Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Monkey Tennis]

Maybe you could reduce the amount of tax you pay e.g. by the use of an ISA. Or are folk who uses ISAs evil?

Are you really, seriously suggesting that that's in any meaningful way comparable to what's being discussed here?

[Guest Kincardine]

The fact that he offered as substantial a sum as he did, indicates strongly that he felt he was in desperate trouble and completely gives the lie to his claims that this week's verdict was to be anticipated.

Interesting that you castigate Murray for offering this but say nothing about HMRC refusing it. Obviously hindsight is perfect, but HMRC would have been much better served by accepting that offer.

With hindsight that would have been win-win but what we've ended up with is lose-lose - and HMRC has to shoulder some of the blame for that.

[Bearwithme]

Are you really, seriously suggesting that that's in any meaningful way comparable to what's being discussed here?

Same drink, smaller bottle.

[Farrah Swango]

Same drink, smaller bottle.

Lol wut?

[bennett]

That's laughable logic mate. Had he identifed a risk of 80%, would he have offered £40m?

The fact that he offered as substantial a sum as he did, indicates strongly that he felt he was in desperate trouble and completely gives the lie to his claims that this week's verdict was to be anticipated.

Hmmmm the general opinion on P&B (non Rangers fans) is that Rangers deliberately tried to lengthen the investigation into EBT's, yet as you say Murray offered a sum to settle the case quickly and without any fuss.

I think this proves that a lot of people on here are full of hot air.

[Guest Kincardine]

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.

That's an excellent summary and, to my mind, illustrates perfectly why The SPL should find a quiet way to drop their investigation.

If The SPL tries to make a case then it has to be along the lines of, "You didn't register a contract for non-contractual payments" - and that's patently absurd.

[SS-18 ICBM]

Does anyone think that Murray being a Knight of the British Empire played any part in the 2-1 decision?

Edited November 23, 2012 by SS-18 ICBM

[Guest Kincardine]

Does anyone think that Murray being a Knight of the British Empire played any part in the 2-1 decision?

Aye. You and a barrowload of Celtic fans.

[SS-18 ICBM]

Aye. You and a barrowload of Celtic fans.

I doubt that only Celtic fans will be bewildered by the decisions of 2 of the Judges.

[beermonkey]

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

Hmm...very interesting read that.

To sum up - rangers won that one but everyone knows it was one big humungus scam.

And it's not over yet.

[ray_of_licht]

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.

I agree that HMRC shouldn't have been the largest creditor and am surprised the D&P adjudicated that they were. But even without the possible extra debt from the BTC it looks like they had enough to block the CVA. From the Final Progress Report to Creditors we get this:

Add up the debt and we get £54,696,214.

Ticketus were "owed" £26,711,857.

HMRC were owed £21,376,767.

So Ticketus had 48% of the debt and HMRC had 39%

Even if the percentage of the debt is diluted by adding the debenture holders (£7,736,000) the numbers only change to 42% for Ticketus and 34% for HMRC still giving either of them an effective veto.

I also agree that there are certain aspects of this that need investigating.

Disclaimer: I'm not an accountant. Figures came from D&P's statements so if I made a mistake somewhere in the figuring I'd be happy to hear about it.

Edited November 23, 2012 by ray_of_licht

[SS-18 ICBM]

The decision of the judges is of course up for debate but it's got feck all to do with the odious Murray being a knight of the realm.

You appear very defensive on this, why is that?

[Monkey Tennis]

Same drink, smaller bottle.

Yes, I remember pushing someone when I was kid. Charles Manson had a larger bottle of the same drink I believe.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

And one person defended his holocaust denial at the time, the one and only Norman.

The pair of them are well suited.

If you remember Bennett, we went over this at the time. He didn't come out and deny the holocaust, and you know it. Much like yourself, he alluded to his true meaning without typing the actual words - any wrongheadedness was well couched in deniability and mealy-mouthed circumlocution. I'm sure you recognise the method. As I said at the time, I believed he was being hounded for peoples' perception of what he said rather then his actual words. Go back and check if you want to call me a liar.

As with so many accusations of yours and your brain-dead acolytes, this one missed the point entirely. What I posted was not a defence of that poster, but an attack on those accusing him (as I saw it) unjustly. I stand by that.

Further knowledge of that posters' history, and his subsequent behaviour on here, have vindicated the statements made about him at that time. I had no knowledge of him up to to that point, and I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't see you as the most reliable witness.

To sum up - I believe I was justified in attacking what I saw as yet another attack by those on here who delight in such things. Having gained further knowledge of the poster concerned, I feel a tad duped by his behaviour, and feel that P&B (at least) would be a better place without this kind of mindset. Saying that, if we all agreed all the time, it'd be a bloody dull forum.

So, stop the lying and insulting, and maybe we can move on.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

They also turned down a £10m offer from Rangers, so HMRC have cost the UK taxpayer a whopping £15 million.

Will nobody think of the poor hospitals and schools.

So who's cost us more then - rangers or HMRC? Don't forget they cheated for the whole of Whyte's tenure.

[Monkey Tennis]

Hmmmm the general opinion on P&B (non Rangers fans) is that Rangers deliberately tried to lengthen the investigation into EBT's,

An opinion shared by all three members of the tribunal.

[SS-18 ICBM]

I agree that HMRC shouldn't have been the largest creditor and am surprised the D&P adjudicated that they were. But even without the possible extra debt from the BTC it looks like they had enough to block the CVA. From the Final Progress Report to Creditors we get this:

Add up the debt and we get £54,696,214.

Ticketus were "owed" £26,711,857.

HMRC were owed £21,376,767.

So Ticketus had 48% of the debt and HMRC had 39%

Even if the percentage of the debt is diluted by adding the debenture holders (£7,736,000) the numbers only change to 42% for Ticketus and 36% for HMRC still giving either of them an effective veto.

I also agree that there are certain aspects of this that need investigating.

Disclaimer: I'm not an accountant. Figures came from D&P's statements so if I made a mistake somewhere in the figuring I'd be happy to hear about it.

THE INSOLVENCY SERVICE, Click here.

Chapter 22

5. Objections to Release

"Where the creditor wishes to object on the grounds of remuneration of the Office Holder this is not a valid reason for IPU to withhold release. The creditor should be guided to Rules 4.131 (liquidator) and 6.142 (trustee) of The Insolvency Rules 1986 which entitle him, with the concurrence of at least 25% in value of the creditors (including himself) to apply to the court for an order that the remuneration be reduced, on the ground that it is, in all the circumstances, excessive."

[WhiteRoseKillie]

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.

How much tax did rangers pay when whyte was driving the train?

And, to repeat Mikey's question, slightly expanded - When football clubs the length and breadth of Britain, large and small, pay their way and survive quite happily - how did rangers get into so much debt even when they were "at it"?

[SS-18 ICBM]

Hmm...very interesting read that.

To sum up - rangers won that one but everyone knows it was one big humungus scam.

And it's not over yet.

All set-up to play out precisely in the manner that it did.

Jaques:

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances,

And one man in his time plays many parts,

His acts being seven ages.

As You Like It Act 2, scene 7, 139–143

The idea that "all the world's a stage" was already clichéd when Shakespeare wrote As You Like It. So Jaques is intended to sound at least a little pretentious here. Jaques (pronounced "jay-keys" or "jay-kweez") is the resident sourpuss in the Forest of Arden, home to political exiles, banished lovers, and simple shepherds. Picking up on another character's stray suggestion that the world is a "wide and universal theater," Jaques deploys the theatrical metaphor for his famous speech on the Seven Ages of Man. The first of these ages, according to Jaques, is infancy (when the babe is found "Mewling [sobbing] and puking in his nurse's arms"), and the last is "second childishness and mere oblivion" (complete senility). His glum epigrams make up a "set speech"; Shakespeare meant them to sound practiced, like a bit of oratory polished off and hauled out on the appropriate (or inappropriate) occasion.

[THE KING]

So how many of these not payment loans have been paid back?