Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Serious question and not a piss take.

We know that 5 EBT's were f88ked up, do we know if it was for players or backroom staff?

And if it was backroom staff would affect any hearings verdict?

I know some Rangers bloggers/internet types have said that the 5 EBT's being wrongly operated works in our favour and Celticminded types have said differently. But just really interested in what would happen if they were for non playing staff.

A question to any kunt really and not just HB.

Far as I know, it would just be players. The issue here is not one of legality - that was the remit of the FTTT - but of compliance with SPL (and SFA) rules for registering players who competed in their competition.

So, not players - no difference to Commission. Players - no difference to Commission.

As I understand it, of course.

[hellbhoy]

In fairness to Tedi, I don't think he could have played it much straighter over his last few posts here.

He recognises the morally questionable nature of it all and waits to see how these 'loans' are regarded.

As far as I can see, the rest of us are doing much the same.

Agreed ! by law 80 sub trusts were regarded as loans but the commission won't be using the same way of thinking if some players sub trusts had tax paid on them before the FTTT and will be used against Rangers as bonus payments.

It's the side letters that are in question at the commission because they are of a contractual nature specifying how much and when players were getting monies and not that the player was skint ! and had to take out a loan to get by.

There are players and agents testimonies that these were contractual and you would have be of the assumption that MIH pleaded liability on these as witnesses have gave testimony damning that particular sub trust and MIH would not have won them at the FTTT so why not just pay the tax on them and win a majority of 80 at the FTTT saving MIH plenty of money whilst paying tax on the ones MIH would have lost outright.

In all possibility the 29 cases pleaded guilty too could have been former players scrambling and shitting it at the thought of paying the tax man hundreds of thousands so gave testimony that MIH would pay any further tax if warranted.

[Shades75]

In fairness to Tedi, I don't think he could have played it much straighter over his last few posts here.

He recognises the morally quesCtionable nature of it all and waits to see how these 'loans' are regarded.

As far as I can see, the rest of us are doing much the same.

We all await the legal ruling, granted.

However I think that broadly we all know that they were not loans. Given that the very nature of the payments goes against the very definition of the word.

Also, Tedi has not been entirely straight but, IMO, entirely evasive. At least on my question. However, I expected it.

To take the, "common sense" approach to the question, it is as clear as night follows day.

[Monkey Tennis]

We all await the legal ruling, granted.

However I think that broadly we all know that they were not loans. Given that the very nature of the payments goes against the very definition of the word.

Common sense tells us this.

Tedi also recognises this, as evidenced by his references to Billy Dodds.

[bennett]

Cheats, cheat....

We're not talking about you getting kicked out of the bull inns dominoes team.

Painting extra dots indeed

Edited January 26, 2013 by bennett

[Bearwithme]

We all await the legal ruling, granted.

However I think that broadly we all know that they were not loans. Given that the very nature of the payments goes against the very definition of the word.

Also, Tedi has not been entirely straight but, IMO, entirely evasive. At least on my question. However, I expected it.

To take the, "common sense" approach to the question, it is as clear as night follows day.

It's worth noting that that even HMRC's lawyer told the tax tribunal that they are loans.

[hellbhoy]

Serious question and not a piss take.

We know that 5 EBT's were f88ked up, do we know if it was for players or backroom staff?

And if it was backroom staff would affect any hearings verdict?

I know some Rangers bloggers/internet types have said that the 5 EBT's being wrongly operated works in our favour and Celticminded types have said differently. But just really interested in what would happen if they were for non playing staff.

A question to any kunt really and not just HB.

OOOOOOO a serious question from Benny

It wasn't 5 Benny it was 29 cases pleaded liability too WHY ? because they were 109 sub trusts in use and 80 got cleared but leaving 29 outstanding that were pleaded guilty too ! do the math Benny.

It's only the players the commission will look into as players appear to have had a separate contract from the club contract Rangers showed the SFA in their accounts.

Of the 80 cleared at the FTTT it is possible that all the players EBT's were cleared as there were 63 players sub trusts but highly unlikely.

[Monkey Tennis]

Serious question and not a piss take.

We know that 5 EBT's were f88ked up, do we know if it was for players or backroom staff?

And if it was backroom staff would affect any hearings verdict?

I know some Rangers bloggers/internet types have said that the 5 EBT's being wrongly operated works in our favour and Celticminded types have said differently. But just really interested in what would happen if they were for non playing staff.

A question to any kunt really and not just HB.

My (very limited) understanding is that any SPL Commission ruling would relate solely to players, and indeed to the matches for which they were stripped.

I've no idea whether contractual details for other employees (from coaches to those wonderful tea ladies) need to be disclosed or not. I'm guessing however that it's all to do with those who comprise the pool on match days.

[bennett]

OOOOOOO a serious question from Benny

It wasn't 5 Benny it was 29 cases pleaded liability too WHY ? because they were 109 sub trusts in use and 80 got cleared but leaving 29 outstanding that were pleaded guilty too ! do the math Benny.

It's only the players the commission will look into as players appear to have had a separate contract from the club contract Rangers showed the SFA in their accounts.

Of the 80 cleared at the FTTT it is possible that all the players EBT's were cleared as there were 63 players sub trusts but highly unlikely.

There was admin errors with 5 EBT's relating to Rangers use of them, this is widely known. The only issue we don;t know if it was for players or non playing staff.

Unless you read Muirheads website that is.

[Bearwithme]

It should also be remembered that the tribunal case covered other Murray companies.

[bennett]

It should also be remembered that the tribunal case covered other Murray companies.

Probably where Muirhead and the P&Bers f**ked up and got 29 or 30 cases from, the tribunal covered MIH's use of them and not just Rangers.

[Shades75]

It's worth noting that that even HMRC's lawyer told the tax tribunal that they are loans.

Could you put that into context please?

Also the stance I'm taking right now, and the argument I am making is the "common sense" one. Any payment which does not have to be returned is simply not a loan. The very definition of the word, "loan" demands that that is the case.

Can I ask, that the next poster who thinks to comment on my posts here, accepts that I am not making a case based on any legalities. I'm tired of repeating myself.

"Common sense" - It's common that people will deduce that they were payments and not loans. It makes perfect sense.

[bennett]

The Rangers-Dominoe team.

Ok Wisbit, thats nice.

[Shades75]

Tedi also recognises this, as evidenced by his references to Billy Dodds.

Got to wonder why it so difficult to illustrate his opinion in a simple phrase.

[Bearwithme]

Could you put that into context please?

Also the stance I'm taking right now, and the argument I am making is the "common sense" one. Any payment which does not have to be returned is simply not a loan. The very definition of the word, "loan" demands that that is the case.

Can I ask, that the next poster who thinks to comment on my posts here, accepts that I am not making a case based on any legalities. I'm tired of repeating myself.

"Common sense" - It's common that people will deduce that they were payments and not loans. It makes perfect sense.

So-called "common sense" is all very well but it's not the basis on which the SPL tribunal will rule. "Common sense", in this context, is just some punters' opinion.

[SS-18 ICBM]

OOOOOOO a serious question from Benny

It wasn't 5 Benny it was 29 cases pleaded liability too WHY ? because they were 109 sub trusts in use and 80 got cleared but leaving 29 outstanding that were pleaded guilty too ! do the math Benny.

It's only the players the commission will look into as players appear to have had a separate contract from the club contract Rangers showed the SFA in their accounts.

Of the 80 cleared at the FTTT it is possible that all the players EBT's were cleared as there were 63 players sub trusts but highly unlikely.

Most clever people that i have discussed this with have asked: Why would Murray International Holdings which was the parent company of old Rangers FC, set up a fund to give scores of football players 'interest free' loans while MIH was several hundred million pounds in debt and toiling to survive?!

[hellbhoy]

There was admin errors with 5 EBT's relating to Rangers use of them, this is widely known. The only issue we don;t know if it was for players or non playing staff.

Unless you read Muirheads website that is.

Boomsong has publicly given evidence that these side letters were contractual ! should we include this as evidence as a whole on the side letters being contractual ?

It's all been kept hush hush at the moment on who's sub trusts were pleaded guilty too before the FTTT the 5 you mention will surely be among them.

The difference between MIH staff and board members is the inclusion of side letters to Rangers players only assuring them a set amount of money was available to them on a specified date usually after the transfer windows had closed.MIH members and Rangers board members were just paid ! well a bonus really without a side letter.

[Shades75]

So-called "common sense" is all very well but it's not the basis on which the SPL tribunal will rule. "Common sense", in this context, is just some punters' opinion.

That, FOR f**k'S SAKE, Is all I'm asking.

Stop replying to my posts if you can't grasp the basic premise of the point of them, you absolute tedious c**t.

[Bearwithme]

That, FOR f**k'S SAKE, Is all I'm asking.

Stop replying to my posts if you can't grasp the basic premise of the point of them, you absolute tedious c**t.

Calm down dear. It's only an internet forum.

[hellbhoy]

Calm down dear. It's only an internet forum.

Hearts won today he may be a touch on edge