list of 'who-received-what' is genuine.


Just another day and another mis-leading/deflecting/biased article in the world of surely the world's most corrupt, inefficient, spineless 'Football Media' !

[Is It On....]

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

We're all talking rubbish because according to an article in the 'Daily Rectum' (where else, of course !) with Arthur Numan who says -

'Title-stripping is nonsense because trophies were won fair and square'

You can't really argue with the fact that their players DID win their games/trophies and titles because they played the better football.

However, Arthur - and I strongly suspect, the 'Rectum' - all conveniently forget that the argument is that were it NOT for the dodgy tax-scheme, these players would NOT have been playing for Rangers !

Oh aye,and Arthur himself was a recipient of some £510,000 via EBT according to whatever EBT-list of 'who-received-what' is genuine.


Just another day and another mis-leading/deflecting/biased article in the world of surely the world's most corrupt, inefficient, spineless 'Football Media' !

If Arthur was paid £510k via EBT..then he could be due that in unpaid tax and late payment fines..so the winning of titles are the last thing he should be worried about.

[lapsedhibee]

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

We're all talking rubbish because according to an article in the 'Daily Rectum' (where else, of course !) with Arthur Numan who says -

'Title-stripping is nonsense because trophies were won fair and square'

You can't really argue with the fact that their players DID win their games/trophies and titles because they played the better football.

However, Arthur - and I strongly suspect, the 'Rectum' - all conveniently forget that the argument is that were it NOT for the dodgy tax-scheme, these players would NOT have been playing for Rangers - THAT wasn't 'fair and square' !

Oh aye,and Arthur himself was a recipient of some £510,000 via EBT according to whatever EBT-list of 'who-received-what' is genuine.

Just another day and another mis-leading/deflecting/biased article in the world of surely the world's most corrupt, inefficient, spineless 'Football Media' !

Such an inane defence - which I think Chris Sutton also made, presumably just to be his usual controversialist self - to claim that things were won 'on the pitch' and ought therefore to stand. Every team that's ever been thrown out of a competition for a mis-registration could argue exactly the same - that it's unjust for a team who've won a match to be thrown out. That's the whole point - it's a punishment, you morons!

[Ozyhibby]

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

We're all talking rubbish because according to an article in the 'Daily Rectum' (where else, of course !) with Arthur Numan who says -

'Title-stripping is nonsense because trophies were won fair and square'

You can't really argue with the fact that their players DID win their games/trophies and titles because they played the better football.

However, Arthur - and I strongly suspect, the 'Rectum' - all conveniently forget that the argument is that were it NOT for the dodgy tax-scheme, these players would NOT have been playing for Rangers - THAT wasn't 'fair and square' !

Oh aye,and Arthur himself was a recipient of some £510,000 via EBT according to whatever EBT-list of 'who-received-what' is genuine.


Just another day and another mis-leading/deflecting/biased article in the world of surely the world's most corrupt, inefficient, spineless 'Football Media' !

Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson said the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tamig]

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

Such an inane defence - which I think Chris Sutton also made, presumably just to be his usual controversialist self - to claim that things were won 'on the pitch' and ought therefore to stand. Every team that's ever been thrown out of a competition for a mis-registration could argue exactly the same - that it's unjust for a team who've won a match to be thrown out. That's the whole point - it's a punishment, you morons!

Aye. And the key thing being that the likes of Numan and some of his colleagues wouldn't have been anywhere near that cesspit without that dodgy scheme topping up their earnings to acceptable levels.

[edinburghhibee]

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

The 'Airdrie United' episode is proof that the SFA bent their rules to accommodate the new Rangers.


Airdieonians FC went bust and a new club was formed by the purchase of Clydebank FC and the associated SFA licence. This new club was not allowed to change their name from Clydebank to the name of the now defunct Airdrionians (because of SFA rules) so had to call themselves Airdrie United instead.

Fast forward to 2012 and Rangers FC went bust. A new entity was formed and, lo and behold, they were (unlike Airdrie) allowed to use the name of the former club.

Different situation? Well, the owners of Airdrie United weren't happy about it and asked again for the right to call their club Airdieonians. Basically, the SFA didn't have a leg to stand on and allowed the renaming, despite their former ruling.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk