Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Dons_1988]

I stopped reading at the end of the first paragraph.

Anyone who tries to be serious yet says, "Most significantly, the campaign to have the farcical Nimmo Smith Commission findings set aside must be put on ice." is clearly marching to a different beat to we sane people.

Actually I am not a huge advocate for title stripping, I'd rather see scottish football improved going forward. I am also trying to take an objective approach to the whole thing.

Reading the linked piece it makes a very strong argument for title stripping it has to be said. I do appreciate that there is clearly a certain bias to the writing so it's hardly concrete evidence especially given not all of the facts can be verified. For example, I have never seen evidence that Rangers openly lied to HMRC during the EBT period so therefore I appreciate that may not be true.

However, taken as read it is a pretty compelling argument. I would happily read a piece with as strong an argument to the contrary.

[MRF-LCC-RFC]

To be fully honest the Rangers board have basically confirmed already that Title Stripping is not possible, move on

Edited December 1, 2015 by MRF-LCC-RFC

[The_Kincardine]

When clubs can get done for the "Sporting Advantage" of paying their players a week late yet a commission finds no advantage in not paying the taxman at all it looks like the commission might not have conducted it's business correctly.

I am amazed that you spend so much time on this thread yet still come out with this dross.

[Joe schmo]

I like this part.

'On 22nd May 2005, Rangers defeated Hibs at Easter Road to win the SPL by a solitary point with Nacho Novo scoring the only goal of the game.'

What he fails to acknowledge however, is the fact that they could not defend against wee Scotty Macdonald for 2 minutes, will they ever get over it?

Why should anyone ever forget what has happened? Those who forget history etc.

[Joe schmo]

Although ancient nonsense for disposable Q&C types never fades. It's almost as if the ruling classes need a ready supply of bovine types to fill their body bags on foreign shores or something...

[Dons_1988]

I like this part.

'On 22nd May 2005, Rangers defeated Hibs at Easter Road to win the SPL by a solitary point with Nacho Novo scoring the only goal of the game.'

What he fails to acknowledge however, is the fact that they could not defend against wee Scotty Macdonald for 2 minutes, will they ever get over it?

Bear in mind I despise Celtic in my response to that.

To point out Celtics failings in that season is a mere distraction from the actual debate. It is a wider debate around Rangers actions at that time.

The whole 'sporting advantage' debate is a red herring for me anyway, in sport you can forever talk about the ifs buts and maybes and how much of a direct impact having De Boer or whoever in the team may have had.

For me it's simple, was a form of deception and contravention of rules used to sign football players to compete for a league title. If so, there is a huge argument to say that title is void.

There are many real life examples of teams being disqualified from competitions for administrative errors on a hugely smaller scale than this.

[Stag Nation]

A quote from the telegraph

" However, it is believed that one argument against the supposition that Rangers secured players by means of EBTs is that a range of variable inducements were in operation at that time and not only at Ibrox. Other avoidance schemes involved investment in such vehicles as film production companies and forestry development"

Film production companies?

There has been a lot in the news about players, ex-players and managers losing huge sums in various tax-avoidance schemes. However, I've seen no reports that any of those were connected with their employers - have I missed that?

AFAIK it was simply some dodgy geezer advising them of a wizard wheeze to avoid tax, and there seems to be no parallel with the EBTs used by Rangers (and, to be fair, some other clubs).

[aofjays]

I am amazed that you spend so much time on this thread yet still come out with this dross.

I'm amazed that you thought that pathetic joke of a response was worth the effort of typing.

[Stag Nation]

To be fully honest the Rangers board have basically confirmed already that Title Stripping is not possible, move on

1. "To be fully honest" and "Rangers board" is a classic oxymoron, given that their chairman is a proven glib and shameless liar.

2. How are the Rangers board qualified to make that pronouncement? They're not even involved, it's a matter between the SPFL and the OldCO.

[Dons_1988]

1. "To be fully honest" and "Rangers board" is a classic oxymoron, given that their chairman is a proven glib and shameless liar.

2. How are the Rangers board qualified to make that pronouncement? They're not even involved, it's a matter between the SPFL and the OldCO.

don't bite min

[aofjays]

A judge who happens to be an expert in football law examined the rules and Rangers conduct and found that Rangers were guilty of administration errors, he also declared that the players were properly registered, he issued an appropriate punishment, he also confirmed that the tax ruling had nothing to do with the tribunal.

The SPL themselves ruled out any further action.

In some ways I actually enjoy that there are some that will never accept this.

I enjoy having my low opinion of rangers fans confirmed so at least we're both happy.

[Njord]

Lolzers, bear on bear action incoming

Rangers lose AGM vote to raise cash through new external share issue

Rangers have failed to secure shareholder backing to allow them to issue new shares to outside investors in order to raise cash for the company.

A vote held at their recent AGM saw directors seek permission to "allot equity securities" without having to offer them exclusively to shareholders. The move required the support of 75% of their investors.

After a poll, the board failed by 1.2% to secure the necessary support.

In total, 73.8% voted in favour, with 26.2% saying no.

"The votes for resolution 10 were considerably higher than the directors had anticipated and almost enough to see the vote carried as a special resolution," a statement from Rangers said.

"The directors will consider carefully shareholders views on this vote, consult (where practicable) with those who did not vote or opposed the resolution and identify the company's next steps after that process is complete."

MASH Holdings Limited, who hold 8.92% of the shareholding in Rangers International Football Club plc, had also warned that they would seek an interim interdict to prevent new shares being issued had the vote gone in the board's favour.

"The company has undertaken that, in the event resolution 10 is passed at the AGM, it will not make any allotment of shares in terms of the proposed resolution 10 without first giving 21 days written notice to MASH," they said prior to Friday's meeting.

"The effect of this undertaking is that if the company gave such notice of its intention to MASH, MASH would be able to apply to court before any such allotment was made to seek an interdict preventing such allotment."

Rangers did successfully receive backing to be able to issue shares in the company to existing shareholders up to a defined limit.

Directors Dave King, John Bennett, Paul Murray, John Gilligan and Graeme Park were all successfully voted back on to the board.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Njord

[Ross.]

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1334389-rangers-lose-agm-vote-to-raise-cash-through-issue-of-new-shares/

Though Njord appears to have pasted the content.

[MRF-LCC-RFC]

Njord waiting on standby for the results from STV news about what new Rangers lore has been written in the news today for him to obsess over

[williemillersmoustache]

What is football law?

A judge who happens to be an expert in football law examined the rules and Rangers conduct and found that Rangers were guilty of administration errors, he also declared that the players were properly registered, he issued an appropriate punishment, he also confirmed that the tax ruling had nothing to do with the tribunal.

The SPL themselves ruled out any further action.

In some ways I actually enjoy that there are some that will never accept this.

Edited December 1, 2015 by williemillersmoustache

[williemillersmoustache]

Actually I am not a huge advocate for title stripping, I'd rather see scottish football improved going forward. I am also trying to take an objective approach to the whole thing.

Reading the linked piece it makes a very strong argument for title stripping it has to be said. I do appreciate that there is clearly a certain bias to the writing so it's hardly concrete evidence especially given not all of the facts can be verified. For example, I have never seen evidence that Rangers openly lied to HMRC during the EBT period so therefore I appreciate that may not be true.

However, taken as read it is a pretty compelling argument. I would happily read a piece with as strong an argument to the contrary.

Charlotte fakes (I think) provided a lovely wee letter circa 2006-2007 from HMRC to old Rangers saying roughly "now that we have in our possession one of the side letters which you claimed not to have issued or have any knowledge of, would you like to change your position?"

To which they responded "nuh, you smell etc."

[Dons_1988]

A judge who happens to be an expert in football law examined the rules and Rangers conduct and found that Rangers were guilty of administration errors, he also declared that the players were properly registered, he issued an appropriate punishment, he also confirmed that the tax ruling had nothing to do with the tribunal.

The SPL themselves ruled out any further action.

In some ways I actually enjoy that there are some that will never accept this.

Are BDO not appealing the big tax case on the notion that a judge may not always be right?

And the SPL well...come on now

[strichener]

I assume that the commission pretty-much disregarded the use of EBTs as their use in no way contravened SPL rules. Instead they thoroughly investigated how players' contacts were presented to the authorities and, rightly, found us culpable.

Only it did contravene the rules. The SPL rulebook stated that tax liabilities had to be paid, by proceeding on the basis that EBTs were legal, the commission decided that no rules had been broken. If you look at this now in the context of the latest ruling, then HMRC's demand for tax was legitimate and therefore Rangers were in default of their tax liabilities. It is for this reason that HMRC add penalties and interest from the point of evasion. The SPL defined such liabilties as

Tax Liability/Tax Liabilities means any and all tax, duty and related or similar obligations of whatsoever nature in respect of which a Club is required to make payment, account and/or return to HMRC including, without limitation, any and all liabilities for payment of sums deducted or required to be deducted and paid by a Club to HMRC from employees’ remuneration in respect of employees’ income tax liabilities ("PAYE") and employees’ National Insurance Contributions ("NIC"), employer’s NIC, Value Added Tax ("VAT"), Income Tax, Corporation Tax and any interest and/or penalties due or becoming due in connection with such tax, duty and related or similar obligations

[strichener]

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1334389-rangers-lose-agm-vote-to-raise-cash-through-issue-of-new-shares/

Though Njord appears to have pasted the content.

That'll be the £5m oot the windae now that it cannot be converted to equity.

[Njord]

Charlotte fakes (I think) provided a lovely wee letter circa 2006-2007 from HMRC to old Rangers saying roughly "now that we have in our possession one of the side letters which you claimed not to have issued or have any knowledge of, would you like to change your position?"

To which they responded "nuh, you smell etc."

I posted this a couple of days back...