chico Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Screws her out of £24 million? Some bit of swordsmanship that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Rangers would bring in lawyers to say that EBTs were not playing contracts and were within the rules. The SFA would need to lawyer up costing untold thousands of pounds with no guarantee they would win any legal dispute. If Rangers survive. If Rangers get liquidated at some point in the near future, then the authorities can come down on them (or more accurately the legitmacy of their history), like a ton of bricks - without requiring much evidence, nor sparking protacted legalistic wrangling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEED Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Eh!! my faltmate works for them and although I had heard of trouble,this is a bombshell!!!!!!!! Ask him if they are still taking gift vouchers then, I have got some I need to use. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Not if they're naughty, ask Barclays bank. The tribunals ruling is published. the ruling is published but the evidence isn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 "Gang of 10" (as if that's an apt descrption but nevermind) to call an SPL EGM on April 18th, to attempt to change the voting system from 11-1 to... well, something else. Celtic + Rangers both unhappy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofarl Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I demand a 14 league Spl. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I demand a 14 league Spl. 168 clubs? Excessive... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 "Gang of 10" (as if that's an apt descrption but nevermind) to call an SPL EGM on April 18th, to attempt to change the voting system from 11-1 to... well, something else. Celtic + Rangers both unhappy. Unless they think Rangers won't exist by then, the Old Firm will still be able to block it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Unless they think Rangers won't exist by then, the Old Firm will still be able to block it? Exactly. Could be a PR move. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Mmm. Bold move...will need to see how it goes but I'd have thought calling Celtic's bluff that they don't tie themselves to Rangers and bringing them back into the fold with the rest would have been a better first step. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 His signature song is 'goodbye goodbye!' lmao forgot about that!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) I've just been reading the text of SFA's "Have you been Bad? Have You?" letter to their 93 member clubs in today's paper and something has struck me... It requires "a declaration signed by your club secretary to the effect that your club has complied, without qualification, with the terms of this article at all times throughout the previous ten years", or else they must detail other payments. Campbell Ogilvie was Secretary (and then equivalent of Secretary) at Rangers - but he says he didn't know about EBTs. In terms of their administration and possible rule breaching. So if he'd been Secretary at Rangers now, he'd have replied in the negative...? Edited March 21, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghPar1975 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 1332360802[/url]' post='6074819']I've just been reading the text of SFA's "Have you been Bad? Have You?" letter to their 93 member clubs in today's paper and something has struck me... It requires "a declaration signed by your club secretary to the effect that your club has complied, without qualification, with the terms of this article at all times throughout the previous ten years", or else they must detail other payments. Campbell Ogilvie was Secretary (and then equivalent of Secretary) at Rangers - but he says he didn't know about EBTs. In terms of their administration and possible rule breaching. So if he'd been Secretary at Rangers now, he'd have replied in the negative...? Just the previous ten years? Whats the point in that if Rangers were supposedly at it 15 years ago? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I've just been reading the text of SFA's "Have you been Bad? Have You?" letter to their 93 member clubs in today's paper and something has struck me... It requires "a declaration signed by your club secretary to the effect that your club has complied, without qualification, with the terms of this article at all times throughout the previous ten years", or else they must detail other payments. Campbell Ogilvie was Secretary (and then equivalent of Secretary) at Rangers - but he says he didn't know about EBTs. In terms of their administration and possible rule breaching. So if he'd been Secretary at Rangers now, he'd have replied in the negative...? In the negative to what? They're not being asked a question; they're being required to make a declaration. Presumably on behalf of the company (club). This can't be just down to the company secretary's personal knowledge as the company secretary might not have been there for ten years, for one thing. What process the company secretary is supposed to go through before making such a declaration I'm really not sure.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) How easy is it going to be for SFA to uncover the possible plethora of 'extra' payments unless clubs admit them? And if the answer is "not very easy' - then surely it's a bit optimistic to expect many/any to admit it, unless it's in accounts etc.? EDIT: ColinM essentiually got there first!! Well of course the clubs will not admit to anything, unless the police come calling. And just because the SFA ask, they know they can respond with ' to the best of knowledge', or ' I have been reliably informed that'. The traditional way to find out is from players who tell all when the the club lets them go and they then have a visit from the tax man. This I imagine is where HMRC will focus their attentions, namely on the tax affairs of players who have left the club over the last 10 years or so, ideally still living in the UK. Never mind the Scottish international who is registered with the club and paid a basic wage by them, on which he pays tax etc. At the same time an ex club director gives him his bungs (tax free) each month, so officially nothing to do with the club. Aye right! Edited March 22, 2012 by thelegendthatis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I've got the feeling that rangers are going o walk away from this scotfree. The momentums been lost and they'll walk away from this with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. The whole admin process has been farcical from the start, yet here we are a month down the line with d&p setting deadlines only to change them when suits. I believe the only jelly on offer will be from the jellyfish that make the decisions in the sfa and spl. I reckon a fine suspended for about 5 years will be the most they get. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) OCTOPUS' RESPONSE TO 2012 BUDGET 21 March 2012 Octopus welcomes government's distinction between aggressive tax avoidance and legitimate tax-efficient investing Enterprise Investment Schemes (EIS) and Venture Capital Trusts (VCT) remain unaffected by the cap on unlimited tax reliefs announced in today's Budget. Octopus Investments ("Octopus") welcomed the announcement in today's Budget that the government was taking steps to curb "aggressive" tax avoidance measures, introducing legislation to apply a cap on unlimited income tax reliefs claimed by individuals. Octopus Managing Director Paul Latham said: "Everyone wants to see aggressive tax planning stamped out, but there's an important distinction between tax avoidance and tax efficiency. The good news is that the government's new cap only applies to tax reliefs which are currently classed as 'unlimited'. This means that tax-efficient investments, such as EIS and VCTs, are unaffected by this legislation." Paul Latham added: "With last year's positive measures aimed at supporting EIS and VCTs coming into effect from April onwards, we believe this will encourage more investment into these products which offer a number of tax incentives while also helping UK smaller companies, and therefore the wider UK economy, to grow." The Budget also announced that the new annual amount that a company can raise under an EIS scheme will increase from £2 million to £5 million. It was also confirmed that the number of employees within an EIS qualifying company will increase to 250 from April 2012, broadening the range of companies that can benefit from the relief. However, both these proposals remain subject to EU State Aid approval. So buying Rangers season tickets in advance is helping the UK economy to grow? With the increased limits announced we can expect them to buy the next 20 years worth of Rangers season tickets! Edited March 21, 2012 by thelegendthatis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Anything I should be sad I missed on c4 news tonight? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The momentums been lost and they'll walk away from this with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. What an absurd claim. Rangers are still in administration, they still don't have a buyer, and every day they tick closer and closer to the verdict of the big tax case. If nothing happens for the next few months, Rangers go down the tubes. No news is good news. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 the ruling is published but the evidence isn't. The reason for the ruling is also included. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.