Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

You do not pay tax on a loan. By recoverable they mean that the sum of money loaned is recoverable by the person or entity that loaned it.

There is no tax owed.

Hang on, so does that mean Rangers are owed money by the players?

Either way, it's a massive victory for "The People" no way you look at it.

I am willing to take my hat off to them in this round. You posters claiming "aye, it's not over", are as bad as the Sevco fans with their heads in the sand earlier.

This case still has twists and turns to come though, but it would appear the bumpiest part of the roller-coaster is over.

Still, I think we can all agree that Charles Green's next statement is going to be comedy gold. I bet he claims even Manchester United wouldn't win a case like that and they must be the biggest sporting company in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loving all the rangers fans pissing their pants with joy on this, i couldnt give two shits about whether a liquidated club owed someone money... all it proves is that Rangers operated an illegal policy of dual contracts.

Time for some title stripping! :D

54 and decreasing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1353429599[/url]' post='6825202']

Oh the joys of this day - will they ever end?

Murray Group releases a statement expressing their satisfaction at the outcome and the BBC informs us that the statement the Murray group will now review the online activities of some to see if legal redress can be sought.

laugh.gif

Died for nothinglaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact remains that your deceased corpse of a club cheated this country out of £130+ million. The zombie-co remains, and claims to retain the cheating old-co's history. Most other clubs would want to cut all ties and distance itself from that kind of stain on their history, but apparently not Rangers or their deluded fans.

Enjoy your small 'victory'. It will come back to bite you hard on the baws. :)

So you have the power to overturn a verdict from a lawful tribunal,have you? The tribunal found for the plc in that they did nothing illegal,as hard as it is for many to accept that is the truth of the matter. You can go on about all this zombie nonsense but try and get your head round the facts of this particular case,The Rangers Football Club plc have been vindicated in the EBT case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In answer to your first question,these players were well rewarded whilst playing for the club and i have no doubt that they received very good financial advice from well qualified people in that field so if they did not take in that advice then sorry,they are grown men,they are responsible for their own finances. As to your second question i have no idea how such a scenario would work out.

Fair answer to the first point, but it'll be interesting to see what the players lawyers make of the claim that their clients are liable. Lot's more side letters will no doubt appear.

From what I can see, the only winners in this will be those in the legal fraternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is truly perfect. Rangers went to the wall, not for £130m, but for £10 - 20m. Oh happy day!

Thank f*** this decision took so long to come out. Otherwise a fans rescue might have actually worked.

This is one of the more delectable parts of the whole saga. Let's just enjoy it until one of them realises that

1. They're still in D3

2. They still can't sign players.

3. Their "brilliant" verdict just confirmed that players were improperly registered for years.

4. Their new owner has the begging bowl out after less than five months.

5. They're still not rangers.

Oh, as you say, Happy Day.

laugh.gif

(Pity none of the usual suspects so much as glanced at the document before spunking all over the thread, but hey, what ye gaunnae do?laugh.gif)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still side contracts have been used so Title stripping will be on it's way. biggrin.gif

I don't really understand why anyone but Rangers fans care about this so much? It wont affect anyone other than Rangers, and even then they'll not acknowledge the titles being stripped anyway. Even if they are stripped, they wont be awarded to runners up I wouldn't have thought,. Will it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the more delectable parts of the whole saga. Let's just enjoy it until one of them realises that

1. They're still in D3

2. They still can't sign players.

3. Their "brilliant" verdict just confirmed that players were improperly registered for years.

4. Their new owner has the begging bowl out after less than five months.

5. They're still not rangers.

Oh, as you say, Happy Day.

laugh.gif

(Pity none of the usual suspects so much as glanced at the document before spunking all over the thread, but hey, what ye gaunnae do?laugh.gif)

Mind your £20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, as you say, Happy Day.

Neil Patey, Ernst & Young, said: "By a majority of two to one, the tribunal has decided that the EBTs were loans and not taxable as remuneration so there is no additional tax to pay. Rangers have won the case."

Not since a P&B member revealed they operated undercover with other secret agents to bring Rangers to their knees have I laughed so hard.

At you.

laugh.gif

PS: you got that £20 handy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong....from FF

The ''side letters'' only stated the conditions under which finances would be put into a sub-trust. The player would have to apply to the trust to get a loan and the payment of the loan was discretionary, as Murray said.

Here:

Quote:Originally Posted by The Rangers Hub viewpost.gif This wee section of the reprt here kills their case stone dead:

"Whether the arrangement is viewed commercially or legalistically, the inexorable conclusion, in our view, is that the payments into trust became a loan and no more. They were not paid over absolutely and so do not become earnings or emoluments."

It does not mount to additional wages, but a loan. That's clearly established now by the FTTT findings.

There were no 'second contracts' relating to players pay, simple.

The SPL have no case simples

Lots f straws being clutched by the Rangers haters on this board.

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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...