nacho

doesnt really address the points raised on rangers media unsurprisingly i also find it hilarious that the bloggers are making money from gullible celtic fans by feeding them a load of nonsense on this issue and the various other issues

nope , as that is based on the fallacy that club is the same as company which the facts contradict, the only available info from fifa regarding the status of the club are news articles on their website of which 5 say same club and 1 says new club - hope that helps

cant see this happening at all in regards to getting the fat scumbag out or our club

insecurity i am secure in the knowledge that my club survived, laughing at you new club fuds is the reason im here

I think you will find its the other way around as things stand we are officially the same club, will be in europe next year, have all our titles, trophies etc, why would we not be dismissive when these daft wee campaigns are currently standing at 3-0 to us, added to that the resolution 12 stuff is a pile of pish that has already been given short shrift by the sfa so it looks like 4-0 and even if the celtic fans behind it were right (which they are not), there are a variety of sanctions available for breaching it of which not being eligble for europe is the most extreme, its absolute garbage dreamed up in the minds of timmy acountants and the way a guy in rangers media has been able to point out its massive flaws in a couple of posts points to the latest predictable laughable failure from celtic fans

I see John James has issued a rebuttal which will be lapped up by his disciples with no right of reply on his site so hopefully Bill McMurdo will read this and send on my behalf. I have put JJ comments in Bold underlined italics along with my reply. JJ "He states that the authors of the report were fed information by the Resolution 12 requisitioners, yet offers no proof to support his speculation. " I did not state that as fact. I said it was my belief. Not sure why that would be so far reaching given the amount of people this info has been sent to elsewhere. "In 2.5 he states that HMRC did not respond to David Grier’s letter. He should take another look at the annexes of the report as they most certainly did respond" That's a lie. In my timeline between 6th June and 30th June I stated: "There is then no evidence of any replies from HMRC which is quite surprising given that other documents from HMRC which paint a "bad picture" seem readily available yet the 1 document which can prove beyond any doubt the situation at 30th June is missing" "No evidence of any replies" does not mean "HMRC did not respond" In fact, I believe they did respond or at least correspond, but that letter/report will not make the public domain due to its contents not suiting the agenda at play. " in 1.2 he refers to a hand written note by HMRC. It was not written by HMRC, it was written by a Rangers executive. For an individuial with such a high regard for himself he is betrayed by his poor grasp of the salient details ." Thats another lie. I say nothing of the sort . The report confirms it was written by a Rangers director. "A hand written note states that HMRC have agreed "IN PRINCIPLE" does not mean "A hand written note BY HMRC." "The key element is the bill presented on 20th May. To not have been an overdue payable there had to be at 30th June an agreement accepted in writing by HMRC to extend the deadline for payment." This is correct. I've never said anything different. "On the 14th July, after the deadline, what could have been misconstrued as an agreement was withdrawn one week later when HMRC were informed of the signing of Lee Wallace on 21st July." Wait. What's this? New information that there might have been an agreement with HMRC after all. So potentially no disclosure at all required by Rangers. Thanks JJ for that new info. That helps the licence cause. "HMRC were not contemplating anything but full settlement of the tax debt. David Grier’s offer of £200k towards the bill was rebuffed.It was no more than a tactic to give the impression of ongoing discussions with HMRC." Means nothing to the licence as long as the amount is disclosed as per article 66 paragraph 4. " The author of the Rangers Media comment is keen to quote UEFA annexes (I excised them when condensing his argument) however he seems to have overlooked Annex VIII. An overdue payable will not preclude the granting of a UEFA licence if one of four conditions has been satisfied: a) The relevant amount has been paid. b) The creditor has accepted, in writing, an agreement to extend the payment terms. c) The debtor has brought a legal claim disputing liability. d) It is able to demonstrate that the claim against it is manifestly unfounded." WAIT. What??? The opening paragraph is COMPLETELY MADE UP. This is by far the biggest lie in the entire rebuttal. One which by the way had me a little concerned as i thought i had slipped up and missed it somewhere. The 4 conditions set out allow you to NOT disclose a penny of overdue tax. They are nothing to do with "precluding the granting of a licence" It's simple. If your tax bill meets one of the 4 above you DO NOT NEED to disclose it. If your tax bill doesn't meet it, as was the case with us at June 30th, then you DO NEED to disclose it, which we done. "If any of these conditions had been satisfied, it would behove the SFA to construct a well-founded written case to apply for an exemption. In a,c and d above, there is no case. The £2.83m has not been paid. There was no redress to legal action and no appeal in the 30 day HMRC window. Andrew Thornhill’s advice to settle puts paid to any attempt to invoke clause d." This is pure fantasy. You don't apply for exemption. You disclose your overdue payable as per Article 66 paragraph 4 using the definition of Annex VIII. a,b,c and d allow you the option of keeping your mouth shut and the ink dry. What is so difficult about this that people just don't understand? It's schoolboy stuff. "There is an attempt by the Rangers Media author to invoke clause b," More lies. I go to great pains to explain there is no evidence to support b which is why WE NEEDED to disclose the bill. Which we did. "If the SFA had engaged in this procedure, they could have easily taken Resolution 12 to task. When we strip away the blue rhetoric, the ad hominem attacks, conjecture and specious claims of documents going missing, we are left with only one conclusion:" When we strip away every lie and non point you have made in this rebuttal, you are right to say we are left with only one conclusion and that is that you cant read English and that you blatantly lie to apease your followers. Your entire rebuttal is astounding. I should point out at this stage that i have exchanged around 10 emails or so with the author who has been very cordial, has debated and discussed every point in an adult manner and at no juncture has he resorted to lies or misquoting me. I have a full reply to review in the next hour or so but again, very coridal. I stand by my notion that he is independent and not a Celtic fan, or Rangers hater who by their own actions, are very simple to spot. "As there was no schedule of payments from HMRC, and there never would be, Ken Olverman’s submission to the SFA on 30th June was predicated on a lie." Ken Olverman disclosed the £2.83m on the licence application in accordance with Article 66 paragraph 4. There is no proof of any lie. In fact a few points back, you admitted there may have been a percieved agreement. "The SFA accepted this lie, stated that the £2.83m was a potential liability that had not crystallised, and they have been running with this rhetoric ever since. However, they don’t escape liability as they don’t have any written confirmation of a schedule of payments." What part of the Article is it that you dont get. If the club had a schedule of payments, there would be a "nil disclosure" so the SFA would never see a schedule of payments, nor ask for one, because there is none. Let me finally remind you of the REAL ANNEX VIII ANNEX VIII: Notion of ‘overdue payables’ 1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms. 2. Payables are NOT CONSIDERED as overdue, within the meaning of these regulations, if the licence applicant/licensee (i.e. debtor club) is able to prove by 31 March (in respect of Articles 49 and 50) and by 30 June and 30 September (in respect of Articles 65 and 66) respectively that: a) it has paid the relevant amount in full; or b) it has concluded an agreement which has been accepted in writing by the creditor to extend the deadline for payment beyond the applicable deadline (note: the fact that a creditor may not have requested payment of an amount does not constitute an extension of the deadline); or c) it has brought a legal claim which has been deemed admissible by the competent authority under national law or has opened proceedings with the national or international football authorities or relevant arbitration tribunal contesting liability in relation to the overdue payables; however, if the decision-making bodies (licensor and/or UEFA Club Financial Control Body) consider that such claim has been brought or such proceedings have been opened for the sole purpose of avoiding the applicable deadlines set out in these regulations (i.e. in order to buy time), the relevant amount will still be considered as an overdue payable; or d) it has contested to the competent authority under national law, the national or international football authorities or the relevant arbitration tribunal, a claim which has been brought or proceedings which have been opened against it by a creditor in respect of overdue payables and is able to demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant decision-making bodies (licensor and/or UEFA Club Financial Control Body) that it has established reasons for contesting the claim or proceedings which have been opened; however, if the decision-making bodies (licensor and/or UEFA Club Financial Control Body) consider the reasons for contesting the claim or proceedings which have been opened as manifestly unfounded the amount will still be considered as an overdue payable. OVERDUE PAYABLE = DISCLOSURE NOT OVERDUE PAYABLE = NO DISCLOSURE

? not sure what you are responding too, the res 12 stuff is nothing to do with ebts

learn to read, i state the new club case is unprovable as you have zero credible evidence to support it, hope that helps

i scanned it looking for an argument about res 12, I should have realised we were heading for another turgid, unprovable and pointless new club bullshitefest, as for an explanation of why club is used, i'd imagine its there as the company is the legal persona of the club so club/ company can be used interchangably while not being the same thing as they are closely associated with each other. it is a long standing claim on this board that club and company are the same thing which can easily be disproved by pointling out that plenty of clubs before rangers newcoed while remaining the same club, hearts in 1905, leeds, luton etc you all considered them the same club and then changed your mind in 2012, something which none of you have ever acknowledged, as already pointed out there are various sources pre cva rejection that show club and company are separate entites, here they are below, also something that you have never acknowledged, here’s a quote from an STV article from 2011 outlining what would happen if the Olcdo was liquidated, it’s very clear according to that rangers would survive and be the same club. This proves that the information was freely available before liquidation and it wasn’t some myth created after the event. “There is an alternative for football clubs. As was the case in England with Leeds United, the insolvent company can create a "phoenix" club and attempt to transfer every part of the club to a new business, leaving behind the debt.†Source http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/277115-what-happens-when-a-club-in-administration-sets-up-a-phoenix-company/ Here’s what duff and Phelps had to say at the start of April 2012 before the CVA failed, once again clear the club would survive liquidation. "We cannot rule out the winning bid could prefer a different structure that meant the sale of the business to a new company and in that eventuality it is certainly possible that Rangers would be liquidated," co-administrator Paul Clark told a number of newspapers. "But it would only be done so after the football club was made safe." Source http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/311940/Liquidation-a-possibility-for-Rangers High Court Judge Lord Glennie is clear that club and company are separate. "This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html it amazes me that you still dont understand in 2016 that club can be used in relation to financial matters to save going into some pointless explanation of the differences between club and company.

tno problem, thanks for taking the time to select various quotes out of context with no sort of an explanation

A selection of quotes is not an argument, hope that helps, your post gives no indication on what your position is regarding res 12, the usual guess my argument nonsense from you

yep, not really bothered with finding out what the latest lunacy was from the celtic fans, as like their strip the titles, uefa licence for next year and all the other wee internet campaigns/ theories its doomed to failure, that post tells me all i need to know about it

so do you believe that your fellow celtic fans will have success with res 12?

the usual pointless post from you with no context and no argument, why bother?

Heres a response to the resolution 12 guff from a poster on rangers media, seems to point out the various flaws that i suspected would be the case with the loonball element of the celtic fanbase being responsible for it, the usual stuff in evidence from res 12ers - missing evidence that would harm the res 12 argument, specially selected evidence and the usual generous helping of leaping to conclusions that the evidence does not support and wishful thinking, i imagine this is why the sfa laughed at the evidence presented and gave it short shrift UEFA Licence 2011 - Time to put this to bed. The recent report which claims that the SFA wrongly approved a licence for Rangers to play in Europe which was compiled by an Independent group (The Offshore Game) based on information supplied to them by Celtic supporters. The first thing to note is that, for once, I genuinely believe the author is independent and not a Celtic fan/Rangers hater. I believe however the evidence presented was tainted and hand-picked before sending it however I am about to prove why the report is wrong and why all the moon howling by Celtic fans on Resolution 12 is dead in the water. THE ISSUE In relation to the report there are 4 main accusations, which mirror the ones made constantly by Celtic fans, and Auldheid in particular, not forgetting John James though he falls into the first category: 1) As at 31st March 2011, Rangers had an overdue tax bill which meant the SFA should not issue a licence to play in Europe 2) As at 31st March 2011, Rangers claimed this bill was “a potential bill†instead of stating it was actually a bill which meant the SFA should not issue a licence to play in Europe 3) Even if the bill at 31st March was only “a potential bill†as at 30th June 2011, it had became a proper bill which meant the SFA should not issue a licence to play in Europe. 4) As at 30th June, Rangers declared that they had a bill but were waiting on a schedule of payments from HMRC, which meant the SFA should not issue a licence to play in Europe. THE RULES In order to understand each of the 4 accusations we first need to understand the actual rules they refer to which can be found here: http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf In relation to the first 2 issues, Article 50 of the rules states: Article 50 – No overdue payables towards employees and social/tax authorities 1 The licence applicant must prove that as at 31 March preceding the licence season it has no “OVERDUE PAYABLES†(as defined in Annex VIII) towards its employees as well as social/tax authorities as a result of contractual and legal obligations towards its employees that arose prior to the previous 31 December. To understand what constitutes an “OVERDUE PAYABLE†we need to turn to Annex VIII as directed. Annex VIII states: ANNEX VIII: Notion of ‘overdue payables’ 1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms. So to be crystal clear, a Social Tax is ONLY considered as “OVERDUE PAYABLE†if there is a debt owed to HMRC (or other tax authority) and that the terms of the amount due have been agreed then not met. Article 50 and 66(later) solely deal with overdue pyables. To help understand if our club had a debt which met the above, we can use the evidence in The Offshore Game report. Here is the timeline of the evidence: 3rd March - Andrew Thornhill recommends to the Rangers Board that they "seek a settlement" with HMRC in relation to the Small Tax Case 21st March - A hand written note states that HMRC have agreed "IN PRINCIPLE" that the settlement seems the right thing to do. A decision which then needs to become a formal offer by HMRC and an agreement by the Club. 31st March - 1st disclosure due to SFA for licence by the Club. At this point, the Social Tax is NOT overdue as no formal agreement has been reached and no payment date set by HMRC. This means according to Clause Viii of UEFA guidelines they are not "overdue if not paid according to the agreed terms" I have no idea if Rangers disclosed them on the submission, however if they did, they would have done so without any formal disclosure requirement. 1st April - Rangers released their interim accounts confirming: "Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised." This is in line with the evidence presented in the report. Again to be clear. As at 31st March 2011, HMRC had not made an official agreement with Rangers nor set out the terms of which they wanted any money to be paid. According to UEFA own rules, the £2.83m was NOT an “OVERDUE PAYABLE†and therefore required no disclosure whatsoever as part of the licence process. Therefore the evidence actually shows that Issue 1 and Issue 2 outlined above are false and that the licence requirements were fully met. Moving onto the more contentious Issues 3 and 4. To understand if we broke any guidelines here, we need to refer to Article 66 which states: Article 66 – No overdue payables towards employees and/or social/tax authorities – Enhanced 1 The licensee must prove that as at 30 June of the year in which the UEFA club competitions commence it has no overdue payables (as specified in Annex VIII) towards its employees and/or social/tax authorities (as defined in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 50) that arose prior to 30 June. 2 By the deadline and in the form communicated by the UEFA administration, the licensee must prepare and submit a declaration confirming the absence or existence of overdue payables towards employees and social/tax authorities. 4 The following information must be given, as a minimum, in respect of each overdue payable towards social/tax authorities, together with explanatory comment: a) Name of the creditor; b) Balance overdue as at 30 June, including the due date for each overdue element. 5 The declaration must be approved by management and this must be evidenced by way of a brief statement and signature on behalf of the executive body of the licensee. In summary the above requires the same disclosures as 31st March but clarifies what you need to do in the circumstance that you do have an overdue payable and this is where the confusion really kicks on for the authors and Celtic fans complaining about it. For understanding of our situation, here is the timeline between 1st April and 30th June as presented by the author of the report: 5th May - HMRC make a formal offer of settlement for the club to decide to pay or not and give the club 11 days to sign the offer(16th May) and a further 30 days after the signature to pay it(15th June). At this stage, this is still not an "overdue payable" according to UEFA rules. This letter also confirms that no bill was formally agreed prior to 31st March. 6th May - Craig Whyte takes over Rangers. 20th May - As Rangers, now under different ownership, failed to agree to the offer received on the 5th May sent to and agreed by the previous owners, HMRC issue Formal determinations to the value of the agreed amounts made by the previous Board. The amount is now an “overdue payable†according to UEFA rules and subject to disclosure for the first time. 6th June - MCR write to HMRC on behalf of the club asking HMRC to consider a payment schedule and to allow more time for the new owners to work out cashflow and working capital. There is then no evidence of any replies from HMRC which is quite surprising given that other documents from HMRC which paint a "bad picture" seem readily available yet the 1 document which can prove beyond any doubt the situation at 30th June is missing. 30th June – Ken Olverman emails Craig Whyte to confirm that he is disclosing the “overdue payable†and commenting that they are waiting a schedule of payments from HMRC as per the letter dated 6th June. CRUCIAL CLARIFICATION POINT UEFA regulations do not forbid a club from having an overdue payable. UEFA regulations do not state that if you have an overdue payable, that you cannot get a licence. UEFA regulations simply state that if you have an overdue payable then under Article 66 section 4 that you must disclose the debt and state why its overdue. Ken Olvermans email is 100% consistent with this. Rangers disclosed their overdue payable. Rangers followed the regulations. The licence was issued. MALAGA RULING The report gets another aspect hugely wrong by referring to The Malaga Ruling. It states: "The (Malaga) judgement confirmed that in order to meet the rules, a club must have written agreement in place to pay any outstanding tax liability" which is completely wrong. The Malaga judgement confirmed that the "EUR 8,450,000 had to be considered as OVERDUE, because of the lack of any written agreement between Malaga and the tax authorities." This ultimately means that as an OVERDUE amount, Malaga had a duty of disclosure under Pargaraph 4 of Article 66. It does NOT mean that they had to have a written agreement in place to meet the rules. It also does NOT mean they wouldnt have got a licence if properly disclosed. Malaga failed to disclose this amount completely and this is why they breached the rules. The overdue payable in itself was NOT a breach of the rules. It is important to note at this stage that if any club has a written agreement with the tax authority then no disclosure is required at all. This does not change anything in relation to our situation, as we did not take that route. We disclosed it. It is also even more important to note that in the case of Malaga, on the 30th June, they disclosed an overdue payable of 9.42m EURO(this was in addition to the undiscosed amount above) yet they were granted a licence by the RFEF (Spanish SFA) and the licence was rubber stamped by UEFA. Rangers fully disclosed an overdue payable of 3.4m EURO(35% of Malagas) yet some would have you believe the SFA should not have granted the initial licence. They use Malaga ruling (wrongly) when they want to and ignore it when it doesnt suit the agenda. SO THERE WE HAVE IT 31st March – HMRC had not officially agreed the final bill and given a due date means no disclosure was required. Rangers may have actually have disclosed it incidentally, but it was not a requirement. 30th June – Rangers had to disclose the overdue payable and comment on the current position. They did this. There is a further checkpoint at 30th September, however by this time, Rangers were out of Europe and have not had a licence since. Any noise around the 30th September is just nonsense. THE OFFSHORE GAME All of the above has been sent to the author, over various emails and he agreed it was “very thoughtful†and “consideredâ€. A review was promised with the co-author however on Twitter yesterday, the account continued to reply to tweets on the subject with no sign of taking a step back and considering this game changer. A few of my acquaintances have taken to other forms of Social Media to ask questions of others with a lot of sweeping, blocking and deleting going on. Its funny that all of these people cry for these things to be out in the open yet when presented with credible evidence, they shrink into the tortoise shell. We await a reply and correction from the author of the report unless evidence is hiding in the wings to disprove the position above. UPDATE : The author has replied and accepted a number of points around other issues not listed above. There is ongoing dialogue at present and I will update once we reach a conclusion.

another load of claims backed up by feck all , note zero evidence contained in any of those paragraphs, they have helpfully provided about 9 million pages of stuff in appendices for the interested to wade through if they want to find any evidence, I wonder why , with such a dynamite case which would blow scottish football open they didnt bother to provide properly sourced quotes to back up their claims in the initial statement, its a mystery

ah right "The first one, transferring bibs n cones to another company is not the same as the club. Leaving behind the utter immorality of dumping debt." - legally it is as the article shows "The second one, duff n phelps haha try again." - its evidence that you asked for - bdo said exactly the same however that was after the time period specified The third one, well that looks more promising, he calls your club a company. Could you confirm that this was after the authorities redefined a club as "something that can be owned and operated"? - this was pre cva being refused , pre anything from the scottish footballing authorities

i know they werent liquidated, i was pointing out the stupidity of another posters pay your debts and you will be considered the same club argument - which is based on nothing and makes no sense - Dundee, Motherwell or Livingston didnt pay their debts, therefore according to the other posters logic they cant be considered the same club

what post are you quoting, post this again with your stuff and i will reply

the club was sold according to the insolvency specialists involved, both bdo and duff and phelps say it was sold with the assets of oldco, the experts know better than you, it differs from the gretna situation in the most obvious of fashions, no one bought gretna or ardrie - the situations are totally different

the pay your debts pish is the most nonsenisical new club argument of them all, based on absolutely nothing clubs agreeing a cva dont pay all their debts, just pennies in the pound like oldcos creditors will get, does that mean dundee, etc are new clubs after all their debts werent paid in full - lunacy

no bother, heres three pre cva being rejected, you can add that to the numerous examples of clubs going through the same as rangers and surviving - leeds, luton, middlesborough and hearts and thats 7 examples - easy here’s a quote from an STV article from 2011 outlining what would happen if the Olcdo was liquidated, it’s very clear according to that rangers would survive and be the same club. This proves that the information was freely available before liquidation and it wasn’t some myth created after the event. “There is an alternative for football clubs. As was the case in England with Leeds United, the insolvent company can create a "phoenix" club and attempt to transfer every part of the club to a new business, leaving behind the debt.†Source http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/277115-what-happens-when-a-club-in-administration-sets-up-a-phoenix-company/ Here’s what duff and Phelps had to say at the start of April 2012 before the CVA failed, once again clear the club would survive liquidation. "We cannot rule out the winning bid could prefer a different structure that meant the sale of the business to a new company and in that eventuality it is certainly possible that Rangers would be liquidated," co-administrator Paul Clark told a number of newspapers. "But it would only be done so after the football club was made safe." Source http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/311940/Liquidation-a-possibility-for-Rangers Lord Glennie - "This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers")

fair enough, glad you can admit that your view differs from the official view

the company was, the club was sold pre liquidation and continued on just like hearts , leeds luton, middlesborough etc, which you you didnt mention in your wee list even though they are the most relevant examples being almost identical to the rangers scenario, you ignored it because it destorys your argument just like your ignore all the other facts

so he claims - hearts formed a newco , transferred the club and liquidated the oldco just like rangers and the club survived, its the most relevant example in scottish football