54_and_counting Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Thinking slightly differently here, Rangers wwere liquidated HMRC got their punishment but not the cash, with this ruling that it was loans can the liquidators now not chase the £55 million in un paid "loans" and still get the revenue its money from the small tax case, in which case they have everything they wanted more to the point, the old company shareholders, or previous shareholders should now be hounding HMRC considering it was their inclusion of the BTC in the CVA figures that got it rejected in the first place 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Not entirely sure. Club dead, evidence now for the title stripping to commence, an impending mudslinging war/potential legal action from former players now being left to foot the bill. Cant wait But is there evidence for title stripping? The Tribunal found that the players received loans that were recoverable and, therefore, not subject to tax. Any side letters must, therefore, be connected to the receipt of those loans. As the loans are recoverable they cannot be a payment. So, is the fact that the club agreed to make recoverable loans to players sufficient grounds for title stripping? Furthermore, the fact that the EBTs were legal means that no advantage was gained by Rangers in that any other club could also have used the scheme. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Hooray. di Stefano is back. He also wants to "merge RFC PLC with Sevco and a much stronger company" I assume he means become a much stronger company. Waaheeeey! Gio's back! More mentalist nonsense for our delectation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 more to the point, the old company shareholders, or previous shareholders should now be hounding HMRC considering it was their inclusion of the BTC in the CVA figures that got it rejected in the first place :lol: :lol: SWEET!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Why are rangers/sevco fans so happy about this ? For this reason. In the first page of the thread: http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/167655-big-rangers-administrationliquidation-thread-all-chat-here/page__view__findpost__p__5966203 For those who don't want to click let me quote: If Rangers FC are liable for a tax bill in excess of £50M with penalties that could add a further £20M+, shouldn’t they be liable to pay the full amount or suffer the consequences that any other business in similar circumstances would? This is public money after all. I sincerely hope you are not advocating or supporting any arrangement whereby the tax payers of this country are likely to be short-changed due to the financial impropriety of a football club. If you consider Rangers to be a special or exceptional case, I would appreciate an explanation as to why this might be a reasonable position. He is only one of very many people who e-mailed or wrote to or contacted anyone who wanted to hear regarding The Big Tax case. The truth as emerged today is that we didn't have a case to answer. THIS is why Yes yes, we've done plenty wrong - but we're not the Harold Shipman of Scottish football. Maybe the Johnny Rotten? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 No - no, it doesn't. And they're still in SFL3. Sorry, I just got confused, what with all the gloating and GIRUY's from their former fans. Thanks for clearing that up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) more to the point, the old company shareholders, or previous shareholders should now be hounding HMRC considering it was their inclusion of the BTC in the CVA figures that got it rejected in the first place I would suggest that the creditors should also be hounding HMRC. The refusal of HMRC to accept a CVA will have substantially reduced the amount of money they would get. Edited November 20, 2012 by Paquis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Sorry, I just got confused, what with all the gloating and GIRUY's from their former fans. Thanks for clearing that up. Your are welcome! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 "Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 For this reason. In the first page of the thread: http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/167655-big-rangers-administrationliquidation-thread-all-chat-here/page__view__findpost__p__5966203 For those who don't want to click let me quote: If Rangers FC are liable for a tax bill in excess of £50M with penalties that could add a further £20M+, shouldn’t they be liable to pay the full amount or suffer the consequences that any other business in similar circumstances would? This is public money after all. I sincerely hope you are not advocating or supporting any arrangement whereby the tax payers of this country are likely to be short-changed due to the financial impropriety of a football club. If you consider Rangers to be a special or exceptional case, I would appreciate an explanation as to why this might be a reasonable position. He is only one of very many people who e-mailed or wrote to or contacted anyone who wanted to hear regarding The Big Tax case. The truth as emerged today is that we didn't have a case to answer. THIS is why Yes yes, we've done plenty wrong - but we're not the Harold Shipman of Scottish football. Maybe the Johnny Rotten? But your club is dead, so i'll ask again, Why are sevco fans so happy about this?. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris-54Titles- Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Up ye all, try taking our titles now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 But is there evidence for title stripping? The Tribunal found that the players received loans that were recoverable and, therefore, not subject to tax. Any side letters must, therefore, be connected to the receipt of those loans. As the loans are recoverable they cannot be a payment. So, is the fact that the club agreed to make recoverable loans to players sufficient grounds for title stripping? Furthermore, the fact that the EBTs were legal means that no advantage was gained by Rangers in that any other club could also have used the scheme. Mibbes ayes (for everyone else) mibbes naw (fur ra peepol). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 The loans came from trusts set up off-shore. They are practically untouchable. 3 things to learn from this 1. A side-letter is not a contract 2. Loans do not need to detail how or when they should be repaid 3. The whole of HMRC is incompetent Im not sure if you've done it but I had a look at the first few pages of the thread. You made the 15th post: http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/167655-big-rangers-administrationliquidation-thread-all-chat-here/page__view__findpost__p__5965945 "HMRC will NOT cut a deal with Rangers.. Rangers will pay the full amount or they will be liquidated... " So you got both right: 1. We were liquidated. 2. HMRC did NOT cut a deal with us. However, the reason they didn't was simple: We executed a legal scheme. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenolly Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Up ye all, try taking our titles now. Page 58 off the finding states that players were paid in breach of SPL rules, anyway SEVCO have no titles their only a few months old 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris-54Titles- Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 The football phone ins tonight is going to be mental lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 But your club is dead, so i'll ask again, Why are sevco fans so happy about this?. Oh I do apologise. I thought I was exchanging views with a sensible person. I won't make that mistake again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) But your club is dead, so i'll ask again, Why are sevco fans so happy about this?. Let me explain it this way;we are all Rangers fans,the club that was founded in 1872 and is still ongoing as the one club and as such we have just seen our football club vindicated over a very important issue. Whether you or anybody disagrees about that is neither here nor there. Edit too add,your opinion does not matter. Edited November 20, 2012 by youngsy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris-54Titles- Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Page 58 off the finding states that players were paid in breach of SPL rules, anyway SEVCO have no titles their only a few months old Up ye ya c**t 54 titles we're still going strong! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Great fun :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Page 58 off the finding states that players were paid in breach of SPL rules, anyway SEVCO have no titles their only a few months old Where on Page 58 does it say that? I see no reference to SPL rules on page 58. 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.