Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[madwullie]

Its full of emotional speculation and what people want to happen, absolutely agree. There arent that many trying to pass it off as fact though. Those that do fall into two, obvious, categories. Those who clearly know what they are talking about and those that dont.

Fair enough. It seems to me though that putting forward an opinion/viewpoint that goes against what the majority would like to see is seen as some kind of crime.

I'd like my opinion to be informed by as neutral as possible viewpoints - HJ for example has been pretty reticent when it comes to the THEY MUST DIE FOR THIS chat and as he's a bit of an anal rules buff that seems pretty important. The vast majority are too emotionally bawdeep for anything they day on the matter to be taken at face value imo

[T_S_A_R]

I believe he stated quite categorically that it couldnt happen. Im also, fairly certain, that he ridiculed anyone who thought otherwise.

i said it was unlikely that the panel will contradict themselves.

i also said that if you were trying to guess what they will do then i can't understand why anyone would expect them to replace a temporary punishment with a terminal punsihment.

[Granny Danger]

get yourself to f**k.

i was at the midweek game at parkhead in december 2010 when only 25,000 of your fans turned up, paddy mccourt hit a shot off tom hateley's arse in the first half. we had one shot which hateley bottled with 5 to go.

i was at midweek game at parkhead in spring 2010 when only 15,000 of your mob turned up and reynolds put us ahead then josh thompson scored two headers.

were you there?

I've just been shagging yer maw and she says you have a season ticket for Ibrox. This is the Internet, why should I lie?

[stonedsailor]

what point?

Once you have addressed wee Hector's point would there be any chance of answering my questions?

You don't have to if you are only here to troll, I'll take your non response as a reply that you are merely trolling extremely badly.

Edit in bold.

Edited June 2, 2012 by stonedsailor

[Disco Duck]

2. dont believe the hype from the laptop loyal. the tax dodge was only legal in so much that the law was at the time badly written meaning HMRC couldnt prove the law was being broken. it has changed since. but this idea that all rangers did wrong was badly administer it, is nonsense. basically the law meant HMRC couldnt prove the money wasnt a loan. in real terms its no different to saying stealing is legal, its getting caught stealing thats illegal.

no, it was legal in that there was no law against it. To say otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of tax law. Tax is (wrongly IMO) not governed by general principles, but very very specific legislation. No set of legislation can ever cover every possible set of circumstances.

This is why some of the brightest people in the country (including some of my better educated friends, and, it would seem, at least one porn star) are paid lots of money to finding ways of putting in place very very specific schemes that get round the rules. This was one such scheme, but for all these schemes you have to administer them just so, to avoid hundreds of different laws.

The scheme was not illegal. It is to many unethical, but that is entirely different.. Rangers poor administration meant they broke the law.

[T_S_A_R]

:lol:

Yes, they can and they will. Football matters should stay within football, it has caught FIFA's attention now and that's the point they'll drive home.

Sorry bud, don't see the parallel with that one.

Green's attempts to cut a deal suggest he realises the futility of going for that judicial review and he'll see he's been daft to go further through the courts

if the sfa punished a team for going to court the team would just go back to court and get it overturned. regan has said several times over the weekend that the sfa must be compliant with the law.

you would then need fifa or uefa to step in and punish the full of scottish football (which is what has been threatened). i think that a european court would overturn that.

the parralel with whistleblowers or harrasment reporters is that it is a principle of european law that you cannot be punished for seeking justice ie you can't be penalised for going to court.

i don't know what this green deal is. how can a deal be cut with an independent panel?

[madeirabhoy]

Unfortunately, at the time they put it in place it was legal. This was subsequently changed by two things: the Revenue changed their view on these schemes; and (more damningly) Rangers/Murray administered the scheme in the most crack-handed way known to man.

Whether it is ethical or not to avoid paying tax is another matter. As for the Al Capone comparison, get a grip. Tax evasion was the only thing they could pin on Capone - last time I checked, Murray wasn't murdering police.

And how has Rangers tax avoidance threatened the other SPL clubs?

no, the law never allowed companies to pay staff wages through etb. the law jus didnt allow hmrc to prove they were.there just was a loophole that didnt insist that 'loans' were paid back. taking advantage of that fact is no different to stealing without getting caught. rangers didnt fill in wrong forms or forget to tick something. by giving side letters they proved they were breaking the law. if they hadnt of given side letters they wouldnt have provided proof that they were breaking the law.

[T_S_A_R]

Did you not also convey some skepticism as to the SFA appellate panel being able to punish Rangers with a ban or suspension after having described it as too harsh previously? How do you feel about that after reading a law lord's view on the subject?

does lord glennie say in his verdict that explusion would be suitable?

my understanding is that rangers only challenged the panel's ability to set their own punishment rather than the verdict or any of the specified punishments.

i believe another court of session challenge is possible.

proof

the final sentence on page 2 running onto page 3

edit for proof

Edited June 2, 2012 by T_S_A_R

[hellbhoy]

Unfortunately, at the time they put it in place it was legal. This was subsequently changed by two things: the Revenue changed their view on these schemes; and (more damningly) Rangers/Murray administered the scheme in the most crack-handed way known to man.

Whether it is ethical or not to avoid paying tax is another matter. As for the Al Capone comparison, get a grip. Tax evasion was the only thing they could pin on Capone - last time I checked, Murray wasn't murdering police.

And how has Rangers tax avoidance threatened the other SPL clubs?

I have done a bit of research on the EBT schemes and what Rangers have done is absolutely tax avoidance,basically a pension fund that has no money in it.Rangers may argue in court "BUT they are loans that were given out" that won't work seeing as not one single penny in over 20 years since it's inception has ever been paid back for a legal EBT payout at retirement for an employee.Doesn't matter the HMRC changed the rules a few years ago,the fact remains that Rangers can't argue IT'S LEGAL because there is no money in the fund and all payments barr a few were paid while the player was employed by Rangers.THEIR FCUKED there.

The gers have created such a situation that if they are not included in the SPL in some form or another next season some SPL teams are going to find it tough to put it mildly to balance their accounts at the end of next season depending how that teams season goes.The SKY deal decreases ! and lower gates coz they are not there if the gers actually got their just deserts and were thrown down into the 3rd division.Hows that ?.

[madeirabhoy]

no, it was legal in that there was no law against it. To say otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of tax law. Tax is (wrongly IMO) not governed by general principles, but very very specific legislation. No set of legislation can ever cover every possible set of circumstances.

This is why some of the brightest people in the country (including some of my better educated friends, and, it would seem, at least one porn star) are paid lots of money to finding ways of putting in place very very specific schemes that get round the rules. This was one such scheme, but for all these schemes you have to administer them just so, to avoid hundreds of different laws.

The scheme was not illegal. It is to many unethical, but that is entirely different.. Rangers poor administration meant they broke the law.

thats no different to saying that if i kill a guy but theres no evidence, i havent broken the law. the law says that any payments to employees must be taxed. by using the etb, the taxman cant prove youve broken the law, so yes its legal, as legal as having not been caught breaking any other law. the side letters dont break the law, they prove the lawbreaking which has happened.

[stonedsailor]

does lord glennie say in his verdict that explusion would be suitable?

my understanding is that rangers only challenged the panel's ability to set their own punishment rather than the verdict or any of the specified punishments.

i believe another court of session challenge is possible.

No but he did say that suspension may have been.

“Although the AT agreed with the JP that termination, suspension of membership would have been excessive, it made that assessment in the context of the availability of competent lesser sanctions such as the one actually imposed. Ere that option not to have been available, suspension might have had to be considered appropriate for such serious misconduct which has brought the game into disrepute.”

Who do you believe would raise another case in the CoS and for what?

[hellbhoy]

Get ready folks for the orc invasion at your home grounds next season

[Disco Duck]

no, the law never allowed companies to pay staff wages through etb. the law jus didnt allow hmrc to prove they were.there just was a loophole that didnt insist that 'loans' were paid back. taking advantage of that fact is no different to stealing without getting caught. rangers didnt fill in wrong forms or forget to tick something. by giving side letters they proved they were breaking the law. if they hadnt of given side letters they wouldnt have provided proof that they were breaking the law.

There is a loophole that didn't insist on loans being repaid. So if it's a loophole, it is BY DEFINITION not illegal. Stealing is.

If you don't put in place a "side letter", you don't have a contract. So it's not a contractual payment, it's discretionary, again by definition. Rangers made the mistake (amongst others) of putting in place evidence which players could use to bind the club to payments (as far as I can decipher, because agents quite rightly protected their clients). This immediately changes the game.

I'll admit I'm going on the basis of vague understanding of the case and the drunken chat of Big 4 tax advisers at poker nights!

[chico]

1338677007[/url]' post='6298086']

if the sfa punished a team for going to court the team would just go back to court and get it overturned. regan has said several times over the weekend that the sfa must be compliant with the law.

He also highlighted the need for the matter to remain within football

I know I'm biting here, but here's the quote:-

"Football must always operate within the law of the land. None the less, it is regrettable that a member club has sought recourse for a football disciplinary matter through increasingly costly civil court action."The right of appeal is now open to the Scottish FA through the Court of Session. However, by so doing, the very principles on which the Scottish FA - and, for that matter, UEFA and FIFA – are founded, namely football disciplinary matters being dealt with within its own jurisdiction, would be fundamentally compromised."Therefore, it is our intention to accede to Lord Glennie’s request and refer the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal, which will consider the remaining sanctions open to it. Details of a new hearing date will be confirmed in early course.

you would then need fifa or uefa to step in and punish the full of scottish football (which is what has been threatened). i think that a european court would overturn that.

the parralel with whistleblowers or harrasment reporters is that it is a principle of european law that you cannot be punished for seeking justice ie you can't be penalised for going to court.

Again from the SFA statement

"It is important to reiterate that the additional sanction of a registration embargo was imposed by an independent Judicial Panel chaired by a leading QC, Gary Allan, and upheld by an Appellate Tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court Judge, Lord Carloway.

"That in itself vindicates the robustness of the Judicial Panel Protocol, which has been questioned in hackneyed comment in certain quarters this week. It should be noted that two vastly experienced Supreme Court Judges, Lord Carloway and Lord Glennie, arrived at diametrically opposed viewpoints on the same issue."With our Annual General Meeting taking place on Wednesday, June 6, it will be appropriate to remind member clubs that by very dint of their membership of the Scottish FA, they accept and abide by the Articles of Association."

It's interpretation of the SFA rule book between two Court of Session judges over a situation probably thought highly improbable when the rules were revised last year. Lord Glennie acknowledged that by referring the matter back (not quashing the matter completely) to the appeal tribunal thsr a more severe punishment could be issued

i don't know what this green deal is. how can a deal be cut with an independent panel?

Aye he can't exactly offer them a nice EBT for it all to go away. In seriousness, there's no deal to be cut here and the RFFF funding this court action could be a serious error, even though they 'won'

[hellbhoy]

There is not a loophole that didn't insist on loans being repaid.

There fixed that for you ...... and where the feck did you come up with a loan you do not pay back ? are you Billy Dodds ?.

[chico]

1338677239[/url]' post='6298097']

edit for proof

:lol:

I'm gonna steal that for future use!

[WeeHectorPar]

what point?

This point.

http://www.pieandbov...ost__p__6297889

T_S_A_R, on 02 June 2012 - 22:11, said:

thankfully people with more than one opinion are allowed to post

and if you got the email from stuart mcall during the week i agree with what he has to say regarding how this effects our club.

And thank you for that invitation, you who consider yourself the site's expert on European law. You come on here and lecture people as though you are some kind of God's gift to P&B, dictating your views and criticising those who speak out against you.

Remember this from a few months ago when you were trying to impose your ideas on all of us?

the issue here is whether or not uefa have broken swiss law in regard to sion's ability to trade. the swiss courts will decide this. the swiss courts will be the ones who decide this matter.

.

uefa's most recent move....

nicely ask sion to forfeit their civil rights and go to CAS.

constantin has them on the run

or losing at CAS creates less problems for them than losing in the swiss civil courts.

sion don't have to go to cas.

constantin seems up for a scrap, going to cas would be taking a step back. he and sion will recieve more protection in the swiss legal system.

the latest on this seems to be that CAS have set a date for a hearing even though sion have not agreed to go CAS as yet.

hopefully sion smell the rat here and stick with the swiss courts.

are uefa so arrogant that they couldn't see this situation arising? the way they are behaving is uttery incompetent, they seem to have no plan b if sion don't accept the offer to go to CAS. if they have to move out of switzerland over this that will be the end of platini.

Oh how right you were, Mr Legal Expert who has come down from heaven to put all us common mortals in our place. Platini's out on his erse, UEFA is still grovelling before the Swiss courts and Sion won the Europa League and the Swiss championship.

And now you have returned to spout out even more of your pseudo-legalistic shyte. Why don't you just fvck off back to FF where you belong?

Edit. You would be better off using your fingers to have a quick w*nk than type out the crap you do now!

I'm surprised you missed this as it was not only quite a big post but it also contained an enormous amount of the garbage you posted several months ago.

Edited June 2, 2012 by WeeHectorPar

[T_S_A_R]

No but he did say that suspension may have been.

Who do you believe would raise another case in the CoS and for what?

you've quoted the sfa's lawyer

glennie says that is immaterial!

[Disco Duck]

There fixed that for you ...... and where the feck did you come up with a loan you do not pay back ? are you Billy Dodds ?.

There is no law in the land that insists a loan must be repaid.

Edit to add- look, I'm not trying to defend what Rangers did, but we must be clear - what Murray set out to do with EBTs was not illegal. Immoral? Arguably. Unfair advantage, IMO, yes.

What Whyte subsequently did in using PAYE and VAT a a current account is far worse to me, it's certainly trading whilst insolvent and comes under the Directors Disqualification Act (not that he'd give a flying f**k about that), and is what the current punishment is considering.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Disco Duck

[Dundee Hibernian]

I'm a wee bit pished here, but for what it's worth...........................

TSAR is maybe giving some balance to our huge debate. Most of us want them gone, but our hopes may not balance with our reality.