Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Monkey Tennis]

You think we'll not improve our players as we rise back to the top?

Well yes, you're likely to look to.

The fact is however that income is unlikely to rise that significantly. Your gates are already huge. You can charge more, but there's no guarantee they'll remain as large. Big sources of income like Europe or even high domestic finishes remain some way off.

Remember that your wage bill is currently the second largest in the country. You may employ some better players than you currently have, but you'll not be able to pay them much more. The key will be to find someone who can deploy them better than my cat would manage. Thus far, that's apparently not been possible.

[Guest Kincardine]

Miranda? You wonder if any man ever has eh?

I'm not going to push it any further K

Oh don't be Mr Grumpy. Ask us the question again and I promise a frank answer - even if you'll disagree with it.

The 3rd division forum and Ibrox at full time today are and were happier places to be than Miranda

My son's best friend's mother (and yes that was correctly punctuated) went to school with Miranda. Despite the personal interest she still annoys the crap put of me. Not as much as losing a late goal at Ibrox does, mind!

[youngsy]

Could you put that into context please?

Also the stance I'm taking right now, and the argument I am making is the "common sense" one. Any payment which does not have to be returned is simply not a loan. The very definition of the word, "loan" demands that that is the case.

Can I ask, that the next poster who thinks to comment on my posts here, accepts that I am not making a case based on any legalities. I'm tired of repeating myself.

"Common sense" - It's common that people will deduce that they were payments and not loans. It makes perfect sense.

Common sense wise,legally speaking they are defined as loans. Here to muddy the water at all times.

[Fotbawmad]

Plenty on here would completely disagree with that

Are you leading with the answer you want me to give?

They were loans (not payments) this has already been established by the FTTT, the players certainly seem to think they will not have to be paid back, I have heard in theory that they could be recovered from the estate of the players, presumably when they are deed.

Do I have to explain this for the hundreth time to you? The FTTT had to decide whether the EBTs MIH disputed were loans. The SFA+SPL has to decide whether it was a side contract. Nothing to do with a loan. Now remember when you took out a loan to buy a house did you have to sign anything? If you did you just created a legal agreement under the law which is unbreakable i.e. a contract. See the difference?

Edited January 26, 2013 by Fotbawmad

[hellbhoy]

Well yes, you're likely to look to.

The fact is however that income is unlikely to rise that significantly. Your gates are already huge. You can charge more, but there's no guarantee they'll remain as large. Big sources of income like Europe or even high domestic finishes remain some way off.

Remember that your wage bill is currently the second largest in the country. You may employ some better players than you currently have, but you'll not be able to pay them much more. The key will be to find someone who can deploy them better than my cat would manage. Thus far, that's apparently not been possible.

And they will be according to Chucky posting a loss at the end of the year ! and guess what the embargo ends then so there may be no players coming in unless Ally sells the highest paid ones first is that were Ally is getting 10 million ? or is Chucky playing on words again and the total expenditure for the squad is 10 million buying & paying ?

[Shades75]

Oh don't be Mr Grumpy. Ask us the question again and I promise a frank answer - even if you'll disagree with it.

My son's best friend's mother (and yes that was correctly punctuated) went to school with Miranda. Despite the personal interest she still annoys the crap put of me. Not as much as losing a late goal at Ibrox does, mind!

Ok.

The basic premise is simple and based on a common sense approach which Tedi (who the question was first aimed at) has advocated in the past, on this thread.

My question is not based on any legal case, technicalities or clever lawyers. I am aware that there are myriad of approaches to law, the applications of it and precedents to consider.

By definition, a loan is an award of monies on which an agreement to repay that loan, by the recipient, is reached. Almost everyone when asked the question, "Do you have to repay a loan" would answer, "Yes". Unless they don't understand the definition of the word then it is obvious.

That makes it common sense. It's common for people to believe it to be the case and it makes perfect sense.

I think it to be unarguably true that the monies given to the employees were never going to be asked for back. I think that that was made apparent when the original agreements were reached and I think that none of the employees would have agreed to them had they been given any indication that, at some point, they would have to pay those sums back (with interest?).

So to those ends, were the, in your opinion only, secondary EBT monies "Loans" or "Payments"?

Here is my opinion. They were without a shadow of doubt in my mind, "payments". However that is not to say that in a court of law that because of some technicality they may well be deemed to be "Loans".

[Shades75]

Common sense wise,legally speaking they are defined as loans. Here to muddy the water at all times.

This is why it is completely ridiculous to pursue the question.

Have you seen Miracle on 34th street?

But we all agree that Santa doesn't exist right? It's common sense. Whether the plot of the film could hold true or not, it still illustrates how the law can be manipulated.

The law can be wholly in opposition to common sense. To comment on my argument, you must accept it. If you don't, and assume that the law always acts along the same guidelines as common sense, then that is fine, but I don't agree.

You've to look at the fundamental practices of the arrangement and give your own opinion.

[SS-18 ICBM]

Have you seen one of these side contracts?

Can you show me the wording which proves it is a contract for payment and not just a bit of paper explaining about a loan?

How many beneficiaries were involved in the Rangers EBT scheme?

A total of 111 sub-trusts were set up between 2001-2010 for Rangers directors, players and other staff - along with employees of Murray International Holdings and its subsidiary companies.

A total of 53 Rangers players and staff received side contracts giving undertakings to fund their sub-trusts with cash, according to documents seen by BBC Scotland.

What if Rangers players have received side-letters?

BBC Scotland has also seen evidence, which was submitted to a court, suggesting that 53 Rangers players and staff had side-letters giving undertakings to fund their sub-trusts with cash.

According to the Scottish Football Association's registration rules, payments received by a player solely relating to his playing activities must be fully recorded and declared, otherwise the player has been improperly registered.

If a player is deemed to be improperly registered, the norm is for his team to forfeit any match in which he has participated.

So, could Rangers be stripped of past titles and trophies?

Precedence exists for this kind of rule-breaking and subsequent punishment in football and other sports.

In 1994, Marseilles were found guilty of financial irregularities and a match fixing scandal involving then president Bernard Tapie.

The French club was forcibly relegated to Ligue 1 and lost its 1992-93 Division One title and the right to play in the Champions League in 1993-94, the 1993 European Super Cup and the 1993 Intercontinental Cup.

LINK

[Guest Kincardine]

Here is my opinion. They were without a shadow of doubt in my mind, "payments". However that is not to say that in a court of law that because of some technicality they may well be deemed to be "Loans".

Shades, yes of course they were payments. Of course, too, players expected them as payment. This is unarguable. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows this and I have no idea why Bears shy away from it.

Did it break the rules, though? HMRC says not. Did it break SPL rules? Who knows. My own thesis (as I've said before) is that The SPL's rules werent up to the mark and I am sure Lord NS will state this.

Maybe not though

[bennett]

Well yes, you're likely to look to.

The fact is however that income is unlikely to rise that significantly. Your gates are already huge. You can charge more, but there's no guarantee they'll remain as large. Big sources of income like Europe or even high domestic finishes remain some way off.

Remember that your wage bill is currently the second largest in the country. You may employ some better players than you currently have, but you'll not be able to pay them much more. The key will be to find someone who can deploy them better than my cat would manage. Thus far, that's apparently not been possible.

To get through the SFL we don't really need that much player wise, we have a good enough squad. The problem is the manager and his backroom staff who are not getting the best out of those players, fix that and bring in someone who knows what he;s doing and bobs yer maws brother.

Our wage bill is £6m i believe (yes i know some people say it's £7m) but there is confusion over whether that is just the players or the entire staff. I've read/listened/watched various articles/shows which state it's both.

Bring in a new manager and coaching staff, upgrade our scouting system and spend the next 2 full seasons rebuilding. I'd let McCoist finish this season (he can't f**k it up) and then move him to another position in the club without embarrassing him.

[SS-18 ICBM]

Shades, yes of course they were payments. Of course, too, players expected them as payment. This is unarguable. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows this and I have no idea why Bears shy away from it.

Did it break the rules, though? HMRC says not. Did it break SPL rules? Who knows. My own thesis (as I've said before) is that The SPL's rules werent up to the mark and I am sure Lord NS will state this.

Maybe not though

The registering of payments to players is the SFA's area not SPL. Registration Procedures - LINK.

2 March 2012

Rangers stand accused of failing to properly register players after a former director revealed secretive payments had been consistently excluded from contracts lodged with the SFA.

The embattled Ibrox club are awaiting the outcome of the First Tier Tax Tribunal which will determine the legality or otherwise of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs).

Regardless of whether Rangers are hit with an additional bill of £49million from the so-called 'big tax case', it appears such payments were kept 'off the books' - in direct contravention of SFA registration rules.

LINK.

Former Ibrox director Hugh Adam, who had a 30-year association with the club until 2002, has told Sportsmail that the club's directors were aware of the arrangement - one he believes could have started as early as the mid-1990s.

'They weren't included in the contracts. They definitely weren't. That was the whole point of them,' he said. 'If they'd been included in the contracts, they would have had to have paid tax on them.

'I don't think a lot of the other directors knew an awful lot about it. David Murray kept everything to himself.

'The directors just wanted to sit in the directors' box. That's all. When I was on the board, I knew all about them.

'I just didn't know the details of them. They became accepted. 'The revenue were seriously challenging them at that point when I was a director.

'People never really asked serious questions about them. "It's perfectly legal" was what they thought.

'It wasn't happening in Britain, so had nothing to do with Britain. All the directors heard about them but didn't take them seriously because they didn't appear in the books.'

Adam's revelation suggests a clear breach of the SFA rulebook - and is a potential embarrassment to current SFA president Campbell Ogilvie, who had a 27-year association with Rangers, many of them spent as secretary.

The SFA rule on registration states: 'All payments made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement.

'No payment for his playing activities may be made to the player through a third party.'

Adam, the man who funded the redevelopment of Ibrox through Rangers pools, believes payments into discretionary trusts may have gone on well before the turn of the millennium.

It's understood the 'big tax case' relates to EBT payments from 2000 until 2009 but, when questioned if he heard of similar payments in the mid- 1990s, Adam confirmed: 'Without having any specialist knowledge, I'm pretty sure.

'People didn't want to know about them. There was a lot of that (EBTs) going on at the time (I was there).

'You knew it was cheating but some of them not only hoped but believed it was above board. 'It's this thing that when something happens it has to have a beginning and an end, but that wasn't the case with the overseas things.

'It was just something that crept up. It was considered important but not crucial. The fans didn't give a damn one way or another. You could argue that they knew about it but didn't think it was important.

'Maybe they never thought it was as much as it really was. And maybe it wasn't. I don't know if you remember radio stations from ships.

'I don't think they were making a fortune but they weren't costing a lot of money, so no one bothered.

'When I was asked for my opinion on the way the club had been run, I said it was quite obvious how it had got into trouble.'They were doing things they shouldn't have been doing.

'They (EBTs) were always regarded in my time as a bit of a joke. They were getting away with it but nobody really thought they'd get away with it forever. '

It would be an offshore trust - almost like a boat. You could dodge your taxes that way. It wasn't something that you picked up the paper and read about. It was one at a time then grew on a gradual basis.

'The players were very naive. Few of them were the Brain of Britain, of course. If they get the money, they don't give a damn where it's coming from.'

[Shades75]

Shades, yes of course they were payments. Of course, too, players expected them as payment. This is unarguable. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows this and I have no idea why Bears shy away from it.

Did it break the rules, though? HMRC says not. Did it break SPL rules? Who knows. My own thesis (as I've said before) is that The SPL's rules werent up to the mark and I am sure Lord NS will state this.

Maybe not though

That's a good response Kincardine and I doff my cap to you. It's a wholly reasonable and obvious way of looking at things, I agree with you 100%.

The icompetence of the SPL, SFA and also the SFL, throughout the whole saga has been breathtaking. In trying to appease both sides, in a rather cowardly way IMO, they have appeared indecisive at best and incompetent at worse.

Like you, I don't why it is so difficult to admit the obvious. I believe it might be a circling the wagons type thing and that defiance has become the default stance, for fear of breaking ranks perhaps?

In the ultimate eventuality it will be the law that decides, I just wanted an opinion - thanks for replying.

[Guest Kincardine]

The registering of payments to players is the SFA's area not SPL. Registration Procedures - LINK.

You may feel free to quote screeds and do it twice. I didn't mention registration.

[Guest Kincardine]

In the ultimate eventuality it will be the law that decides, I just wanted an opinion - thanks for replying.

I'm always happy to give a view. I'm even slightly in agreement with George Galloway's Early Day Motion in the Commons:

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/913

[Bearwithme]

What Hugh Adam said needs to be treated with some scepticism. According to recent obituaries he left the club in 2000. From what I've read the EBTs started in September 2000. I've not seen anybody who shares his view that they might have started in the mid-90s. HMRC and the SPL don't seem to think so.

Adam says:

'Without having any specialist knowledge, I'm pretty sure".

'I just didn't know the details of them".

"It would be an offshore trust - almost like a boat".

'The players were very naive". Various of the players consulted their lawyers or other advisers.

[SS-18 ICBM]

You may feel free to quote screeds and do it twice. I didn't mention registration.

But you did mention SPL Rules.

Rangers are under investigation over two specific rules. First, SPL rule D9.3 states all payments made to players for playing football must be registered.

It says: "No player may receive any payment of any description from or on behalf of a club in respect of that player's participation in Association Football or in an activity connected with Association Football, other than in reimbursement of expenses actually incurred or to be actually incurred in playing or training for that Club, unless such payment is made in accordance with a Contract of Service between that Club and the Player concerned."

The second rule under scrutiny is D1.13 which states that all contracts must be lodged with the governing body.

It says: "A club must, as a condition of registration and for a Player to be eligible to play in official matches, deliver the executed originals of all contracts of service and amendments and/or extensions to contracts of service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that club and player, to the secretary, within fourteen days of such contract of service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended."

Based on the allegations made, two facts have to be established.

Firstly to find Rangers breached rules throughout the three time periods given, it must be proven that the club had a duty to record EBT payments to the SPL as part of documentation on payments made for playing activities.

It must also be proven these were not submitted to the SPL, although this has been broadly conceded already in the evidence given at tribunal.

Secondly, the commission will have to prove ineligible players were fielded by Rangers between May 2005 and May 2011.

The same facts must be proven as in the first allegation, but SPL rules prior to May 2005 did not state players were not correctly registered if said documentation was not provided.

In either case, titles could still be withdrawn from the club, as this is an accepted sanction for any breach of league rules.

LINK.

[Shades75]

I'm always happy to give a view. I'm even slightly in agreement with George Galloway's Early Day Motion in the Commons:

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/913

Four signatures, at least two being long time Celtic fans?

Self publicity by Galloway and nothing more IMO.

[Guest Kincardine]

Four signatures, at least two being long time Celtic fans?

Self publicity by Galloway and nothing more IMO.

That's why I said 'slightly'. Like most of what he does it's about Galloway. He does make a decent point and one we shouldn't shy from.

[Guest Kincardine]

But you did mention SPL Rules.

Aye but FFS just give me a precis and hold the link. A succinct summary would please us all.

[SS-18 ICBM]

I'm always happy to give a view. I'm even slightly in agreement with George Galloway's Early Day Motion in the Commons:

http://www.parliamen...edm/2012-13/913

That's the first time i have seen or heard of that!