Bearwithme Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 "Financial doping"? Are the clubs who dumped debt via CVAs (some of them more than once) guilty of "financial doping" too? (Just wondering.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 "Financial doping"? Are the clubs who dumped debt via CVAs (some of them more than once) guilty of "financial doping" too? (Just wondering.) That'll be different. As Neil Doncaster said there's very little difference between existing admin through a CVA or a newco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 One of Doncaster's many mistakes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Did you make that yourself? The accounts were declared in full every year, if they weren't the relevant authorities would have acted there and then. ...and yes i know you got your info from an ex lawyers blog, i know. If it turns out that there were second contracts, if it turns out that the HMRC case goes against Rangers, if you find out that actually the people at your former club were a bunch of no good, rotten, thieves, cheats, and liars will you not be calling for justice? Will you not be wanting them charged with criminal activities? Or will your blinkered stance still be that those titles were won fair and square and Rangers should keep their name on the trophies? After all Rangers would do nothing wrong, would they? All the information in the public domain certainly points to a great deal of misdoings, even criminality, at your old club. Nothing I have seen proves otherwise. If you have anything which shows otherwise, why have you not posted it in this thread?The accusations are being fired at Rangers but there has been no evidence provided to the contrary. Why are these accounts not being reproduced here, surely if the proof of innocence is out there then those involved would have cleared their names by now? Surely? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 That'll be different. As Neil Doncaster said there's very little difference between existing admin through a CVA or a newco. After liquidation Rangers wont be doing any existing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) classic C&P When did HMRC announce that EBT`s were illegal? [Q1] Were the SPL made aware that these could be considered tax evasion? if so when? [Q2&3] Were they aware that Rangers had been using EBT`s and from what point [Q4] What was the gap between when the SPL were made aware of the tax evasion issue and Rangers entering administration? [Q5] Did they carry out any investigations or even ask a question?[Q6] Would you even as a lay person look at that link you posted and think what is this large amount placed into a that column called EBT and not think to ask a few questions? like what is an EBT, are they legal?, show me the paperwork that details how they are paid? The SPL rightly or wrongly were not in the slightest bit interested, but now they are, bit late in my opinion That's better Tedi, when you know, or understand, nothing ask questions instead of making stupid statements which show your level of awareness on the subject. Such as the statement you made in my signature. Q1- Irrelevant, ignorance of the law is no defence. Q2&3- Irrelevant, the SPL are not custodians of the law of the land. Q4- Rangers did let them know they were using EBTs but they did not let them know the manner in which they were being used. Q5- Irrelevant, tax evasion is the jurisdiction of the HMRC, police and law courts, not the SPL Q6 Why would they? The investigations started when a third party made the SPL aware of the situation, before that Rangers accountant seem to have hidden things very well. Edited September 17, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 God almighty, you Cevco Loyal do really have reading & comprehension problems, so I'll repeat the quote which is posted only a half dozen or so above YET AGAIN: "Please do not believe the rubbish that somehow Rangers declared what they were doing to the SFA. You can see a typical "declaration" here. It does not even say that players were using the scheme. It does not say that any payments were made outside of contracts given to the SFA or SPL. It does not provide anything that would have let a tax expert know that something was amiss let alone football administrators- who are simply not qualified to do any kind of forensic accounting analysis. So let us stop with this "it was in the annual accounts" nonsense!" Posts like your one make me cringe at the straw grasping. Did you make that yourself? The accounts were declared in full every year, if they weren't the relevant authorities would have acted there and then. ...and yes i know you got your info from an ex lawyers blog, i know. How is the bold relevant to the issue though? Yes, the accounts were declared, but a passing relevance to renumeration trusts does not mean that SFA / SPL were aware of how the EBTs operated or who received them. "They were in the accounts" is a canard, because nothing relevant to the issue at stake ('2nd contracts or not') was in those minimal lines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Laying aside the EBT and registration issues (which I'm happy to dicuss elsewhere) does 'financial doping' only apply to Rangers or to any club which has ever over-extended itself financially? Should every indebted club be regarded as 'financial dopers'? Should clubs that, say, made a rights issue be described as 'financial dopers'? Can you explain what you actually mean by the term? You cannot, the EBT scheme is the crux of everything that came after. If the EBT scheme had been been ratified by HMRC Murray may well have been still in charge or at least someone like Whyte would not have came in. I can happily lay aside the EBT and dual-contracts issues. They will run their course. It's also perfect reasonable for me to ask about the 'financial doping' phrase separate from the other two issues as this is often hurled against my club. Please note that my questions did not relate to EBTs. I have no doubt that clubs can be accused of 'financial doping' whether they used dual contracts or not. Thankfully, Itmizname helped. He (partly) defined 'financial doping' as: the situation in which the owner of a sports franchise invests his or her own personal wealth into securing high-performing players, rather than relying on the revenue the franchise is able to generate for itself Now maybe you'd be sensible enough to actually answer my questions. Let me remind you. I asked: Should every indebted club be regarded as 'financial dopers'? Should clubs that, say, made a rights issue be described as 'financial dopers'? Can you explain what you actually mean by the term? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 "Financial doping"? Are the clubs who dumped debt via CVAs (some of them more than once) guilty of "financial doping" too? (Just wondering.) I would consider any club board that borrows money excessively 'to spend on its playing squad' to be financially doping their club. The SPL rightly or wrongly were not in the slightest bit interested, but now they are, bit late in my opinion Thankfully, your opinion doesn't matter due to you 'supporting' the accused. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 It's not just Scottish clubs either and that is why UEFA brought in the financial fair play regulations, now clubs have to prove they are being run without financial doping or they do not get to enter UEFA competitions. It's just a shame your old club overdosed on the financial dope before they could sort themselves out. UEFA are starting to root out this form of cheating, it's hilarious that the self proclaimed "world's most successful club" were one of the first to go down the gurgler after the legislation took effect. Wonderful. The first time that UEFA so much as attempt to impact on the very biggest clubs finances and how they are run, EUFA will fold faster than the bigger clubs say: "Ram your CL - we'll start our own competition." Just as before - when the CL evolved to become nothing like a CL. Because the biggest clubs wanted the money it generates no matter if they were champions or not. I really cannot wait for the day UEFA try and tell Real, Barca, Man U or the likes they cannot play in their tourney 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 The accounts were declared in full every year, if they weren't the relevant authorities would have acted there and then. ...and yes i know you got your info from an ex lawyers blog, i know. OK Benny ! when using an EBT pension fund do you ! A, Wait for employees to retire and pay them a lump sum of money which the EBT scheme was created for avoiding some tax legally ? OR B, Loan out all the money in the pension fund never to be paid back leaving no money in the pension fund for employees who actually retired ? NEXT ! Who is responsible for managing MURRAY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS PLC's EBT pension funds and who gets what from the retirement fund ? A, MURRAY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS PLC ! OR B, The SFA & SPL ! And the last time I checked the SFA are not responsible for running other companies pension funds especially outwith the football domain as Murray's clearly was. NEXT If Rangers had in their accounts they were running a pension fund would the SFA & SPL ? A, Say fine at first glance ! they have a pension scheme in operation in use for retirees when they retire and that is that outwith the associations liabilities for fielding properly registered football players ? OR B, Investigate a company outwith the associations jurisdiction MURRAY HOLDINS PLC in this case for using a pension fund as Rangers clearly have no right what so ever to declare they have a pension fund in use for retiring employees ? WELL ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 "Financial doping"? Are the clubs who dumped debt via CVAs (some of them more than once) guilty of "financial doping" too? (Just wondering.) Yes very much so but they managed to settle their debts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 After liquidation Rangers wont be doing any existing. Where's the spectacularly daft Bairnforever? I thought his wettest dream was coming true today 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I would consider any club board that borrows money excessively 'to spend on its playing squad' to be financially doping their club. Why only on the playing squad? How about clubs who borrow to 'keep the lights on'? How about those who have rights issues? How about those clubs who have part of a player's wages paid by a rich shareholder so as not to break the wage structure? Do those issues come under the term of 'financial doping'? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Wonderful. The first time that UEFA so much as attempt to impact on the very biggest clubs finances and how they are run, EUFA will fold faster than the bigger clubs say: "Ram your CL - we'll start our own competition." Just as before - when the CL evolved to become nothing like a CL. Because the biggest clubs wanted the money it generates no matter if they were champions or not. I really cannot wait for the day UEFA try and tell Real, Barca, Man U or the likes they cannot play in their tourney Do you mean like the SPL has folded since rejecting New Rangers application to join the SPL? Or the SFL folded after rejecting New Rangers application to join The First Division? Is this Bendarroch? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Yes very much so but they managed to settle their debts. "Settle"? Perhaps in some sense but in at least one of Dundee's CVA's they paid a very few pence in the pound (just to take one example). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Either show the criminality and who has been arrested/prosecuted or just f**k off. Reasonable fans of any team whom had suffered a fate similar to that of your previous team would be shouting and screaming demanding answers. "Why were these people allowed to destroy this magnificent club?" "Why are the police not hammering down doors?" "Why did this happen to the mighty Rangers?" No, not you or yours. We have the head in sand reaction from most of you, except 'McCoist Must Stay', "it never happened, prove it happened, these people would not do it to us, we arra peepul" no looking for justice, no asking for answers, it's a case of "just f**k off" Did you lot actually support your club or did you just yearn for glory, regardless of the price? This is actually pretty tedious. A poster made an accustion of criminality. I asked him to show evidence of this. Your response was nothing to do with my question. Maybe you can actually read what I posted and make, at least, a half-hearted attempt to reply. Let me give you a hint. If I ask for evidence of criminality then I expect a reply that discusses criminality. What you've done is trot out the usual shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Wonderful. The first time that UEFA so much as attempt to impact on the very biggest clubs finances and how they are run, EUFA will fold faster than the bigger clubs say: "Ram your CL - we'll start our own competition." Just as before - when the CL evolved to become nothing like a CL. Because the biggest clubs wanted the money it generates no matter if they were champions or not. I really cannot wait for the day UEFA try and tell Real, Barca, Man U or the likes they cannot play in their tourney UEFA told the most successful club in the world to "do one" they still seem to be coping fine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Why only on the playing squad? How about clubs who borrow to 'keep the lights on'? How about those who have rights issues? How about those clubs who have part of a player's wages paid by a rich shareholder so as not to break the wage structure? Do those issues come under the term of 'financial doping'? You'll have to elaborate and supply in-depth detail in order for anyone to give you sufficient answers to those questions. There are rules and regulations that every club in every sports league is expected to uphold. In this case involving Rangers, i think it is very clear due to recent events and exposure (laying the EBT's aside) that the Rangers board also started 'borrowing' excessively from the year 2000 onwards - "For Every Fiver..." and that the money was borrowed for the sole purpose of spending on players transfer fees and wages - "Financial Doping." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 This is actually pretty tedious. A poster made an accustion of criminality. I asked him to show evidence of this. Your response was nothing to do with my question. Maybe you can actually read what I posted and make, at least, a half-hearted attempt to reply. Let me give you a hint. If I ask for evidence of criminality then I expect a reply that discusses criminality. What you've done is trot out the usual shite. What you've done is yet again deflect from the real issue that you really do not give two f**ks about what is done to your club or how it is done, so long as you can feel superior to everyone else and still claim 54 titles, at least half of those won before you were even born. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.