Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[SS-18 ICBM]

Also reading that HMRC should not have been the largest creditor and allowed to vote against the CVA. There needs to be a full investigation into HMRC and some others over this.

You obey the law of the land and this is how you get treated, heads should roll.

Why are former fans of Rangers FC (R.I.P.) so upset about the starring role that Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs played in the demise and ultimate death of their club? Rangers fans now have a brand new club with no debt and a great opportunity to change and dispose of much of the negative baggage (sectarianism, riots, etc, etc) of the past that resulted in the club being known as one of the most infamous football clubs on earth.

[killingfloorman]

Did rapeepul miss the asterisk on page 1872 of the judgement?

I'll reprint it here to help:

it is confirmed by 2 of the 3 of us that ebts were kind of maybe a 'loan'.*

*All 3 of us are in agreement that the trophies 'won' during this period were also only on loan and give full encouragement to the SFA and The SPL to 'ask' for them back

[flyingrodent]

Also reading that HMRC should not have been the largest creditor and allowed to vote against the CVA. There needs to be a full investigation into HMRC and some others over this.

You obey the law of the land and this is how you get treated, heads should roll.

Whatever we may disagree on, I'm in full agreement here. Open the can of worms and let's see what horrors spill out.

[bennett]

Why are former fans of Rangers FC (R.I.P.) so upset about the starring role that Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs played in the demise and ultimate death of their club? Rangers fans now have a brand new club with no debt and a great opportunity to change and dispose of much of the negative baggage (sectarianism, riots, etc, etc) of the past that resulted in the club being known as one of the most infamous football clubs on earth.

Hi Adolf

Bye Adolf.

[Paquis]

Whatever we may disagree on, I'm in full agreement here. Open the can of worms and let's see what horrors spill out.

Then you may wish to sign the e-petition

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42143

[Bairnforever1992]

Should Rangers be expelled from the SFL of using EBT side letter contracts by improperly registering players payments.

[Paquis]

Should Rangers be expelled from the SFL of using EBT side letter contracts by improperly registering players payments.

Don't talk nonsense. At least try to educate yourself before spouting this crap.

[beermonkey]

Sevco fans still celebrating their meaningless moral victory then ? :lol:

Rangers still dead ?

Chuckie still spouting shite ?

Anything interesting happened today ?.....

[Bairnforever1992]

Don't talk nonsense. At least try to educate yourself before spouting this crap.

East Stirlingshire got expelled for improperly reregistering Michael Andrews cause he was on loan.

East Stirlingshire have been expelled from the Scottish Cup after fielding an ineligible player in their fourth-round win over Buckie Thistle, the Scottish Football Association have confirmed.

Falkirk goalkeeper Michael Andrews played in last week's 1-0 victory for Shire despite the registration documents for his loan extension failing to appear at Hampden.

The Irn-Bru Third Division club insisted they sent the papers to the SFA and Scottish Football League before Christmas.

However, at an emergency meeting this afternoon the SFA board members determined the club should be expelled from the competition.

Highland League side Buckie Thistle now face a fifth-round tie against Brechin.

An SFA statement read: "Following a breach of Cup Competition rule 39.1b, East Stirlingshire have been expelled from the Scottish Cup competition.

"The club were found to have fielded an ineligible player, Michael Andrews, in the above match.

"The club will also lose any fourth round sponsorship monies owed.

"All misconduct decisions from the original match stand.

"Buckie Thistle now advance to round five."

So Rangers used EBT's they can be expelled from the league for improperly disclosed payments.

[Paquis]

East Stirlingshire got expelled for improperly reregistering Michael Andrews cause he was on loan.

East Stirlingshire have been expelled from the Scottish Cup after fielding an ineligible player in their fourth-round win over Buckie Thistle, the Scottish Football Association have confirmed.

Falkirk goalkeeper Michael Andrews played in last week's 1-0 victory for Shire despite the registration documents for his loan extension failing to appear at Hampden.

The Irn-Bru Third Division club insisted they sent the papers to the SFA and Scottish Football League before Christmas.

However, at an emergency meeting this afternoon the SFA board members determined the club should be expelled from the competition.

Highland League side Buckie Thistle now face a fifth-round tie against Brechin.

An SFA statement read: "Following a breach of Cup Competition rule 39.1b, East Stirlingshire have been expelled from the Scottish Cup competition.

"The club were found to have fielded an ineligible player, Michael Andrews, in the above match.

"The club will also lose any fourth round sponsorship monies owed.

"All misconduct decisions from the original match stand.

"Buckie Thistle now advance to round five."

So Rangers used EBT's they can be expelled from the league for improperly disclosed payments.

Like I said, you need to educate yourself. You have clearly been asleep these last few days and missed all the fun.

The Tribunal found that players received recoverable loans. I am unaware of any SFA rule which requires loans to be disclosed.

[Doink]

Don't talk nonsense. At least try to educate yourself before spouting this crap.

Agree,that is stupid talk

[H Wragg]

The Tribunal found that players received recoverable loans. I am unaware of any SFA rule which requires loans to be disclosed.

I am genuinely confused as to whether or not Rangers are correct in their calls for the SPL investigation to be scrapped as they now have 'no case to answer' following the big tax case verdict.

My reading of the situation is that although they have been found not liable for tax they could still be deemed to be in breach of football rules for not declaring all payments made to players for footballing activities, be it in the form of salaries or these loans. The waters are further muddied for me by a bloke in my work's insistance that ALL payments to players were declared in Rangers' accounts.

Could someone clear up this specific point for me, preferably without wearing blue or green tinted specs whilst doing so?

[Umbungo1874]

But the PLC were not proven tax dodgers at anytime,HMRC gave an assessment of tax owed,the PLC appealed that assessment and subsequently that appeal was upheld. Verdict in favour of The Rangers Football Club Plc. So in that respect the PLC were not proven tax dodgers,if you are alluding to Whyte withholding PAYE then you are changing track somewhat.

What about the DOS case they were liquidated owing tax for Tore Andre Flo?

Edited November 23, 2012 by Umbungo1874

[Umbungo1874]

Also reading that HMRC should not have been the largest creditor and allowed to vote against the CVA. There needs to be a full investigation into HMRC and some others over this.

You obey the law of the land and this is how you get treated, heads should roll.

They only had to be owed 26% of the debt to be able to vote down the CVA you don't need to be the largest creditor.

[Bendarroch]

Lucky b*****d, it has been a long time since I had enough hair left on my heid for any of this windswept shite

What music did you have playing in the background? Berlin?

Nah, mate, didn't think of Lou Reed at the time.

God Save the Queen sprang to mind, then Land of Hope and Glory, but I eventually settled on Orange Juice Blues (by The Band).

It is old, but it is beautiful and its colours they are fine. Seemed about right...

[Bendarroch]

I am genuinely confused as to whether or not Rangers are correct in their calls for the SPL investigation to be scrapped as they now have 'no case to answer' following the big tax case verdict.

My reading of the situation is that although they have been found not liable for tax they could still be deemed to be in breach of football rules for not declaring all payments made to players for footballing activities, be it in the form of salaries or these loans. The waters are further muddied for me by a bloke in my work's insistance that ALL payments to players were declared in Rangers' accounts.

Could someone clear up this specific point for me, preferably without wearing blue or green tinted specs whilst doing so?

Your work colleague is correct - Rangers have repeatedly made clear that the EBTs were included in accounts submitted.

The judges have ruled that these were loans and not payments.

[hellbhoy]

Also reading that HMRC should not have been the largest creditor and allowed to vote against the CVA. There needs to be a full investigation into HMRC and some others over this.

You obey the law of the land and this is how you get treated, heads should roll.

is it the Rangers way to say something then only to retract it at a later date ? Do you remember your 2nd post on this thread ?

We live in hope but i reckon that we've used the EBT's wrongly so we'll get f**ked.

How you have changed your tune since your former dead club has won it's appeal EH !

So Benny do you still believe that your former club used EBT's illegally effectively cheating ?

[flyingrodent]

Very long but worth a read if you have the time.

The hoover, the runaways and a judicial nod is as good as a wink on the Rangers Tax Case

If even ten percent of what that guy is saying is correct in law, old Rangers are f*cked out of the park, half the league championships of the last decade will have to be marked "no award" and Sir Dave is going to spend the next few years dodging HMP Barlinnie rather than HMRC.

We've been here before with anonymous lawyers, of course... But that looks, on the face of it, absolutely damning. If there's any substance to it, the SPL and BDO are going to eat old Rangers and their employees alive.

[hellbhoy]

So no matter what a legal verdict is you will ignore that simply because it doesn't meet with your opinion. Having that outlook destroys any credibility you have and highlights your bigoted attitude towards the club. So in that respect your opinion is worthless.

Credibility ?

I think after listening to the administrators that the threat of liquidation is unlikely to happen. Also there is a lot of interest from outside the club for investment. So having the choice of your unqualified opinion or the qualified opinion of the administrator to take into account i think i'll go with the latter.

Indeed !

[Paquis]

I am genuinely confused as to whether or not Rangers are correct in their calls for the SPL investigation to be scrapped as they now have 'no case to answer' following the big tax case verdict.

My reading of the situation is that although they have been found not liable for tax they could still be deemed to be in breach of football rules for not declaring all payments made to players for footballing activities, be it in the form of salaries or these loans. The waters are further muddied for me by a bloke in my work's insistance that ALL payments to players were declared in Rangers' accounts.

Could someone clear up this specific point for me, preferably without wearing blue or green tinted specs whilst doing so?

There are a couple of points here.

Counsel for HMRC tried to argue that these side-letters formed part of the contract and were used for payment of a 'wage' (FTT decision page 38).

However, in its decision, the Tribunal found that the payments were not 'earnings or emoluments' but were recoverable loans (page 58).

So the question then becomes whether it is an SFA requirement to disclose loans made to players.

In terms of disclosure there is also some confusion. In the dissenting decision, Dr. Poon states on page 84:

"As the use of the remunerationtrust became more wide spread, in the contracts for players with a sub-trust in place,the clause for the terms of bonus payments was reduced to stating that the club wouldpay the player ‘a bonus in accordance with the schedule agreed from time to time’."

So, while the schedule was vague, it was actually lodged with the SFA. This is supported on page 120 ....

For bonus payments to the footballing employees, there appeared to be aschedule agreed for the start of each season and lodged with SFA as a matterof normal practice. The bonus entitlement should be the same for eachplayer in the team squad in accordance with the schedule agreed. It wouldappear that the bonus and appearance money for players with a sub-trust hadbeen paid via the trust mechanism while other players without a sub-trustreceived their entitlement through payroll.

The SFA/SPL argument is that the side-letters and the EBT represent contracts for payments for footballing activities. The finding of the Tribunal is that they were loans and not payments and there is also evidence that they were disclosed to the SFA even though they may have been vague. If that disclosure has been made then how the payment is made is no business of the SFA/SPL.