Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[flyingrodent]

Or maybe Mizz Poon is a tax expert in the same way Lord Carloway is a legal expert

Maybe so! After all, if a tax-free, million-pound lump sum that never needs to be repaid can be a "loan", we're surely in a world of such uncertainty that nothing is what it seems.

Free your mind, Neo.

[dave.j]

I do like the quote from marvin:

‘You are at a big club like Rangers and you are told that everything will be all right.'

Now, it turns out that everything was alright... But why would you even need that reassurance... And why would rangers feel the need to offer that reassurance as it was a loan, on top of the players wages.

[lanky_ffc]

Car cash of an atricle from Mark Hately in the DR: Link

A LOT of bridges have to be built with Rangers following their tax victory and a good place to start would be for an immediate lifting of the transfer embargo.

I was under the impression that the transfer embargo related to the non-payment of tax and NI last season.

Once the club went into liquidation they had to be relegated so there's no problem there.

Wrong.

Edited November 23, 2012 by lanky_ffc

[flyingrodent]

I do like the quote from marvin:

'You are at a big club like Rangers and you are told that everything will be all right.'

Now, it turns out that everything was alright... But why would you even need that reassurance... And why would rangers feel the need to offer that reassurance as it was a loan, on top of the players wages.

Well, why would a player need to be reassured that the EBT scheme wasn't a criminal rip-off?

The answer to that question is probably the same as all the others about Rangers' conduct which are yet to be answered - a few examples of which...

- Why did David Murray offer to settle with HMRC for £10m, if he knew he was innocent of a majority of the charges?

- Why did Rangers refuse to cooperate with the HMRC investigation by withholding as much documentation as they possibly could, if they knew the club was innocent of a majority of the charges?

- Why wouldn't David Murray agree to accept liability for the tax case when selling the club, if he knew he was innocent of a majority of the charges?

- Why wouldn't investors buy Rangers with the tax case hanging over it, if they knew the club was innocent of a majority of the charges?

- Why did David Murray sell the club he purportedly loved to a conman for a pound, if he knew he was innocent of a majority of the charges?

- Why did Craig Whyte stampede the club into liquidation ASAP, if he knew the club was innocent of a majority of the charges?

- Why did Duff & Duffer act as if the club was liable for the tax case, if they knew the club was innocent of a majority of the charges?

- And why did everyone associated with Rangers over the last ten years deliberately stretch out this case as long as possible, even though doing so was massively harmful to the club's finances and survival prospects, if they knew the club was innocent of a majority of the charges?

Well, if you think the two judges are correct, Rangers did these things "Because they were innocent of a majority of the charges".

If you believe Ms Poon, they did them more or less "Because they were guilty as sin, fully expected to be found guilty and were deliberately attempting to frustrate justice".

I guess it's up to you, which story you believe. Like I say, the case delivers a verdict upon whether HMRC can prove the case they're making. The question What actually happened - well, that's an entirely separate issue.

[Bearwithme]

It's hardly unusual for the subjects of investigations to be reluctant to hand over information. That's very often the way it goes. Moreover, Rangers had sensitive commercial and personal information. They were entitled - indeed had obligations - to keep that confidential. The tax authorities have various powers that they can use to get info and it's up to them how they use them.

As for offering to settle the case, again that's not unusual especially if it's causing you major hassle, could cost you serious legal expenses in any event, and you can never be absolutely sure how it will go.

The squirming of the anti-Rangers mob over this verdict this is highly amusing.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Bearwithme

[WhiteRoseKillie]

When is winning a tribunal case not really winning a tribunal case?

When the organisation which "won" is still dead.

HTH

[Henrik's tongue]

It's hardly unusual for the subjects of investigations to be reluctant to hand over information. That's very often the way it goes. Moreover, Rangers had sensitive commercial and personal information. They were entitled - indeed had obligations - to keep that confidential. The tax authorities have various powers that they can use to get info and it's up to them how they use them.

As for offering to settle the case, again that's not unusual especially if it's causing you major hassle, could cost you serious legal expenses in any event, and you can never be absolutely sure how it will go.

The squirming of the anti-Rangers mob over this verdict this is highly amusing.

Do Rangers ever do anything wrong in your eyes? :lol:

[Captain_Sensible]

The squirming of the anti-Rangers mob over this verdict this is highly amusing.

The celebrations of the pro The Rangers mob over this verdict, considering Rangers are in liquidation and the new club is in the 3rd Division is even more amusing!

[Captain_Sensible]

When is winning a tribunal case not really winning a tribunal case?

Indeed.

However, in the case of Rangers, its a bit like getting a pardon after you've already been hung.

[flyingrodent]

It's hardly unusual for the subjects of investigations to be reluctant to hand over information. That's very often the way it goes. Moreover, Rangers had sensitive commercial and personal information. They were entitled - indeed had obligations - to keep that confidential. The tax authorities have various powers that they can use to get info and it's up to them how they use them.

From Tom English's report on Rangers' tax case conduct...

"The story of Mr Red is told in the FTT report. There’s not a lot I can tell you about Mr Red, apart from the fact that that is the codename ascribed to him in the tribunal report published on Tuesday. He is a chartered tax advisor, a qualified tax inspector and is, or was, a senior member of the Murray Group’s tax function. His name features throughout the 145 pages. When critics slam HMRC for pursuing this case so vehemently and slam the FTT for taking an age to rule on it, they reckon without the presence of Mr Red, one of Murray’s own people.

Mr Red caused HMRC and the tribunal some problems. Of the three person panel, Kenneth Mure and Scott Rae were the two members who went with Rangers, but even Mure and Rae had issues with Mr Red, the key man in the tax affairs of the Murray Group and the person who operated the EBT scheme within the group. They called his evidence “somewhat defensive” and referred to a “culture of defensiveness” from the Murray Group both in their testimony and in their dealings with HMRC. Mure and Rae admitted to be being “disturbed” by part of Mr Red’s evidence.

Later in the report, the dissenting voice, Dr Heidi Poon, goes after Mr Red in a coruscating way and perhaps illustrates part of the reasons why this affair took so long. “The protracted and chequered course of the enquiry was largely due to a lack of candour and co-operation from Mr Red, who was the chief operating officer dealing with the enquiry,” writes Poon. She talks about documents not being disclosed despite repeated requests and statutory demands for information. She talks about Mr Red’s “hostility” and the fact that he “refused any meetings with HMRC in the course of the enquiry”.

The impasse was broken only when the City of London Police consulted with HMRC’s Criminal Investigation Section and seized documents from Ibrox. It was, according to Poon, only in May 2009 that the Murray Group finally provided the documents that were requested. That was, says Poon, fully five and a half years after the HMRC enquiry had begun.

She adds: “The conduct of the Murray Group in general, and Mr Red in particular, in the course of HMRC’s enquiry went beyond the [Mure and Rae] description of ‘a lack of candour’... There is evidence of active concealment of documents. Equally, to describe Mr Red as ‘somewhat defensive’ [Mure and Rae’s description] in giving his sworn testimony would be an understatement. On more than one occasion, Mr Red had attempted to mislead the Tribunal.”

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/tom-english-if-only-murray-and-his-men-had-been-co-operative-from-day-one-1-2650192

For clarity, on how Rangers FC interpreted the meaning of the concept of "confidentiality".

But this is all perfectly normal business practice, of course. "Loans" that never have to be repaid; "innocent" men who always attempt to deceive those investigating their conduct and businessmen who would rather destroy their own companies than see them subjected to external scrutiny by the authorities.

All perfectly normal and above-board; nothing suspicious at all about it.

[Bearwithme]

Yeah, the truth is a lot of it is run-of-the-mill: companies (or individuals) wanting to hang onto their information, companies (or individuals) trying to cut their tax bills within the law. Folk who can't take it when something doesn't go the way the they want.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Bearwithme

[No8.]

The impasse was broken only when the City of London Police consulted with HMRC’s Criminal Investigation Section and seized documents from Ibrox. It was, according to Poon, only in May 2009 that the Murray Group finally provided the documents that were requested. That was, says Poon, fully five and a half years after the HMRC enquiry had begun.

So they were given the documents in May 2009 and it took more than 3 years to reach a decision

[Henrik's tongue]

So they were given the documents in May 2009 and it took more than 3 years to reach a decision

Yeah. And Rangers were asked for the documents in 2003

[flyingrodent]

Yeah, the truth is a lot of it is run-of-the-mill: companies (or individuals) wanting to hang onto their information, companies (or individuals) trying to cut their tax bills within the law. Folk who can't take it when something doesn't go the way the they want.

The types of activity we're discussing are not similar, from a legal and/or moral standpoint -

"Wanting to hang onto their information", which is the phrase you use, is a very different thing from

"Active concealment of documents" and "attempting to mislead the tribunal", which is what M' Lord is publicly accusing the man who administered your tax fraud avoidance scheme of.

Which of these two classes of activity could credibly be seen as the actions of honest, innocent men, and which would suggest a willingness to pervert the course of justice, if necessary?

Further, what kind of person would risk perverting the course of justice for personal/organisational gain?

If you said "an honest, innocent" one would pervert the course of justice, congratulations! I've just met a Motherwell boy with wealth off the radar who would like to invest in your local football team.

[Bearwithme]

Did the tax people properly use their powers to obtain information? Why did it take a police investigation into someone other than Rangers six years later for them to get the information they wanted?

How long did it take the tax folk to issue the tax bill (determinations) that was appealed against? If they issued the bill a long time ago why did it take the appeal a long time to come before the tribunal? (I suspect they didn't issue the bill such a long time ago, though I don't actually know.)

Edited November 23, 2012 by Bearwithme

[Bearwithme]

The types of activity we're discussing are not similar, from a legal and/or moral standpoint -

"Wanting to hang onto their information", which is the phrase you use, is a very different thing from

"Active concealment of documents" and "attempting to mislead the tribunal", which is what M' Lord is publicly accusing the man who administered your tax fraud avoidance scheme of.

Which of these two classes of activity could credibly be seen as the actions of honest, innocent men, and which would suggest a willingness to pervert the course of justice, if necessary?

Further, what kind of person would risk perverting the course of justice for personal/organisational gain?

If you said "an honest, innocent" one would pervert the course of justice, congratulations! I've just met a Motherwell boy with wealth off the radar who would like to invest in your local football team.

Is "M'Lud" Ms Poon? She's entitled to her view but it lost out.

"Perverting the course of justice"? You can call the police but I don't think they like hysterical accusations.

[Bairnforever1992]

Rangers tax case: Your questions answered on the SPL investigation

Rangers face a crucial few months as an independent commission waits to continue its investigation into whether the club broke Scottish Premier League rules.

The club is accused for failing to declare payments and contractual details to players over a period of 11 years. If found guilty, the club could have its titles from those years stripped.

Evidence given to the tax tribunal has for the first time given us a clear idea about the likely cases both for and against the club.

The tax tribunal heard evidence from key figures involved in EBT payments at the club between 2001 and 2010.

Here, based in the evidence given at the tribunal, STV examines the key questions. Two companion articles then set out the case for and against Rangers, again based on the tribunal documents.

The first looks at the possible case for Rangers, based on what was said at the tribunal.

The second then outlines the possible case for the SPL, based on evidence and conclusions also made at the tribunal.

What are Rangers accused of?

It has been admitted by the Murray Group, which operated Rangers Football Club during the period in question, that certain players were given payments through trusts, known as Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs).

Giving evidence at the tribunal, those responsible for administering EBTs at Rangers stated clearly that they did not declare the payments to the Scottish Premier League, nor to the Scottish Football Association, because they did not believe it necessary to do so under the rules at the time.

The allegation being investigated by the commission is that the players in question were being given the payments as compensation for playing football for Rangers. If that was so, and given they were not declared to the SPL, they would be in breach of the rules.

The SPL commission has broken down the time periods for these allegations into three. They go from November 23, 2000 to May 21, 2002, May 22, 2002 to May, 22 2005 and May 23, 2005 to May 3, 2011.

The allegation made in the first two periods is that the rules of both the SPL and SFA were breached “by failing to record EBT payments and arrangements in the contracts of service of the Specified Players and/or other Players and by failing to notify them to the SPL and the SFA.”

The same allegation is made for the third period. A secondary issue is raised in the third period which directly alleges the club breached league rules by fielding ineligible players.

What are EBTs?

In a document setting out the framework of the case between the SPL and Rangers, the commission offers this wording of what it perceives EBTs to be.

"Payments made… into an employee benefit trust or trusts for the benefit of Players, including the Specified Players, employed… as Professional Players, Registered and/or to be Registered as Professional Players with the Scottish Premier League and Playing and/or to Play for Rangers FC in the Scottish Premier League and payments made… into a sub-trust or sub-trusts of such trust or trusts of which such Players were beneficiaries, payments by such trust or trusts and/or sub-trust or sub-trusts to such Players and/or for the benefit of such Players and any and all arrangements, agreements and/or undertakings and the like or similar relating to or concerning any of such Players and payments."

What are "side-letters"?

The “side-letters” were commonly used, according to tribunal evidence, to detail payments which would be made to Rangers players through the trust. These were secondary and were not detailed in the contract of service which was sent to football’s governing bodies.

It is stated in the tribunal’s “findings of fact” that: “Rangers did not consider it appropriate to have side-letters registered.”

What are the specific rules?

Rangers are under investigation over two specific rules. First, SPL rule D9.3 states all payments made to players for playing football must be registered.

It says: "No player may receive any payment of any description from or on behalf of a club in respect of that player’s participation in Association Football or in an activity connected with Association Football, other than in reimbursement of expenses actually incurred or to be actually incurred in playing or training for that Club, unless such payment is made in accordance with a Contract of Service between that Club and the Player concerned."

The second rule under scrutiny is D1.13 which states that all contracts must be lodged with the governing body.

It says: "A club must, as a condition of registration and for a Player to be eligible to play in official matches, deliver the executed originals of all contracts of service and amendments and/or extensions to contracts of service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that club and player, to the secretary, within fourteen days of such contract of service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended."

What has to be proved?

Based on the allegations made, two facts have to be established.

Firstly to find Rangers breached rules throughout the three time periods given, it must be proven that the club had a duty to record EBT payments to the SPL as part of documentation on payments made for playing activities.

It must also be proven these were not submitted to the SPL, although this has been broadly conceded already in the evidence given at tribunal.

Secondly, the commission will have to prove ineligible players were fielded by Rangers between May 2005 and May 2011.

The same facts must be proven as in the first allegation, but SPL rules prior to May 2005 did not state players were not correctly registered if said documentation was not provided.

In either case, titles could still be withdrawn from the club, as this is an accepted sanction for any breach of league rules.

What are the possible sanctions?

The SPL has a menu of 18 punishments, which are available to the commission to impose, if the club are proven guilty.

They range from a warning or censure to a fine, or to the withdrawal of a title or award.

Who is on the commission?

Lord Nimmo Smith will be assisted by Nicholas Stewart QC and Charles Flint QC.

What are the timescales?

The commission was due to hear further evidence between November 13 and 16, with provision for additional hearings on November 20 and 21.

This has now been postponed until late January/early February due to an illness.

Now read our look at the possible case for Rangers, based on what was said at the tribunal, and the possible case for the SPL, based on evidence and conclusions also made at the tribunal.

[flyingrodent]

Is "M'Lud" Ms Poon? She's entitled to her view but it lost out.

"Perverting the course of justice"? You can call the police but I don't think they like hysterical accusations.

"Hysterical accusations", indeed!

I love this stuff. Celtic fans have the wrong idea when they refer to New Rangers fans as "The Zombies", though.

Surely, based on all the evidence we've seen in these very threads, "The Ostriches" would be a more apt title.

[Cliche Guevara]

So they were given the documents in May 2009 and it took more than 3 years to reach a decision

Bear in mind this is actually a tribunal verdict. The investigation could only really begin once the documents were obtained, and the HMRC reached its decision some time ago. This is a verdict on an appeal subsequently lodged by Rangers.

Did the tax people properly use their powers to obtain information? Why did it take a police investigation into someone other than Rangers six years later for them to get the information they wanted?

How long did it take the tax folk to issue the tax bill (determinations) that was appealed against? If they issued the bill a long time ago why did it take the appeal a long time to come before the tribunal? (I suspect they didn't issue the bill such a long time ago, though I don't actually know.)

You're really not following this at all are you?

[Bearwithme]

Bear in mind this is actually a tribunal verdict. The investigation could only really begin once the documents were obtained, and the HMRC reached its decision some time ago. This is a verdict on an appeal subsequently lodged by Rangers.

You're really not following this at all are you?

Actually I am following it pretty closely. I invite you to answer my questions....