Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

Out of all the things they've done, staying in a hotel to play Hearts gives me a flash of anger. Maybe, because it showed how shit D&P were at admin. Maybe, because it was a big fuckyou to the creditors. Or perhaps that it seemed like such a ridiculous thing to do for any team whether in admin or not.

What it demonstrated more than anything else was their arrogance, their belief that they would get away with all of it because of who they were - ah, the fresh air of reality smells so much the sweeter for it! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't missed it.

The 'Official' Liquidation day has still to come. If someone with a spare £200 million steps forward ... willing to pay off Rangers debts - £140 million and pay the Green consortium's asking price of £50 million for the assets ... Rangers can still be saved from liquidation. laugh.gif

Although... The BTC is still just a hundred ton weight poised over oldco's head:

By a quirk of fate I’m dealing with two specific press offices at the moment. One is the advisors to His Excellency President Assad of Syria, the other is the Tribunal Service attached to the judiciary in the UK.

Over the past fortnight I’ve had about the same level of service and information from both.

Which is odd since one is a notorious police state mired in kleptocratic corruption, civil war and generally violent systematic meltdown and the other appears to be British civil servants facing no such difficulties.

Yet try as I might it is next to impossible to puncture the extraordinary secrecy surrounding the First Tier Tax Tribunal where the fate of Rangers is to be determined.

Let’s start with some really simple information which, astonishingly, the judiciary service press office did manage to supply – they told me the names of those running the Big Tax Case hearing.

They are Mr Kenneth Mure QC (judge), Mr Scott Rae and Dr Heidi Poon.

So at that point I thought I’d try another easy question like when exactly did the Tribunal begin?

Mysteriously, we are not allowed to know this. When I asked why, I was informed that:

“The hearing was in private and it is possible that the identities of certain witnesses could be anonymised in the decision notice. So no details of names of witnesses or dates of proceedings can be released at present. The reason dates are confidential is that disclosure could enable identification of who attended.”

So apparently telling us the start and finish date could lead to witnesses being identified. I fail to understand any logic to this and the press office has failed thus far to explain any reason.

Nor can they explain any reason – reasonable or not – why witnesses need to be anonymous in the first place?

It is not a trial it is an appeal in effect. But it is a judicial process and justice is about being seen to be done. The process of appeal courts, crown courts, civil courts, magistrates’ courts, sheriff courts, public inquiries – the judicial process is open. So why are Tax Tribunals so avowedly secret?

Again, no explanation to date.

What many people want to know is what has delayed the Tribunal? We know there’s been a problem because both Tribunals press office and HMRC told Channel 4 News that the decision was expected “shortly after Easter”.

Here we are, three months on or so, not a hint of explanation at this (very expensive) delay. I’m sure there’s a perfectly straightforward explanation. So why can’t we know it?

12_rangersbanner2_602.jpg

Yet again, week in, week out, the Tribunals press office simply ducks the question. In the end they seemed to get a wee bit testy about anyone asking simple questions:

“I’m afraid the tribunal have declined to give any further information in this case until judgment is given,” wrote a press officer last week.

I can tell you they have received no complaints about the Big Tax Case from the HMRC about which there were various dark rumours in recent months – but as to when any decision will happen – who knows?

So I can only apologise for this rather Kafka-esque tale. I’ve tried and as I have left our shores for a while it seemed only fair to answer people who’ve asked what is going on?

Of course I haven’t answered, just passed on your questions. I don’t doubt that justice is being done as to whether Rangers FC’s tax arrangements were in order.

But I have very serious doubts that justice is being seen to be done and the taxpayers are owed an explanation.

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/delayed-rangers-tax-tribunal/2359

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although... The BTC is still just a hundred ton weight poised over oldco's head:

By a quirk of fate I'm dealing with two specific press offices at the moment. One is the advisors to His Excellency President Assad of Syria, the other is the Tribunal Service attached to the judiciary in the UK.

Over the past fortnight I've had about the same level of service and information from both.

Which is odd since one is a notorious police state mired in kleptocratic corruption, civil war and generally violent systematic meltdown and the other appears to be British civil servants facing no such difficulties.

Yet try as I might it is next to impossible to puncture the extraordinary secrecy surrounding the First Tier Tax Tribunal where the fate of Rangers is to be determined.

Let's start with some really simple information which, astonishingly, the judiciary service press office did manage to supply – they told me the names of those running the Big Tax Case hearing.

They are Mr Kenneth Mure QC (judge), Mr Scott Rae and Dr Heidi Poon.

So at that point I thought I'd try another easy question like when exactly did the Tribunal begin?

Mysteriously, we are not allowed to know this. When I asked why, I was informed that:

"The hearing was in private and it is possible that the identities of certain witnesses could be anonymised in the decision notice. So no details of names of witnesses or dates of proceedings can be released at present. The reason dates are confidential is that disclosure could enable identification of who attended."

So apparently telling us the start and finish date could lead to witnesses being identified. I fail to understand any logic to this and the press office has failed thus far to explain any reason.

Nor can they explain any reason – reasonable or not – why witnesses need to be anonymous in the first place?

It is not a trial it is an appeal in effect. But it is a judicial process and justice is about being seen to be done. The process of appeal courts, crown courts, civil courts, magistrates' courts, sheriff courts, public inquiries – the judicial process is open. So why are Tax Tribunals so avowedly secret?

Again, no explanation to date.

What many people want to know is what has delayed the Tribunal? We know there's been a problem because both Tribunals press office and HMRC told Channel 4 News that the decision was expected "shortly after Easter".

Here we are, three months on or so, not a hint of explanation at this (very expensive) delay. I'm sure there's a perfectly straightforward explanation. So why can't we know it?

12_rangersbanner2_602.jpg

Yet again, week in, week out, the Tribunals press office simply ducks the question. In the end they seemed to get a wee bit testy about anyone asking simple questions:

"I'm afraid the tribunal have declined to give any further information in this case until judgment is given," wrote a press officer last week.

I can tell you they have received no complaints about the Big Tax Case from the HMRC about which there were various dark rumours in recent months – but as to when any decision will happen – who knows?

So I can only apologise for this rather Kafka-esque tale. I've tried and as I have left our shores for a while it seemed only fair to answer people who've asked what is going on?

Of course I haven't answered, just passed on your questions. I don't doubt that justice is being done as to whether Rangers FC's tax arrangements were in order.

But I have very serious doubts that justice is being seen to be done and the taxpayers are owed an explanation.

http://blogs.channel...x-tribunal/2359

I'm a bit puzzled here Macshimmy by your quoting the entire of Channel 4 Alex Thomson's latest blog post without explanation beforehand this is what you were doing.

Have I missed something going on earlier, or are you now confessing to being the one-and-only Alex The Succulent Lamb Slayer? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it demonstrated more than anything else was their arrogance, their belief that they would get away with all of it because of who they were - ah, the fresh air of reality smells so much the sweeter for it! :D

Who in their right mind thinks staying overnight in a hotel is OK rather than a 45min journey on the day. How does it even come about? I don't think it would even cross most peoples mind as an option to a non existent problem. Did they used to stay in hotels for away games to Kilmarnock or Motherwell? They're outside Glasgow.

Edited by Invalid Probe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who in their right mind thinks staying overnight in a hotel is OK rather than a 45min journey on the day. How does it even come about? I don't think it would even cross most peoples mind as an option to a non existent problem. Did they used to stay in hotels for away games to Kilmarnock or Motherwell? They're outside Glasgow.

Quite right. When I have non existent problems to solve I can usually come up with better options than staying somewhere overnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why weren't applications invited for the vacant SFL place then?

Only guessing what went on behind SPL/SFL/SFA closed doors, but the SFL's controversial decision might've been linked to the SFA insisting that oldco punishments should be transferred with their membership to newco. The necessity to fill the vacancy asap might also have been a factor - the SPL dropped this on the SFL very late in the day. No doubt though IMO that the correct course of action should've been to consider all applications (as per the rule book, no matter how long it took) before deciding which new team was most suitable dry.gif

Your "greedy" take on things just gets more ridiculous the more I think about it :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The necessity to fill the vacancy asap might also have been a factor - the SPL dropped this on the SFL very late in the day.

The final decsion may have been late in the day, but any SFL chairman who claims he didn't know that a vote on Rangers Newco in the SFL is either a liar or an imbecile.

Possibly both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The final decsion may have been late in the day, but any SFL chairman who claims he didn't know that a vote on Rangers Newco in the SFL is either a liar or an imbecile.

Possibly both.

Not sure what you mean? The SFL didn't have a crystal ball. The SPL vote was very late and the final outcome was never certain, even though the result was very convincing in the end. That resulted in the SFL being rushed into making a decision on how to fill the vacancy before the start of the new season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean? The SFL didn't have a crystal ball. The SPL vote was very late and the final outcome was never certain, even though the result was very convincing in the end. That resulted in the SFL being rushed into making a decision on how to fill the vacancy before the start of the new season.

Yet again this is Rangers fault as they did not apply to the SFL until the SPL said bugger off, if they had applied at the same time it would not have been as rushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been away for the weekend, and I have discovered that the idiots at Southampton have decided to pay £800k for Steve Davies. Now I thought he was one of the players that refused to transfer under TUPE regulations? If that is the case surely Newco Rangers do not receive this money? Would that money then go to the Oldco to be added to any monies raised due to liquidation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rangers in crisis: Sevco have until Friday to gain SFA membership and play football next season."

"Charles Green's re-animated Rangers have only four days to agree on the terms which will allow them to play next season."

http://www.telegraph...ext-season.html

"Of course, the 10-point penalty, like the exile from European competition, are not punishments: they merely represent the consequences of falling into administration."

"Similarly, newco Rangers have not been penalised by beginning life in the Third Division: indeed, no other completely new club would have been allowed to enter the bottom tier."

"It is also true that no other new club would have been even considered for membership of the SPL. Again, their failure to have the oldco's membership share transferred is not a punitive measure."

"Equally, the £160,000 fine resulted from the inability or unwillingness [or both] of discredited owner Craig Whyte to pay taxes or any other bills which the club ran up during his tenure."

"Likewise, players, most of whom gave up 75 per cent of their salaries for three months in a vain attempt to save the old club, are not punishing Sevco by refusing to transfer their contracts to the new company and exercising their right to find alternative employment."

"The SPL want an independent commission to rule on whether Rangers broke the rules during previous campaigns by paying players with so-called side contracts."

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/18941515

"They are due to hand over their findings to that commission on 10th August."

days-remaining2.jpg

t3mdm.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for a moment, consider this. What would the implications be if rangers won their appeal?

They only appeal to Goths and necrophiliacs they are dead.

If you are talking about the BTC then I very much doubt it if the evidence the BBC had shown in their investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been away for the weekend, and I have discovered that the idiots at Southampton have decided to pay £800k for Steve Davies. Now I thought he was one of the players that refused to transfer under TUPE regulations? If that is the case surely Newco Rangers do not receive this money? Would that money then go to the Oldco to be added to any monies raised due to liquidation?

since it was a NewCo that was objecting to the transfer I have to assume that it was the NewCo that got the cash. Essentially Davis and Southampton have agreed that he would transfer but immediately leave for Southampton for 800k. That's what it looks like to me. Given FIFA's recent stance on this it could have been a very expensive way for Southampton to speed things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely if the SFA believe that Scottish Football needs a Rangers/Newco, and they tried hard enough to get them in SFL1 for that reason, then a deal will be struck. But hopefully McCoists whinging is what costs them in the end with some beak getting so fed up he snaps and tells them to go f&$* themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dailyreco. ..86908-23911276/

The guy is a legend, sadly he seems to have hit on hard times as he once had wealth off the radar

Wow. My thoughts after reading that 'article':

1) Murray still has the West Coast Media held neatly in his pocket.

2) The dumbed down writing style of the tabloids hits all new lows when it comes to writing about the Old Firm.

Edited by RB-Scotland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...