Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Bendarroch]

Did Rangers gain a sporting advantage from the company not handing over the letters? Of course not.

Mate, I think you've missed the point. Directly injecting side letters can accelerate muscle building and speed recovery from injuries like broken legs or ligament damage.

I'd be fucking raging if I supported the plastics or a diddy club.

[bennett]

Can someone explain one small point of EMPLOYEE benefit trusts. So lets assume they were 'loans' to employees. What was Souness £30,000 for ten years after leaving the EMPLOYMENT of Rangers. If they have been decreed as loans for the meantime ........I would imagine the liquidators could recall the £47 m loans and pay of all the creditors. Including the £250,000 fine.

Then we can watch the HMRC win their appeal and bust Rangers all over again. They think its all over ............

Even if HMRC do win there's not much they can do to company going through liquidation, now is there?

We all know it was a tax dodge which really isn't that a big a deal when you consider that most companies look for ways to cut down their tax expenses, but it's only an issue when it's the big bad Rangers who are doing it Hell is someone at work said to me "Hi Bennett if you use this tax system you'll save a few hundred quid per month and it's all legal and above board, then i'd jump at the chance as would any sane person if they're being HONEST.

If any old directors have broken the law, then hell mend them. I reckon we'll win the appeal too.

[bennett]

And yet you and this teenager are the only ones left who seem to be clinging onto this admin error line. Even the halfwits who phone Radio Clyde have grown out of that one already.

Admin errors are sooo 48 hours a go.

Lord Nimmo Smith no doubt dislikes Celtic too in your mind.

Pure bigot that he is

[GreenockRover]

Agreed, I have no problem at all with a good dose of you're shite no you're shite at a game of footie, beats all this off the field tit for tat any day and I also hope that any notion of these silly boycotts is left behind at the DUFC embarrassment, somehow i doubt it though.

Right....that's it...... Who are you and what have you done with Tedi !?

In all seriousness though, football fans rivalries have become incrementally more disturbing over the last twenty years or so, and linking this to socio-religious divides has adversely affected the country's image, let alone the "game".

We, so called, "Diddy club" supporters aren't paragons of virtue either, but the sheer venom displayed by the 'righteous brothers' goes far beyond acceptable social norms.

The fact that decent minded fans amongst them silently accept this is as depressing as it is disgusting, but, given the perfect examples displayed throughout this thread, equally unsurprising.

The west Glasgow club have merely been pushed out into the harsh spotlight of public scrutiny, (and not just on financial grounds), it wasn't and isn't pretty. For now, their east Glasgow neighbours fans are largely ambivalent due to their sparring partner's absence, in time that will change because, they too, have equally abhorrent elements among them.

The chance to force change was presented to us.....it appears we are not interested in change.

Wow.

[Captain_Sensible]

Let's try to take a clear look at the actual findings.

The club were not found guilty of anything. The company that used to run the club was fined.

The payments were not found to have broken the rules.

The EBT scheme was not kept secret (it was in the accounts which the SPL got). The offence the old company committed was not handing over (or delaying handing over) information such as the "side-letters" - which it did to protect its tax position.

Did Rangers gain a sporting advantage from the company not handing over the letters? Of course not. That didn't help the team. The question of the payments might be a different one but, like I said, the payments themselves were not judged to have broken the rules.

Club and company are the same thing.

The club / company was found guilty of not disclosing £47 million in contractual payments over 11 years.

The EBT was kept secret but the side letters were kept secret - both from HMRC and from the SPL.

Deliberately not handing over side letters to protect the tax position was cheating.

The club / company DID gain an unfair sporting advantage - saving the tax on £47 million and signing players it otherwise couldn't afford.

However, the its all academic. The club /company is now in liquidation and you now follow a brand new club which has won nothing - something you will be reminded of for ever more!

[Bearwithme]

Club and company are the same thing.

The club / company was found guilty of not disclosing £47 million in contractual payments over 11 years.

The EBT was kept secret but the side letters were kept secret - both from HMRC and from the SPL.

Deliberately not handing over side letters to protect the tax position was cheating.

The club / company DID gain an unfair sporting advantage - saving the tax on £47 million and signing players it otherwise couldn't afford.

However, the its all academic. The club /company is now in liquidation and you now follow a brand new club which has won nothing - something you will be reminded of for ever more!

Ah, the Rt Hon Lord Sensible disgrees with Lord Nimmo Smith et al. I know who I consider to be the greater authority.

LNS et al make it clear that club and company are not the same thing.

They found nothing wrong with the payments.

The EBT scheme was not kept hidden.

The fine was for the oldco not handing over documents. It would be absurd to suggest that that helped the team on the field.

54 and counting!

[AUFC90]

Ah, the Rt Hon Lord Sensible disgrees with Lord Nimmo Smith et al. I know who I consider to be the greater authority.

LNS et al make it clear that club and company are not the same thing.

They found nothing wrong with the payments.

The EBT scheme was not kept hidden.

The fine was for the oldco not handing over documents. It would be absurd to suggest that that helped the team on the field.

54 and counting!

So going on lns assumptions clubs and companies are separate ? Does that mean that when killy were threatened with a winding up order they didn't care because it was the company that would be liable for it. Killy just sat back knowing they were in no immediate danger ?

[AUFC90]

So going on lns assumptions clubs and companies are separate ? Does that mean that when killy were threatened with a winding up order they didn't care because it was the company that would be liable for it. Killy just sat back knowing they were in no immediate danger ?

Same with hearts, all the rangers fans tick tocking is pointless because well the club has nothing to do with the company and they'll be fine

Edited March 2, 2013 by AUFC90

[Henrik's tongue]

Lord Nimmo Smith no doubt dislikes Celtic too in your mind.

Pure bigot that he is

This lying thing you do. You'll grow out of it

[T_S_A_R]

Can someone explain one small point of EMPLOYEE benefit trusts. So lets assume they were 'loans' to employees. What was Souness £30,000 for ten years after leaving the EMPLOYMENT of Rangers. If they have been decreed as loans for the meantime ........I would imagine the liquidators could recall the £47 m loans and pay of all the creditors. Including the £250,000 fine.

Then we can watch the HMRC win their appeal and bust Rangers all over again. They think its all over ............

the loans are not due to be paid back to rangers. they are owed to MIHEBT.

so your plan has a large and fatal flaw unfortunately.

[T_S_A_R]

So going on lns assumptions clubs and companies are separate ? Does that mean that when killy were threatened with a winding up order they didn't care because it was the company that would be liable for it. Killy just sat back knowing they were in no immediate danger ?

a football club has no legal personality - that is actually in the spl commission report if you read it. the problem for killie and hearts would be retaining ownership of their stadiums and league membership which are vital to their function

in association football the only way a club can 'die' is if their membership of their national association is revoked.

Edited March 2, 2013 by T_S_A_R

[flyingrodent]

Let's try to take a clear look at the actual findings.

1) The club were not found guilty of anything. The company that used to run the club was fined.

2) The payments were not found to have broken the rules.

3) The EBT scheme was not kept secret (it was in the accounts which the SPL got). 4) The offence the old company committed was not handing over (or delaying handing over) information such as the "side-letters" - which it did to protect its tax position.

5) Did Rangers gain a sporting advantage from the company not handing over the letters? Of course not. That didn't help the team. The question of the payments might be a different one but, like I said, the payments themselves were not judged to have broken the rules.

Well, that's odd. For "a clear look at the actual findings", that seems to look more like "a string of blatant, brazen lies".

So we have 1) obvious slithery attempt to use the club/company division to pretend that Rangers didn't break the rules. In reality, Rangers were found to have intentionally broken the rules, and that stain remains on your club's record forever.

2) An assertion that "the payments did not break the rules", which must be why Oldco were fined £250,000. I've never seen anyone else being fined a quarter of a million for not breaking the rules, but surely here we have it, if you're to be believed.

3) Repetition of the "EBTs were not kept secret" nonsense. In reality, Rangers publicised the fact they had an EBT scheme. They deliberately concealed the fact that they were using it in a way that broke the rules. That's why they were found guilty of concealing their rule-breaking and fined £250,000.

4) This is known as "deliberately breaking the rules", and however you want to phrase it, the fact is that you were found guilty of deliberately breaking the rules.

5) It shows how farcically insane this whole issue is, that it comes down to "Did Rangers gain an advantage by breaking the rules? If not, they can't be punished". You can imagine how this would work if the SPL were responsible for the law of the land - attempted housebreaking, attempted theft and attempted murder would all be acceptable.

Here's Lord Nimmo's ruling on "advantage" in a nutshell - a crime isn't a crime, if you f**k it up and it doesn't work. No wonder people are laughing at it.

Edited March 2, 2013 by flyingrodent

[AUFC90]

a football club has no legal personality - that is actually in the spl commission report if you read it. the problem for killie and hearts would be retaining ownership of their stadiums and league membership which are vital to their function

in association football the only way a club can 'die' is if their membership of their national association is revoked.

So if the sfa still have Gretnas membership in the cupboard they are still alive. Basically what we are to believe is that because the group who bought the assets were given the old membership they are the same club. What about the fact sevco had a temporary membership whilst rangers had the full one.

[DomDom]

I've always regarded this "unfair competitive advantage" as something of a red herring. Let's be honest - the unfair competitive advantages which the OF enjoy in our game are already so vast, so stupid and so unjust as to render the very notion redundant in this context.

As I've said many times, teams who have made administrative errors in the past in Cup ties have been tackled (sometimes very harshly) on the basis simply of registration failings, rather than on whether they sought or gained an advantage. The more telling part of this ruling is that the failings here, did not make the players ineligible. If that's the case, then the right decision's been reached.

I suppose the problem is that we've all focused on this inquiry being about 'title stripping'. It wasn't - it was about player registration and if rules had been broken, one of the more extreme sanctions available involved the removal of titles.

I suspect now that such a measure was never very likely, but the fact that we all saw the investigation in those terms, makes the outcome feel like a victory for Rangers, but a defeat for the rest of us. As with the FTTT verdict, the equivocal nature of the ruling means that it's really been neither, but football being the adversarial business that it is, sees it greeted and regarded in starker terms than are realistic.

As for the FTTT appeal, I hope HMRC win, because the exploitation of these loopholes is certainly immoral. I don't however see it as impacting on the 'title stripping' business at all. I've said all along that though related, the invetigations were looking at different things and the fact that both verdicts have disappointed me, doesn't alter that separation.

Finally, why the Hell did Celtic feel any need to comment at all? It betrays a complete lack of class and dignity. It also shows how concerned they are by their haemhorraging gates and just like Green before them, recognise the fact that creating a notion of persecution and victimhood can be lucrative. The two clubs deserve each other, but the rest of us have done nothing to deserve either.

Terrific post for me, and sums the whole thing up.

[flyingrodent]

Also worth pointing out that the reason why this issue has proven so difficult and complex in tribunals is that David Murray's Rangers poured a lot of time and money into finding ways to bend the rules of the game and the tax codes until they were within a bawhair of snapping.

This is called "sharp practice" - you examine the rules to find ways to gain advantage for yourself by hilariously taking the piss out of them, but make sure that you do it in a way that can't be found illegal in a court of law. Sharp practice is the reason why there are so few bankers in jail in this country, despite the fact that hundreds of them grasped vast sums of cash in ways that were clearly reprehensible and immoral, but not technically illegal.

There are legal ways to steal Granny's pension money, if you put enough time and effort into finding ways to get round the law. If you go ahead and steal Granny's pension money, whether you're found guilty of theft or not, you've still stolen Granny's pension money and nobody is going to be impressed when you wave a judgement that says stealing from Granny isn't technically illegal, if you pay a bunch of lawyers to find a way to pull it off within the law.

[DomDom]

Was wondering when you'd be here to try and overdramatise that bit. Didn't take too long as it happens.

[youngsy]

Also worth pointing out that the reason why this issue has proven so difficult and complex in tribunals is that David Murray's Rangers poured a lot of time and money into finding ways to bend the rules of the game and the tax codes until they were within a bawhair of snapping.

This is called "sharp practice" - you examine the rules to find ways to gain advantage for yourself by hilariously taking the piss out of them, but make sure that you do it in a way that can't be found illegal in a court of law. Sharp practice is the reason why there are so few bankers in jail in this country, despite the fact that hundreds of them grasped vast sums of cash in ways that were clearly reprehensible and immoral, but not technically illegal.

There are legal ways to steal Granny's pension money, if you put enough time and effort into finding ways to get round the law. If you go ahead and steal Granny's pension money, whether you're found guilty of theft or not, you've still stolen Granny's pension money and nobody is going to be impressed when you wave a judgement that says stealing from Granny isn't technically illegal, if you pay a bunch of lawyers to find a way to pull it off within the law.

Oh FFS. If something is not technically illegal then take it on board that it isn't illegal in any way whatsoever. The club was found to be guilty of non-disclosure on administration issues over the years,that's accepted by the Rangers support,however the club was cleared of playing ineligible players at any time on the field of play which in effect meant that the club did not benefit from any unfair sporting advantage.

That means that every trophy won by the club was won fairly on the field of play,which after all is what this was all about. Now i know this is hard for you to accept but that is the ruling from the commission try and accept it instead of giving us all fucking headaches with your stupid little analogies.

Edited March 2, 2013 by youngsy

[AUFC90]

Oh FFS. If something is not technically illegal then take it on board that it isn't illegal in any way whatsoever. The club was found to be guilty of non-disclosure on administration issues over the years,that's accepted by the Rangers support,however the club was cleared of playing ineligible players at any time on the field of play which in effect meant that the club did not benefit from any unfair sporting advantage.

That means that every trophy won by the club was won fairly on the field of play,which after all is what this was all about. Now i know this is hard for you to accept but that is the ruling from the commission try and accept it instead of giving us all fucking headaches with your stupid little analogies.

The club did gain an unfair advantage. They had players they couldn't afford. This verdict confirms it for me rather prove your club innocence. Rangers actually said to the FTT they were using EBTs to attract better players. If that's not an unfair sporting advantage I don't know what is. Nimmo smith was pretty dammin about rangers. Saying it was a deliberate and psubstained act of rule breaking. He also said that they were unable to come to the conclusion that a sporting advantage was sought. Unable to prove something isn't innocence. We all know u cheated so get over it

[youngsy]

The club did gain an unfair advantage. They had players they couldn't afford. This verdict confirms it for me rather prove your club innocence. Rangers actually said to the FTT they were using EBTs to attract better players. If that's not an unfair sporting advantage I don't know what is. Nimmo smith was pretty dammin about rangers. Saying it was a deliberate and psubstained act of rule breaking. He also said that they were unable to come to the conclusion that a sporting advantage was sought. Unable to prove something isn't innocence. We all know u cheated so get over it

First of all EBTs were not illegal and of course they were used to fund players salaries,it may come as a shock to you but the verdict in the FTT was found in favour of the PLC. Also no matter how you or others try and dress this up the club did not field ineligible players to gain sporting advantage,that's in the summation from Nimmo-Smith or did you just neglect to mention that when you stated Nimmo-Smith was daming about Rangers.

At the end of the day this was all about fielding ineligible players and for many people the stripping of titles,none of which came to fruition so i don't need to get over anything,in fact i'll say i can most certainly live with the outcome,after all along with the EBT verdict it's been a pretty good few months.

[AUFC90]

First of all EBTs were not illegal and of course they were used to fund players salaries,it may come as a shock to you but the verdict in the FTT was found in favour of the PLC. Also no matter how you or others try and dress this up the club did not field ineligible players to gain sporting advantage,that's in the summation from Nimmo-Smith or did you just neglect to mention that when you stated Nimmo-Smith was daming about Rangers.

At the end of the day this was all about fielding ineligible players and for many people the stripping of titles,none of which came to fruition so i don't need to get over anything,in fact i'll say i can most certainly live with the outcome,after all along with the EBT verdict it's been a pretty good few months.

For me it was always about whether rangers had cheated or not. The verdict confirmed they did. The fact that the SPL didn't know know their own rules about eligibility is an irrelevance. Yous broke the rules and tried to cover it up for 10 years and got fined the biggest fine ever imposed. CHEATS