Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[hellbhoy]

Just another point of fact that fudges up how the SFA dealt with Rangers cheating, the £250K fine they supposedly handed to the oldco in liquidation? In their rule book they detail explicitly that they only hand out fines to clubs seeing as clubs are their members. Then how the hell can they explain they handed out their largest ever punitive measure to a company in liquidation? How did they come to that conclusion?

If they feel that The Rangers are still the very same club/member they have always had, then why didn't they fine the club still in existence according to them?

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

39 minutes ago, hellbhoy said:

JIm?, what is actually your point here? Finally as we all know and hoped for, Rangers FC PLC have been found guilty of abusing a legal pension scheme with benefits to bribe players to play for them they otherwise couldn't have afforded, and it almost looks like you are defending their crime by saying it's not a sham???

It has been found out to be a sham hasn't it? The FTT & the UTT outcomes do not even matter one jot now other than they were previously contested outcomes.

Again the bolded is not true. The facts found by the FTT have stood in the case through all appeals and have been re-iterated at every point that the EBT scheme employed by Rangers was not a sham. Rangers haven't been found guilty of abusing anything, the FTT cleared them of that and the UTT upheld it. Those verdicts stand.

I already said what my main point is. That in considering this ruling there doesn't appear to be a change in circumstances or fact that would warrant the football authorities re-opening the issues investigated and ruled on by Lord Nimmo Smith.

My other point is that some of you should actually read the legal rulings.

[hellbhoy]

1 minute ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Again the bolded is not true. The facts found by the FTT have stood in the case through all appeals and have been re-iterated at every point that the EBT scheme employed by Rangers was not a sham. Rangers haven't been found guilty of abusing anything, the FTT cleared them of that and the UTT upheld it. Those verdicts stand.

I already said what my main point is. That in considering this ruling there doesn't appear to be a change in circumstances or fact that would warrant the football authorities re-opening the issues investigated and ruled on by Lord Nimmo Smith.

My other point is that some of you should actually read the legal rulings.

Yeah I'm reading through them at the moment unfortunately through a few beers.

...............................

OK you have made your point and that Rangers are now guilty of fielding improperly registered players and the HMRC have proved the soft loans to be earnings and taxable income to the HMRC in UK law. And the EBT scheme means the sum of feck all now. amarite?

 

[The DA]

6 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

Yeah I'm reading through them at the moment unfortunately through a few beers.

...............................

OK you have made your point and that Rangers are now guilty of fielding improperly registered players and the HMRC have proved the soft loans to be earnings and taxable income to the HMRC in UK law. And the EBT scheme means the sum of feck all now. amarite?

 

In any case, the SPFL are likely to say it's not in their gift to rescind awards made under a previous authority.  

The irony is that the governing body that could void these trophies is, like the club they'd be taking them away from, very, very dead.

[Monkey Tennis]

10 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Both the sentiment and grammar of the average moon-howler.  Today's outcome changes nothing.

And yet you claimed that the earlier rulings that favoured Rangers changed everything.

I actually agree that in material terms, the final judgement shouldn't really alter the debate re title stripping as that concerned player registration.  I've said this all along.

You however, have switched your view, dependent on where the ruling stood at given times.  Intellectually inconsistent and dishonest.

[Monkey Tennis]

10 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

 

The outcome was the FTT ruled the EBT scheme was legal. The UTT upheld that decision.

HMRC went back to court and challenged not the legality of EBTs but if they eliminated a tax burden at all. On this point HMRC won.

The outcome is EBTs are legal, they just don't avoid tax.

Yes.

That knowledge that they may fail to avoid tax successfully, prompted the club to register its players in deceitful terms, by deliberately withholding accurate information regarding their remuneration for playing football.

Are you insisting, like Kincardine, that this huge breach has already been addressed adequately in terms of the penalty it attracted?

[williemillersmoustache]

[Insaintee]

The judgement that EBTs were salary means that indisputably the players in question were wrongfully registered. There can be no doubt that that means titles should go. If the governing bodies will not follow their own rules then both organisations will be open for prosecution as complicit. The fact that the head of the SFA was a beneficiary of EBTs is reason enough to kick the club out of the league.

.

Imagine if it was discover that Man United was secretly paying money to the head of the FA.  Remember they only become payment when the individual draws down the loan.  

Imagine if the head of the FA was privy to and a beneficiary of a tax dodge set up by Man united and that the FA were complicit in that dodge by allowing clubs to hide payments to players with no penalty

 

• So the titles should be stripped 
• if this is the same club then they should be expelled from Scottish football
• If it's the same club, every Scottish Club can sue for loss earnings. 
• If it's not the same club then that should be made crystal clear. 
• Failure to act by the SFA/SPFL could/should open up the organisations to prosecution.
• The argument that SPFL can't rescind the  titles is nonsense. The organisation was formed by merging the two previous league incarnations.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Insaintee

[strichener]

11 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

And if you had bothered to read the Supreme Court ruling you would see that the fact EBTs are legal hasn't changed. All HMRC has done is convince the court that the establishment of an Employee Benefit Trust does not provide the employee with tax relief and should have had PAYE applied as normal income.

There was no abuse of EBTs. It is stated at least twice in the judgement that EBTs were not a sham.

So with those facts unchanged there is no reason to re-open the issues decided by LNS.

Sorry but this is utter dross.  No-one is arguing that the EBT schemes were not legal.  Ranger's use of them was not and yet LNS proceeded on the basis that Rangers used the schemes legally.  They clearly did not.

Edited July 6, 2017 by strichener

[Monkey Tennis]

As I've said, I see this final ruling as limited in material significance.

Symbolically, I'm really pleased with the direction it took though.  It really does wreck the defence that says Rangers were managing their debt successfully, but only fell prey to Whyte because of unfair pursuit from HMRC.  The way Rangers sought to use EBTs was obviously morally despicable, so it's also heartening to see that it's also been deemed unacceptable legally.  It gives added impetus to calls for titles to be removed, but these calls need to be carefully constructed.  Talk of 'financial doping' and even 'sporting advantage' is not especially helpful.

For me, it comes down to player registration and hinges on a couple of findings reached by LNS:

  I understand that he ruled, not on the basis of the big tax case being excluded from considerations, but on where judgement on it then stood.  I also believe that LNS stated that even though that judgement was not final, the decision based on it would be.  To this layman, that sounds thoroughly unjust and worthy of challenge.

The other bit involved the players being adjudged eligible to compete, simply because such a matter, somehow couldn't be ruled on retrospectively.  Given how seriously registration matters are traditionally dealt with in football, that seems wildly contradictory.

I really want titles stripped in the name of sport and justice.  I'd like Celtic to have a voice here because it's potentially loud.  I'd like them however, to explicitly drop a claim on the titles of their own, instead pressing for those won in the relevant years, to be declared void.

[nsr]

Celtic won't do anything.

[dayman fighter of the nightman]

Question,
will the powers that be now strip rangers of the honours won during the cheating? Or
Will they explain no honours can be stripped because this is a new club?

Decisions decisions

[pozbaird]

44 minutes ago, nsr said:

Celtic won't do anything.

That's my view. They'll make waves, make a lot of noise, put out some statements saying stuff like they eagerly await word about retrospective action from the SFA / SPFL / Tufty Club....

but behind the boardroom doors, all they'll really be doing is chuckling over custard creams and a vanilla latte, and pishing themselves laughing at the deadco.

Edit: I'm not really having a pop at Celtic either. Sure, they are big and powerful and when they put out a statement on anything folk take notice, but it's not all down to one club, even though they are clearly the biggest fish in our corrupt football pond.

If anything is to be done, it'll need a strong will from Celtic.... and St Mirren, and Forfar, and Annan, and Hibs, and Aberdeen... and every other fcuker in Scotland.

They'll all clam up though. So many fingers will be stuck in ears going 'nah, nah, nah, make it go away' that the silence will be deafening.

Edited July 6, 2017 by pozbaird

[Jambomo]

13 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

That's my view. They'll make waves, make a lot of noise, put out some statements saying stuff like they eagerly await word about retrospective action from the SFA / SPFL / Tufty Club....

but behind the boardroom doors, all they'll really be doing is chuckling over custard creams and a vanilla latte, and pishing themselves laughing at the deadco.

What do you think it would take to get them (all clubs, not just Celtic) to take it a bit more seriously?

I don't think titles should be re-awarded or anything but I certainly think that they ought to be stripped, that is a punishment consistently used in other sports for cheating of various kinds.

Just laughing it off and allowing the SFA to shrug and refuse to do anything doesn't seem right. As said LNS's verdict was based on the false premise that Rangers use of EBT's was legal (i.e the way they used them, not the EBT system itself). I don't accept their argument that it has been looked at and they can't go back to it

[Mark Connolly]

2 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

What do you think it would take to get them (all clubs, not just Celtic) to take it a bit more seriously?

I don't think titles should be re-awarded or anything but I certainly think that they ought to be stripped, that is a punishment consistently used in other sports for cheating of various kinds.

Just laughing it off and allowing the SFA to shrug and refuse to do anything doesn't seem right. As said LNS's verdict was based on the false premise that Rangers use of EBT's was legal (i.e the way they used them, not the EBT system itself). I don't accept their argument that it has been looked at and they can't go back to it

Don't strip or void the titles - just put "cheated" next to Rangers in the record books and on the trophies.

[pozbaird]

9 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

What do you think it would take to get them (all clubs, not just Celtic) to take it a bit more seriously?

I don't think titles should be re-awarded or anything but I certainly think that they ought to be stripped, that is a punishment consistently used in other sports for cheating of various kinds.

Just laughing it off and allowing the SFA to shrug and refuse to do anything doesn't seem right. As said LNS's verdict was based on the false premise that Rangers use of EBT's was legal (i.e the way they used them, not the EBT system itself). I don't accept their argument that it has been looked at and they can't go back to it

I'm guessing here, but clearly, with their initial statements, Celtic have put their head above the parapet first. My guess would be that if Lawell and Celtic are serious about retrospective action, then Lawell will quietly sound out if there's any appetite for action in other boardrooms - he'll quickly realise there's no appetite from anyone to do anything, and absolutely nothing will be done. I think Lawell and Celtic know this anyway - they're merely sitting on moral high ground right now and delighting in noising up the deadco mob. Celtic won't throw their weight behind a real effort to have honours stripped or asterisks inserted - they're just making lots of noise.

Maybe some talking heads like Thompson on Twitter will make further 'hammer the cheats' statements, but I don't think any of us have seen a rug as big as the one 'retrospective honour stripping' is about to be swept under.

Edited July 6, 2017 by pozbaird

[The DA]

4 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

I'm guessing here, but clearly, with their initial statements, Celtic have put their head above the parapet first. My guess would be that if Lawell and Celtic are serious about retrospective action, then Lawell will quietly sound out if there's any appetite for action in other boardrooms - he'll quickly realise there's no appetite from anyone to do anything, and absolutely nothing will be done. I think Lawell and Celtic know this anyway - they're merely sitting on moral high ground right now and delighting in noising up the deadco mob. Celtic won't throw their weight behind a real effort to have honours stripped or asterisks inserted - they're just making lots of noise.

Maybe some talking heads like Thompson on Twitter will make further 'hammer the cheats' statements, but I don't think any of us have seen a rug as big as the one 'retrospective honour stripping' is about to be swept under.

The fans would need to threaten to walk away again.  Unfortunately, most of the season tickets that are going to be sold have probably been sold by now, so there's less of a threat than in 2012.

I think this is unlikely since the SC judgment, while significant, has less public impact than the club going into liquidation and their spawn looking to get into the league.

[BobWilliamson]

Nothing like reading the moon howlers on here to cheer you up 

[mjw]

Was moon howlers the agreed line of attack last night when the PMs went out?

[coprolite]

As a matter of actually reading both sides I would urge people to read this blog
https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/illegal-use-of-ebts-other-issues/
This is the most pressing paragraph

No one is saying (or has said to the best of my knowledge) that Rangers are facing criminal charges. However, the First Tier Tribunal (Tax) on whose findings we are all waiting, will determine the legality of Rangers tax strategy. If the FTT(T) finds against Rangers, it will have deemed that the strategy used by Rangers for over a decade was indeed illegal. I struggle to believe that any hack is so stupid as to not understand this issue. One wonders if recent contact with Sir David Murray has dulled the investigative zeal of the five hand-picked journalists who were recently granted an audience. I could be wrong. Maybe they were just “duped”? Does this word mean “to have been misled voluntarily?”

The outcome was the FTT ruled the EBT scheme was legal. The UTT upheld that decision.
HMRC went back to court and challenged not the legality of EBTs but if they eliminated a tax burden at all. On this point HMRC won.
The outcome is EBTs are legal, they just don't avoid tax.

nobody has ever said that EBTs were illegal, ever, at all.

The question was always whether the payments were income from employment in the hands of the players.

The ftt was not ruling on the legality or otherwise. They were deciding, wrongly as it turns out, on the tax point.