Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Henrik's tongue]

Yellateef

What's he done now ffs?

[H Wragg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20466304

[Paquis]

I wonder if what has been established here is the EBTs are loans and are, therefore, recoverable which was the HMRC's initial intention. This seems to be the decision that two of the Tribunal 'had' to make (and the author would also have made) - because, according to the article, this is what the HMRC presented. This particular observation is only my own, but it would be an interesting set-up to an Upper Tribunal appeal. That appeal being based on whether the Tribunal was able to make further findings in law, in accordance with the Ramsay principle.

There is also a significant amount of evidence from the Tribunal that effectively hangs Rangers in terms of any appeal and also the SPL case. Not to mention criminal proceedings against a number of people involved in the setting up and administration of the Trusts. This Tribunal has stuck quite a lot of shit to quite a lot of people. What was determined, as things stand, was the EBTs were not liable for tax, not that they were operated lawfully.

People seem pretty determined that HMRC should never have taken things this far (wrongly) so Murray's £10million offer is at serious odds with that contention. It was the offer of a guy who knows his vulnerability runs far deeper.

And what about these loans being declared?

It is entirely possible that HMRC might appeal. That will be a judgement call for them and will be based on an appreciation of how good their chances are of winning. However, at this point the facts are established and are what they are. HMRC cannot introduce new facts. Their only grounds for appeal will be if the Tribunal made an error in their interpretation of the law.

I don't fully understand your second paragraph. Insofar as any appeal can only be on a point of law then that 'evidence' you refer to is not relevant. With regard to the SFA/SPL, both the majority decision and the dissenting opinion do not help the SFA/SPL and do help Rangers. I have cited the specifics in previous posts. Probably the best the SFA/SPL can hope for now is to find Rangers guilty of not getting the paperwork right. I predict that they will find Rangers guilty of a minor infraction and a slap on the wrist will ensue.

Your comment on possible criminal proceeding is, I suspect, made more in hope than in anticipation.

Most of the comments on the Murray £10 million offer demonstrate a serious lack of understanding as to how civil proceeding happen. People 'settle' for a great many reasons and they often have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. My own company routinely settled law suits as matter of policy because the cost, potential risk and adverse publicity of taking them to trial outweighed the cost of settling. Recently, an association of which I am a board member settled a case which we had won and which was being appealed for a sum less than that which we had been awarded because it was going to be cheaper than going to appeal.

Given that HMRC were asking for £90 million plus, only offering £10 million suggests that Murray had a lot of confidence in his case.

[Paquis]

Which comment?

The blog details significant extracts from the judgements, and of the evidence of many of the most significant witnesses. This is testimony under oath. There was plenty going on at that Tribunal that has wider implications. Even completely ignoring the writer's take on proceedings, which you are free to do, the facts as established in the case are pretty illuminating and give rise to many further possible sanctions.

It also completely demonstrates that many employees of Rangers gave testimony, under oath, that their EBTs were expected as payment under their employment by the club. These are facts.

No. The facts as established by the Tribunal is that these employees received loans which are recoverable. See page 58 of the judgement. How they were perceived by the employees is not relevant.

I recommend reading the judgement itself rather than the blog.

[youngsy]

Utter pish.

You played a blinder up until this point,Henrik.

[Cliche Guevara]

It is entirely possible that HMRC might appeal. That will be a judgement call for them and will be based on an appreciation of how good their chances are of winning. However, at this point the facts are established and are what they are. HMRC cannot introduce new facts. Their only grounds for appeal will be if the Tribunal made an error in their interpretation of the law.

1

I don't fully understand your second paragraph. Insofar as any appeal can only be on a point of law then that 'evidence' you refer to is not relevant. With regard to the SFA/SPL, both the majority decision and the dissenting opinion do not help the SFA/SPL and do help Rangers. I have cited the specifics in previous posts. Probably the best the SFA/SPL can hope for now is to find Rangers guilty of not getting the paperwork right. I predict that they will find Rangers guilty of a minor infraction and a slap on the wrist will ensue.

2

Your comment on possible criminal proceeding is, I suspect, made more in hope than in anticipation.

3

Most of the comments on the Murray £10 million offer demonstrate a serious lack of understanding as to how civil proceeding happen. People 'settle' for a great many reasons and they often have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. My own company routinely settled law suits as matter of policy because the cost, potential risk and adverse publicity of taking them to trial outweighed the cost of settling. Recently, an association of which I am a board member settled a case which we had won and which was being appealed for a sum less than that which we had been awarded because it was going to be cheaper than going to appeal.

Given that HMRC were asking for £90 million plus, only offering £10 million suggests that Murray had a lot of confidence in his case.

1

A succesful appeal would send the case back to the Tribunal and permit them to hear the case again, and consider further findings in fact and findings in law. This would mean the evidence given under oath but not taken into consideration could then be taken into consideration.

2

I'm not actually bothered, it doesn't concern me in the slightest, personally.

3

Not sure about that - was it not the case that the liability pursued at the point Murray offered £10million was 'only' £24million? And why not cooperate with the HMRC's enquiries? When you look at the course of events it paints a very shady image, of what you appear to view as being legitimate and beyond reproach. In any event it was never going to cost anywhere near £10m to appeal the liability.

[Cliche Guevara]

No. The facts as established by the Tribunal is that these employees received loans which are recoverable. See page 58 of the judgement. How they were perceived by the employees is not relevant.

I recommend reading the judgement itself rather than the blog.

See other post. It wasn't relevant to the recent Tribunal hearing but it's sufficient evidence, in my view, given under oath that these payments breached SFA and SPL rules. The SPL don't have to take any interest in any decision as to whether the EBTs are taxable or not. These are two separate issues and to say one informs the other is disingenuous. The SPL's case didn't rest on whether the Tribunal found the EBTs to be taxable or not, it could consider any evidence of side contracts. The Tribunal decided it couldn't consider evidence of side contracts, on a legal basis, which is a matter for them but this doesn't preclude the SPL from considering them and other statements given under oath.

Much in the same way a civil case can examine evidence, and lead to a different conclusion, to a criminal counterpart.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Cliche Guevara

[Paquis]

1

A succesful appeal would send the case back to the Tribunal and permit them to hear the case again, and consider further findings in fact and findings in law. This would mean the evidence given under oath but not taken into consideration could then be taken into consideration.

2

I'm not actually bothered, it doesn't concern me in the slightest, personally.

3

Not sure about that - was it not the case that the liability pursued at the point Murray offered £10million was 'only' £24million? And why not cooperate with the HMRC's enquiries? When you look at the course of events it paints a very shady image, of what you appear to view as being legitimate and beyond reproach. In any event it was never going to cost anywhere near £10m to appeal the liability.

1. What makes you think that the evidence was not given due consideration?

3. Why would you cooperate with HMRC when they are trying to take millions off you? Any organisation would be guided by its lawyers and would only make available the minimum of information as required by law. You think it looks shady because you have already prejudged the issue. Others might see Murray's actions as reasonable in the circumstances.

I think the problem you are having is that, like the blogger you cite, you really want Rangers to be guilty. So you are looking for supporting arguments while ignoring other arguments that don't support your position. Hanging your hat on Murray and his employees being 'shady' is not going to change the FTT decision. That will only come about if HMRC are able to win the right to appeal and then an appeal itself on a point of law.

The Tribunal's decision is a great example of what happens when you remove the emotion, the preconceived ideas, the various loyalties and hates and the rush to judgement from the equation.

[THE KING]

These last few pages these days will be very funny if the SPL find Rangers guilty anyway

[Paquis]

See other post. It wasn't relevant to the recent Tribunal hearing but it's sufficient evidence, in my view, given under oath that these payments breached SFA and SPL rules. The SPL don't have to take any interest in any decision as to whether the EBTs are taxable or not. These are two separate issues and to say one informs the other is disingenuous. The SPL's case didn't rest on whether the Tribunal found the EBTs to be taxable or not, it could consider any evidence of side contracts. The Tribunal decided it couldn't consider evidence of side contracts, on a legal basis, which is a matter for them but this doesn't preclude the SPL from considering them and other statements given under oath.

Much in the same way a civil case can examine evidence, and lead to a different conclusion, to a criminal counterpart.

Again, you really need to read the judgement.

Counsel for HMRC tried to introduce the argument that the side letters (not contracts) should have been disclosed (p 38) as part of his overall case that the EBTs represented payments. The majority decision did not accept that argument. If the side-letters were specific to loans - which is what the Tribunal found - then there is no case for them to be disclosed to the SFA. Furthermore, in the dissenting opinion, Dr. Poon opined that Rangers did actually disclose all payments to the SFA albeit vaguely.

[TheMightyBellsdale]

There have been far too many people with an agenda, one way or the other, passing themselves off as objective and neutral, via the media, blogs and forums for me to ever take the mediums seriously again.

The Rangers Tax Case blog being a prime example.

The problem with the Brogan, Rogan, Trevino and Hogan blog is whilst it may contain a lot of sense, it is undeniably written by a Celtic fan. An anonymous blogging Celtic fan is not a reliable source for information relating to Rangers, and vice versa.

[Monkey Tennis]

Why would you be cooperative with an organisation that is trying to take you for £90 plus million?

In order to quickly establish your innocence.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Monkey Tennis

[Monkey Tennis]

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

Has anyone explained how the above doesn't apply to payments of loans?

I think the SPL have this sewn up. Old Rangers are currently in the clear in terms of side-contracts but have outed themselves over undeclared payments.

That sounds pretty clear cut, but I've thought that before.

Isn't there debate about the extent to which these 'loans' were declared though?

[Monkey Tennis]

Fat Sally defends Murray now .....

McCoist displaying his usual grasp of what's actually happened here.

[QOS Sean]

McCoist is an idiot.

[Kamenitza]

There have been far too many people with an agenda, one way or the other, passing themselves off as objective and neutral, via the media, blogs and forums for me to ever take the mediums seriously again.

The Rangers Tax Case blog being a prime example.

The problem with the Brogan, Rogan, Trevino and Hogan blog is whilst it may contain a lot of sense, it is undeniably written by a Celtic fan. An anonymous blogging Celtic fan is not a reliable source for information relating to Rangers, and vice versa.

If the author is anonymous how can you say he is undeniably a Celtic fan?

[Arthur Stramash]

Great posts Paquis and Cliche Guevara regarding the blog piece. Enjoyed reading your views and the spirit in which you expressed them.

The blog was fascinating for me because of the way the writer agreed with the legal result even though he is in principle opposed to the outcome. But also the way he pointed out how unusal it was for a dissenting opinion to fill more than half of the judgement.

There is probably is a lot more to come and, as someone pointed out, if these are are now judged to have been genuine loans then they can perhaps be recalled. That would put upward of £40m in the pot for the creditors of oldco and may just see the debts paid. I expect most Rangers fans would like to see that happen.

I believe Murray got £6m and someone like Campbell Ogilvie £90,000. Neither of these two gents are short of a bob or two so what a terrific gesture it would be for them to set an example and pay back their loans. They might start the ball rolling. If these loans were paid back voluntarily by the recipients - and not litigated back via BDO - it would be an act almost worthy of 5 stars on the royal blue jersey.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Danish Pastry

[flyingrodent]

McCoist is an idiot.

He's not alone.

I struggle to understand the mentality of the Rangers fans in this thread. If my club had been milked for all of its cash by a bunch of grasping millionaires then destroyed utterly and forced to start over as a new team...

Well, I *probably would* want to see a sizeable dollop of misery land on everyone who celebrated my club's demise, too.

That said, my ABSOLUTE PRIORITY would be a) finding out who killed the club, b) finding out how they did it, in forensic detail and c) stampeding those thieving crooks to prison as quickly as possible.

For real, I wouldn't give a damn about titles being removed, or bloggers being sued or anything like that. What would any of that matter, if the club had been liquidated and forced to start over?

And yet, who is it that's calling for SDM to be interviewed by Plod? Not Rangers fans, at any rate, even though they're his primary victims. It's an astonishing situation.

[Bendarroch]

What's he done now ffs?

When being interviewed post Benfica horsing - he had a distinct anti-Rangers look about him.

[Cliche Guevara]

1. What makes you think that the evidence was not given due consideration?

3. Why would you cooperate with HMRC when they are trying to take millions off you? Any organisation would be guided by its lawyers and would only make available the minimum of information as required by law. You think it looks shady because you have already prejudged the issue. Others might see Murray's actions as reasonable in the circumstances.

I think the problem you are having is that, like the blogger you cite, you really want Rangers to be guilty. So you are looking for supporting arguments while ignoring other arguments that don't support your position. Hanging your hat on Murray and his employees being 'shady' is not going to change the FTT decision. That will only come about if HMRC are able to win the right to appeal and then an appeal itself on a point of law.

The Tribunal's decision is a great example of what happens when you remove the emotion, the preconceived ideas, the various loyalties and hates and the rush to judgement from the equation.

1- That's the crux of the verdict. They stated they couldn't consider that evidence as HMRC was satisfied the EBTs were not a 'sham'. Two of the Tribunal members stated they Could Not consider further findings in fact and findings in law, given the way HMRC had presented its case (for whatever reason). This is extremely fortunate as the evidence hangs Rangers out to dry. A procession of their own employees confirmied that they were being remunerated for activities relating to football by way of EBT, under oath. Two of the Tribunal members stated they Could Not take that evidence into account. The SPL has no such impediment when considering its case.

3- The non-cooperation was particularly the lengthy period where Rangers failed to provide the documentation they were legally obliged to provide the HMRC in relation to the EBTs. Indeed the police had to sieze the documents in the end. The FTT was very clear in its daming of how Rangers handled that affair. All-the-while SDM is trying to 'settle' by making a £10m offer and trying to cover-up the paper-trail.

What I have done is looked at the evidence and understood the legal position of the Tribunal judges. What I haven't done is swallowed the Rangers Media Myth that is in particular overdrive at the moment.

I am more focussed on the SPL case at the moment.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Cliche Guevara