Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Claymores]

God knows there's been some blindingly ridiculous pish posted on this thread, but Paquis, I think you've just provided my favourite here.

Why do otherwise relatively sane Rangers fans feel the need to go bonkers periodically?

I've tried umpteen times to suggest that if Sevco could just have bought some honours then so could anyone else. If Spartans had paid a shilling more than Chasbo would they have been "the most successful Club in the world"? If I'd bought them and gave them to my partner for Christmas would she personally be the most successful fitba club ever, ever?!

It is utter nonesense this buying trophies but the Sevco lads always decline to answer my direct question.

PS - I hear East Fife might be a bit short of cash - anyone want to buy the 1954 League Cup?

Edited November 24, 2012 by Claymores

[Bearwithme]

The thing is Green's consortium didn't buy the titles on their own - and nobody sensible has suggested they can be bought on their own (for those who are simply at the wind-up, so be it). The titles were part of the overall package bought by Green's consortium i.e. the club.

[Henrik's tongue]

The thing is Green's consortium didn't buy the titles on their own - and nobody sensible has suggested they can be bought on their own (for those who are simply at the wind-up, so be it). The titles were part of the overall package bought by Green's consortium i.e. the club.

[Monkey Tennis]

The thing is Green's consortium didn't buy the titles on their own - and nobody sensible has suggested they can be bought on their own (for those who are simply at the wind-up, so be it). The titles were part of the overall package bought by Green's consortium i.e. the club.

That makes no more sense than Paquis' almost beautifully preposterous claim though.

Nobody 'owns' the titles at all. The body which awarded them however has the right - nay, the duty - to withdraw them if they consider that the rules of competition have been broken.

Edit to add: Bearwithme, you're another one. On your day, you appear like a perfectly normal member of society. Yet, you come out with this stuff at times. Is there a rota stuck up on someone's fridge, whereby every Rangers fan must take a turn at being utterly idiotic? If so, Bendarroch is being overworked and it's not fair.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Monkey Tennis

[Claymores]

The thing is Green's consortium didn't buy the titles on their own - and nobody sensible has suggested they can be bought on their own (for those who are simply at the wind-up, so be it). The titles were part of the overall package bought by Green's consortium i.e. the club.

But Chasbo contradicts you. As we all acknowledge, Chucky Cheese says he bought them and are not, therefore, up for grabs or to be taken away from the former Rangers. You can't have it both ways! Either the former Rangers were awarded them and they can be stripped from the former Rangers (think tour De France) or the stupid Chasbo line that he bought them from the former Rangers and their his forever and ever and ever.

My line is clear - if you can buy titles, then East Fife should just flog some to bring cash in.

[Henrik's tongue]

Would Charles Green like to buy Celtics European Cup victory from 67?

Since these things can be bought and sold.

[Claymores]

Would Charles Green like to buy Celtics European Cup victory from 67?

Since these things can be bought and sold.

That's maybe in the share issue Action Plan

[Bearwithme]

But Chasbo contradicts you. As we all acknowledge, Chucky Cheese says he bought them and are not, therefore, up for grabs or to be taken away from the former Rangers. You can't have it both ways! Either the former Rangers were awarded them and they can be stripped from the former Rangers (think tour De France) or the stupid Chasbo line that he bought them from the former Rangers and their his forever and ever and ever.

My line is clear - if you can buy titles, then East Fife should just flog some to bring cash in.

You can't buy titles separately but when you buy a club the history is part of it.

Honours can be taken away from those who have won them, in the right circumstances. I doubt if Green would dispute that - I believe he contends that the right circumstances do not apply here.

[Claymores]

You can't buy titles separately but when you buy a club the history is part of it.

Honours can be taken away from those who have won them, in the right circumstances. I doubt if Green would dispute that - I believe he contends that the right circumstances do not apply here.

Oh gosh - what on earth would be the "right circumstances"?! Can I take this spade away from you before you dig yourself all the way to China?!

[Monkey Tennis]

Honours can be taken away from those who have won them, in the right circumstances. I doubt if Green would dispute that - I believe he contends that the right circumstances do not apply here.

Well that's altogether different from what Paquis claimed that Green was confidently saying.

Green would dispute that there are seven days in a week, if he thought he had a gullible enough audience.

[Magoo9uk]

Fixated.

[Monkey Tennis]

Fixated.

I love this game. Can I play?

Spatula.

[Henrik's tongue]

Pamphlet.

[Forest_Fifer]

You can't buy titles separately but when you buy a club the history is part of it.

Honours can be taken away from those who have won them, in the right circumstances. I doubt if Green would dispute that - I believe he contends that the right circumstances do not apply here.

But no-one bought the club. If they had then it wouldn't have been liquidated. Green bought the assets of the club, not the club.

[Paquis]

God knows there's been some blindingly ridiculous pish posted on this thread, but Paquis, I think you've just provided my favourite here.

Why do otherwise relatively sane Rangers fans feel the need to go bonkers periodically?

You chaps really seem to have some difficulty when it comes to reading comprehension.

I was summarising my understanding of Green's position. Personally, I disagree with him. My own view is that the verdict of the FTT will make it very hard for the SPL to prove that the EBTs and associated side-letters were dual contracts in the sense of the SFA/SPL regulations. Unless HMRC appeal and unless that appeal succeeds, I don't see the SPL or SFA being successful.

[youngsy]

CLUELESS ^^^

The ruling means nothing if the club died ! and it did and it was a company as well and why it was liquidated.

Did you read the attachment ?

Did you also know that the SFA licence was revoked with immediate effect when Charles Green bought the assets because the old 1872 club was to be liquidated ?

I notice how you say assets ! WHY ? because the club was a company and all this shite about the club being separate from the company is nonsense.

You just want to still boast and brag 54 titles WATP aren't ya ?

You just can't accept that the old Rangers football club you supported is now dead but you want me to accept the BTC ruling go and do something to yourself will ya that inflicts pain

So you'll have a date when the licence was revoked i should imagine and if so what licence is the club being operated under?Edit too add,3/8/12 was the date that full membership of the SFA was transferred from oldco to newco,so again i'll ask when was the licence revoked? Btw asking someone to harm themself tells me how much of a lowlife scumbag you are.

Edited November 24, 2012 by youngsy

[youngsy]

You chaps really seem to have some difficulty when it comes to reading comprehension.

I was summarising my understanding of Green's position. Personally, I disagree with him. My own view is that the verdict of the FTT will make it very hard for the SPL to prove that the EBTs and associated side-letters were dual contracts in the sense of the SFA/SPL regulations. Unless HMRC appeal and unless that appeal succeeds, I don't see the SPL or SFA being successful.

Green is wrong on this,no question. The SPL titles,Scottish Cups and League cups were awarded to the club for winning the relevant bodies competitions,if there is found to be cheating then those same bodies retain the right to strip a club of those awards. Although i did read that the SFL had no interest in pursuing any such removal/stripping of the League cup. Whether the SPL win their case though is another thing altogether.

Edited November 25, 2012 by youngsy

[youngsy]

Henrik,you're on for your hat-trick.

[Paquis]

Green is wrong on this,no question. The SPL titles,Scottish Cups and League cups were awarded to the club for wining the relevant bodies competitions,if there is found to be cheating then those same bodies retain the right to strip a club of those awards. Although i did read that the SFL had no interest in pursuing any such removal/stripping of the League cup. Whether the SPL win their case though is another thing altogether.

The SFA/SPL have two problems.

The first is proving that the EBTs and side letters represent dual contracts in the sense of their own rules and regulations. The second is proving that they were not disclosed.

The majority verdict suggests that the EBTs were loans. In paragraph 208, they specifically state that they regard the side letter's obligation does not amount to an emolument. There is nothing in the SFA/SPL regulations that require disclosure of loans. There are also a couple of sections in the dissenting opinion that suggests that disclosure did happen although what was disclosed was rather vague. Given that EBTs had been around for over 10 years before the SFA/SPL discovered they had a problem with them suggests that the vagueness of disclosure was not an impediment.

There are some exceptions where the Murray Group admits a tax liability. Not all of these concern footballers although a few do. The first is termination payments. However, given the Juninho precedent, it will be difficult for the SFA/SPL to argue that these should be sanctioned. The second concerns guaranteed bonuses and involves just 5 players. Obviously we do not know which players. However, it is not clear that these bonuses were hidden from the SFA/SPL given the points raised in the dissenting opinion and neither is it clear that these bonuses were the subject of a second contract.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Paquis

[Cliche Guevara]

The SFA/SPL have two problems.

The first is proving that the EBTs and side letters represent dual contracts in the sense of their own rules and regulations. The second is proving that they were not disclosed.

The majority verdict suggests that the EBTs were loans. In paragraph 208, they specifically state that they regard the side letter's obligation does not amount to an emolument. There is nothing in the SFA/SPL regulations that require disclosure of loans. There are also a couple of sections in the dissenting opinion that suggests that disclosure did happen although what was disclosed was rather vague. Given that EBTs had been around for over 10 years before the SFA/SPL discovered they had a problem with them suggests that the vagueness of disclosure was not an impediment.

I think the problem you have is you keep equating the findings in relation to the tax liability to the SPL enquiry. The FTT could only consider evidence within certain parameters, and on a technicality (so far) felt they had to reach the decision they did (but not unanimously).

Again, you have recognised that EBTs are tax avoidance schemes. Look at the evidence of the recipients - they pretty much state, under oath, these payments were contractual. The SPL only require to come to a verdict on the balance of probability, rather than beyond reasonable doubt or within the peculiar requirements of such as a tax Tribunal.

The evidence of the employees hangs Rangers. The EBTs were agreed terms of contract of employment.