roverthemoon Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I can only speak for St Mirren but our supporters trust isn't the vehicle for that as it doesn't (sadly) have a broad enough base of support. We're pretty good at arguing amongst ourselves, that may change though. I guess just any 11 fan organisations would do. Trusts came to mind because they tend to be concerned more with ownership and finances. Interestingly I'm sure Dingwall mentioned the number of members they had in one interview and it was fairly low. Not that I'm questioning the rigour of our media but I think they just care if you say you're representative not that you actually are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Wasn't the CVA proposal supposed to be out this Monday? Then by the end of this week? Chris McLaughlin seems to report all these issues, but I haven't noticed him actually asking any difficult questions. He essentially seems to be little more than the PR man for Duff & Phelps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozam76 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Anybody wondering why it's went quiet on the Rangers side, no McCoist demanded things, Sandy Jardine organising a demonstration or two, Green talking up the warchest One wonders if they have been told not to stoke any further fires as we have a fait accompli, we could only guess who is giving that comfort. Be interesting if the beeb and rumours for further wrong doing have pissed in their collective tea You've obviously not seen the Record in the last two days, what with John Brown's scouting exertions. Apparently the club are still a massive attraction to players around the world. Not since they stopped giving away tax free dough John. In other news, I'm really looking forward to Hateley's ramblings later today. That's usually a Friday is it not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Lest we forget :- http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/feb/17/scotland-media-rangers "The story of Rangers' insolvency is already becoming a fireside tale told mostly by those who were not there. Trampled down in the rush of journalists claiming that "of course, I knew all along, but I just could not say anything" are all of the derisive newspaper articles and radio call-in panellists dismissing the risks Rangers were facing. I am in no doubt: Scotland's media, sports and business desks alike, are complicit in the disaster than has befallen Rangers. They killed their golden goose. The Triangle of Trade to which I have referred is essentially an arrangement where Rangers FC and their owner provide each journalist who is "inside the tent" with a sufficient supply of transfer "exclusives" and player trivia to ensure that the hack does not have to work hard. Any Scottish journalist wishing to have a long career learns quickly not to bite the hands that feed. The rule that "demographics dictate editorial" applied regardless of original footballing sympathies." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 You've obviously not seen the Record in the last two days, what with John Brown's scouting exertions. Apparently the club are still a massive attraction to players around the world. Not since they stopped giving away tax free dough John. In other news, I'm really looking forward to Hateley's ramblings later today. That's usually a Friday is it not? yup the record have that the sun are focusing on important things like hooper wanting to play for barca http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4337377/Hooper-I-want-to-play-for-Barca.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Today's Glasgow Herald :- Caught on camera: contract issues at heart of tax case Published on 25 May 2012 Richard Wilson While the full extent of Rangers' use of Employee Benefit Trusts was laid bare by BBC Scotland's investigation, The Men Who Sold The Jerseys, the club must still wait to discover the consequences of the tax scheme that ran for a decade. The first-tier tribunal is currently deliberating over Rangers' appeal against a £24m tax assessment delivered by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, with additional interest and penalties, but the Ibrox side is also currently the subject of an investigation by the Scottish Premier League into undisclosed payments. Harper McLeod, the Glasgow-based law firm, is conducting the SPL's enquiry – despite disquiet among Rangers fans since the firm has also represented Celtic – and requests for paperwork were made to Duff & Phelps, the administrators, last March. The SPL is believed to have now set a deadline to receive all documents, or sanctions will be applied. Seventy-two Rangers players, staff and coaches benefited from the EBTs, and paperwork presented to court revealed that HMRC has evidence that 53 of these individuals also received side letters, detailing income that would be paid through the scheme. EBTs are legal as discretionary payments, involving money loaned from a trust fund that is then not liable to income tax rates. It is HMRC's contention that Rangers used EBTs as an additional means of paying wages, so were running a tax evasion scheme. "If the evidence is that the players had side contracts, this will substantially undermine Rangers' case," says Elliot Weston, tax partner with the law firm Lawrence Graham. "HMRC need only show that the Employee Benefit Trusts operated as a means of channelling additional remuneration from employer to employee as a reward for services." Rangers may argue that all payments were discretionary. The club would also then make the case that the EBTs – which were detailed in the club's accounts – did not have to be disclosed to the SPL, whose rules D9.3 and D1.13 "impose a prohibition on players receiving payments for playing football ... except where such payments are made in accordance with a form of contract approved by the SPL." The SPL's investigation is ongoing, but is likely to conclude that there is enough cause for an independent commission to be established. If any rule breaches are established, there are 18 possible sanctions available that are unlimited in scope. It may not necessarily follow that any breaches would mean that the contracts of these players would be invalidated, or results in games they played overturned. "The view that the SPL took was that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the way that Rangers had been paying their players was via a dual method, the payroll and EBTs, so there was a case to answer for," says David Roberts, of the legal firm, Olswang, that represented Bill Miller during his bid for the Ibrox side and held discussions with the SPL. "What Duff & Phelps said to us was that there may be some reticence pushing the investigation forward because a beneficiary of the EBT payments [Campbell Ogilvie] was now on the SFA board, but we saw no evidence of that. My genuine belief was that this was an issue that gave rise to a potential breach of the rules and the SPL were discharging their governing body duties by looking at it. It may also breach the SFA rules as well. It was something being taken very seriously by the authorities." Edited May 25, 2012 by Florentine_Pogen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnethead Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 duly noted, I will make the amendment now and wait for more to come in, unless the BTC comes in tomorrow of course!! Any chance you could send an e-mail to michel.platini@uefa.ch expressing the unjust and corrupt way this issue is being dealt with, I would but I'd go on a rant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 "The view that the SPL took was that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the way that Rangers had been paying their players was via a dual method, the payroll and EBTs, so there was a case to answer for," says David Roberts, of the legal firm, Olswang, that represented Bill Miller during his bid for the Ibrox side and held discussions with the SPL. "What Duff & Phelps said to us was that there may be some reticence pushing the investigation forward because a beneficiary of the EBT payments [Campbell Ogilvie] was now on the SFA board, but we saw no evidence of that. My genuine belief was that this was an issue that gave rise to a potential breach of the rules and the SPL were discharging their governing body duties by looking at it. It may also breach the SFA rules as well. It was something being taken very seriously by the authorities." Hmm so Duff and Phelps reckon Campbell Ogilvie being strung up in all this will help rangers evade punishment? :lol: Ya corrupt b*****ds!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnethead Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Today's Glasgow Herald :- Caught on camera: contract issues at heart of tax case Published on 25 May 2012 Richard Wilson While the full extent of Rangers' use of Employee Benefit Trusts was laid bare by BBC Scotland's investigation, The Men Who Sold The Jerseys, the club must still wait to discover the consequences of the tax scheme that ran for a decade. The first-tier tribunal is currently deliberating over Rangers' appeal against a £24m tax assessment delivered by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, with additional interest and penalties, but the Ibrox side is also currently the subject of an investigation by the Scottish Premier League into undisclosed payments. Harper McLeod, the Glasgow-based law firm, is conducting the SPL's enquiry – despite disquiet among Rangers fans since the firm has also represented Celtic – and requests for paperwork were made to Duff & Phelps, the administrators, last March. The SPL is believed to have now set a deadline to receive all documents, or sanctions will be applied. Seventy-two Rangers players, staff and coaches benefited from the EBTs, and paperwork presented to court revealed that HMRC has evidence that 53 of these individuals also received side letters, detailing income that would be paid through the scheme. EBTs are legal as discretionary payments, involving money loaned from a trust fund that is then not liable to income tax rates. It is HMRC's contention that Rangers used EBTs as an additional means of paying wages, so were running a tax evasion scheme. "If the evidence is that the players had side contracts, this will substantially undermine Rangers' case," says Elliot Weston, tax partner with the law firm Lawrence Graham. "HMRC need only show that the Employee Benefit Trusts operated as a means of channelling additional remuneration from employer to employee as a reward for services." Rangers may argue that all payments were discretionary. The club would also then make the case that the EBTs – which were detailed in the club's accounts – did not have to be disclosed to the SPL, whose rules D9.3 and D1.13 "impose a prohibition on players receiving payments for playing football ... except where such payments are made in accordance with a form of contract approved by the SPL." The SPL's investigation is ongoing, but is likely to conclude that there is enough cause for an independent commission to be established. If any rule breaches are established, there are 18 possible sanctions available that are unlimited in scope. It may not necessarily follow that any breaches would mean that the contracts of these players would be invalidated, or results in games they played overturned. "The view that the SPL took was that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the way that Rangers had been paying their players was via a dual method, the payroll and EBTs, so there was a case to answer for," says David Roberts, of the legal firm, Olswang, that represented Bill Miller during his bid for the Ibrox side and held discussions with the SPL. "What Duff & Phelps said to us was that there may be some reticence pushing the investigation forward because a beneficiary of the EBT payments [Campbell Ogilvie] was now on the SFA board, but we saw no evidence of that. My genuine belief was that this was an issue that gave rise to a potential breach of the rules and the SPL were discharging their governing body duties by looking at it. It may also breach the SFA rules as well. It was something being taken very seriously by the authorities." How corrupt can a club be before it's thrown out of the game and how corrupt is Scottish Football, the Old Firm FC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Accountancy Age has these quotes:- http://m.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2179483/battle-erupts-bbc-rangers-administrators In a response statement Grier said: "I categorically deny that at the time of the Craig Whyte takeover of Rangers, I had any knowledge that funds from Ticketus were being used to acquire the club. This accusation is wrong, highly defamatory and betrays a lack of understanding of the facts."Neither I nor any of my colleagues at MCR [now Duff & Phelps] provided any professional assistance to Liberty, Wavetower or Craig Whyte, in raising funds, performing financial due diligence, structuring or agreeing the terms of the purchase of the club from the Murray Group. :huh: "We had also hoped to give interviews stating our case on camera but received strong legal advice against this course of action, bearing in mind the legal proceedings Duff and Phelps have raised against Collyer Bristow. The BBC were informed in writing from our solicitors. "In broad terms Mr Daly failed miserably to understand the difference between working capital arrangements for the club and acquisition funding." Just me think he doth protest too much or is he actually correct? Any P&B'ers that are ninja accountant types that can say aye or naw? Edited May 25, 2012 by chico 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobardon Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Hmm so Duff and Phelps reckon Campbell Ogilvie being strung up in all this will help rangers evade punishment? :lol: Ya corrupt b*****ds!! Isn't that the exact opposite of what was concluded above? Likewise, mailing Platini when the situation IS currently being dealt with would seem a tad self-defeating. Shouldn't we wait to see exactly what is done at the conclusion of this whole saga before sounding alarm bells? Edited May 25, 2012 by Cobardon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Leighton Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I hesitate to type this, but I'm a wee bit drunk. Don't you reckon Doncaster looks a bit like Mark Kermode with downs syndrome? Nah, he looks more like an arsebungle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Isn't that the exact opposite of what was concluded above? Is it? I'll stick to cockwomble = Neil Doncaster then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Nah, he looks more like an arsebungle. Isn't fuckbungle the correct term Fuckbungle cockwomble Neil Doncaster 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozam76 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Accountancy Age has these quotes:- http://m.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2179483/battle-erupts-bbc-rangers-administrators :huh: Just me think he doth protest too much or is he actually correct? Any P&B'ers that are ninja accountant types that can say aye or naw? Loving the fact that there is nearly, so very nearly, a P&B's staple response in there - "failing miserably". David Grier = rattled. So, the CVA offer goes out today or Monday. What's the latest odds on how much the creditors be offered? 10p in the pound? Less? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Is it? I'll stick to cockwomble = Neil Doncaster then. Yep. The fact that Cockwomble = Neil Doncaster bears repeating. We must get the message out there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Leighton Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Isn't fuckbungle the correct term Screwing a bear - quite appropriate for the thread! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Loving the fact that there is nearly, so very nearly, a P&B's staple response in there - "failing miserably". David Grier = rattled. So, the CVA offer goes out today or Monday. What's the latest odds on how much the creditors be offered? 10p in the pound? Less? 6p in the pound, max. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 If players had contracts to duel i would certainly have a problem with it...Dueling has been illegal for quite sometime!! Well Laffatme signed a 'dueling contract' Here he makes his debut........ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Subject: Cockwomble = Neil Doncaster. Google images search for cockwomble now has Neil Doncaster in at 20. And 34. 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.