Claymores Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 His figures of liabilities to clubs are about £2.4M... if you took-off Xp in £ that'd be settled by CVA (say 5p), and any installments that wouldn't fall due - it might leave £2M? My figures are not £2.4m to football creditors - I clearly stated I was giving only a few examples - I understand the total footballing debt to be closer to £4m 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caff Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) It looks to me like the reason they went to CoS, ignoring CAS, was time-related, CAS may have taken too long to overturn the decision. IMO the whole premise of Green's takeover is the "buy'em and sell'em" strategy, and if they can't do that the whole thing falls at the first fence, so they HAD to get rid of the transfer embargo. However, Beecher's Brook awaits, as does The Chair, and I suspect Green's horse thinks it's in a flat race. This is what I think too. Since the Cos and CAS were both apparently 'not allowed', Rangers did have a choice. They could have went to either. No Hobson's Choice here, no matter what the Orcs will tell you. Edited June 7, 2012 by Caff 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 No, that's your opinion of the situation, nothing more, nothing less ie conjecture. You have no more idea about what's going on behind closed doors than anyone else FIFA's articles are legally dodgy in some areas, attempting to close the door on "natural justice". It's a bit like your headmaster giving you the belt for telling the Polis you've been felt up by your maths teacher, instead of going to him first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 His figures of liabilities to clubs are about £2.4M... if you took-off Xp in £ that'd be settled by CVA (say 5p), and any installments that wouldn't fall due - it might leave £2M? Ah, I follow. I think the problem, for Rangers, is that the money would have to actually come from them. That, in itself, isnt necessarily an issue as the RFFFF could simply give it to the club to be used to pay the footballing debts. However, HMRC, Im sure, would still see it as preferential treatment of other creditors 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I suggest you re read my posts as I never said it did. I said the original ruling stated suspension was to harsh. Which the article DOES say here: " It had ruled that for Rangers' offences, a fine was too lenient but suspension or termination of membership too harsh." I suggest that you read your own post,number 39104,in which you state, " According to the Herald it's suspension AND expulsion". You're words,not mine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 It looks to me like the reason they went to CoS, ignoring CAS, was time-related, CAS may have taken too long to overturn the decision. IMO the whole premise of Green's takeover is the "buy'em and sell'em" strategy, and if they can't do that the whole thing falls at the first fence, so they HAD to get rid of the transfer embargo. However, Beecher's Brook awaits, as does The Chair, and I suspect Green's horse thinks it's in a flat race. Nice analogy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caff Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 FIFA's articles are legally dodgy in some areas, attempting to close the door on "natural justice". It's a bit like your headmaster giving you the belt for telling the Polis you've been felt up by your maths teacher, instead of going to him first. I don't disagree but i don't see how that relates to my point that No8 is extrapolating a favourable postition (in his opinion) when provided with the same incomplete info as everyone else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboRobbo Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-18352528 Five years for 600k of tax and NI evasion. Surely Rangers have done the same on a much larger scale? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Ah, I follow. I think the problem, for Rangers, is that the money would have to actually come from them. That, in itself, isnt necessarily an issue as the RFFFF could simply give it to the club to be used to pay the footballing debts. However, HMRC, Im sure, would still see it as preferential treatment of other creditors To return to the question which makes HJ's idea seem a non-starter, how would the RFFFFFFF raise roughly £3.5m over two years (the likely amount unpaid to footballing creditors even in the event of a successful CVA)? In it's big initial push to see 'one-off' donations from "desperate fans" it managed less than £600k. It seems a daft idea to entertain further. Edited June 7, 2012 by Claymores 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 But FIFA are watching...FIFA are going to throw every Scottish club out of Europe because of Rangers actions. FIFA are going to demand Rangers are expelled..killed off for good. It was all utter nonsense and a smokescreen for the SFA to hide behind after their own rules were questioned by FIFA In spite of your trolling, No8, I honestly get the impression that you and the Club you support could not give a f**k if that were to happen. This is about something far bigger than some petty parochial rivalry but the greater good of the game in this Country. Not all of us want Rangers punished properly because they are Rangers........but because they have broken numerous rules and deserve to be punished. but carry on with your "scorched earth" policy.........it didn't do the Wehrmacht any harm on their retreat from the Soviet Union ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-18352528 Of interest, a guy evaded £600,000 worth of tax over almost 10 years. Jailed for 5 years. Used an offshore trust. If that's the going rate of punishment, a few folk will be sweating reading that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-18352528 Five years for 600k of tax and NI evasion. Surely Rangers have done the same on a much larger scale? Apologies for posting as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk...otland-18352528 Five years for 600k of tax and NI evasion. Surely Rangers have done the same on a much larger scale? So he didnae design buses either, he just drove one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrugalNory Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I suggest that you read your own post,number 39104,in which you state, " According to the Herald it's suspension AND expulsion". You're words,not mine. Read the posts before it. I was answering a question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I don't disagree but i don't see how that relates to my point that No8 is extrapolating a favourable postition (in his opinion) when provided with the same incomplete info as everyone else. Nobody knows the exact dialogue between the SFA and FIFA, and i think No. 8 is either being delibeartely obtuse or it's just normal for Orcs to see everything through blue-tinted specs. My daily dealings I have to eliminate the " read-between-the-lines" options in stuff, which kind of helps me to do just that. I suspect the dialogue between them might have gone along the lines of: FIFA: We notice RFC have taken you to court. We do not allow such things. SFA: We will await the judgement of the court. The punishment for the original offence may be greater than we would apply for the breach of your articles. FIFA: We'll be keeping an eye on things. SFA: We are aware of your interest. Leave it to us. We'll deal with it. FIFA: We'll, we're happy with that. Now where would that leave RFC in a psotion to lay on a party? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 http://m.bbc.co.uk/n...otland-18352528 However, Sheriff Kenneth Robb said he did not agree that nobody had been harmed by the offence. He said that in an age of financial constraints, £635,000 was a lot of money which could have helped the public purse. He told Maxwell: "You have enjoyed the fruits of your labour and the tax that you should have paid. "The tree may be bare, but you used the fruits over many years." Obviously the fruit Maxwell used wasn't orange. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrugalNory Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 From twitter: Lord glennies judgement http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby_F Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Along with the Dodsy the mastermind's confession don't forget the documented 'side letters' better know as a contract and the emails to players agents confirming and detailing the 'planned' payments in advance of the 'unknown loan requests' ... Rankers fans really are dumb if they think there is no 'evidence' I think they know that The Rangers are just playing with everyone and they'll at the last minute just produce a bunch of bank statements showing that these things were indeed loans. After all, if they were loans rather than payments, there should be a paper trail showing repayments… Shouldn't there ? Leaving the sarcasm aside, the whole EBT thing is actually very very simple. If these were loans rather than payments made to avoid tax then you would expect the vast majority of them to have been repaid, or be being repaid. Yes, I'm sure one or two loans would default, but even they would have had a pattern of some initial payments being made. So I think even if second contracts cannot be proved without a shadow of a doubt, the fact that, as I understand, not a penny of any of these loans has never been repaid, then the strong balance of probability (all the SFA and indeed HMRC need) points to the fact that Rangers were defrauding the taxman and breaking the SFA rule about double contracts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I think they know that The Rangers are just playing with everyone and they'll at the last minute just produce a bunch of bank statements showing that these things were indeed loans. After all, if they were loans rather than payments, there should be a paper trail showing repayments… Shouldn't there ? Leaving the sarcasm aside, the whole EBT thing is actually very very simple. If these were loans rather than payments made to avoid tax then you would expect the vast majority of them to have been repaid, or be being repaid. Yes, I'm sure one or two loans would default, but even they would have had a pattern of some initial payments being made. So I think even if second contracts cannot be proved without a shadow of a doubt, the fact that, as I understand, not a penny of any of these loans has never been repaid, then the strong balance of probability (all the SFA and indeed HMRC need) points to the fact that Rangers were defrauding the taxman and breaking the SFA rule about double contracts. Someone can correct me if Im wrong, but I dont think the question over whether these were payments or loans is that relevant. Is the key part whether or not the payments were discretionary or not? If the payments were discretionary, but never paid back, that doesnt necessarily mean Rangers broke any SFA rules. However, if they payments were not discretionary, ie expected and paid in lieu of salary payments, then they have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 http://m.bbc.co.uk/n...otland-18352528 However, Sheriff Kenneth Robb said he did not agree that nobody had been harmed by the offence. He said that in an age of financial constraints, £635,000 was a lot of money which could have helped the public purse. He told Maxwell: "You have enjoyed the fruits of your labour and the tax that you should have paid. "The tree may be bare, but you used the fruits over many years." Obviously the fruit Maxwell used wasn't orange. so by this ruling it'll be 5 years in Barlinnie for Craig Whyte ?! not sure he'll like the pony rides ! 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.