Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[LordHawHaw]

Peter Lawell is shitting himself that, without Rangers, he will be outvoted by the other 11 clubs

You know him do you?

That's a cross we'll have to bear as a result of your clubs cheating, not that it worries me too much

[Paquis]

But Rangers were not using them as a form of tax-free 'bonus' but rather as a core part of the renumeration agreed upon signing. following on, the football case is that ALL aspects of a player contract must be declared up-front when applying for registration.................not simply something that is capable of being deduced by accounting post-mortem.

ERGO - definitely not a red herring in tax or football terms.

Well, I think that will be determined by the tribunal. My guess is that some will be invalidated due to errors in how they were set up or administered while others will be deemed valid. As such the taxes, penalty and interest due will be somewhat less than the headline figures being bandied around. On the footballing front, I think there will be no evidence to show that they constituted a separate contract particularly given the way they were disclosed in the annual reports.

[thenolly]

If I'm correct in thinking that the above was largely taken from here....

My link

then I thnk they've called it wrong.

I can't find anything else to back up their position on this.

My link read from article 3.3.1

[7-2]

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen. The EPL, FA, chairmen of most league clubs and Chief Constables across the UK would not, however, so its a non-starter.

I know it is hence starting with 'It's not going to happen of course'.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

The whole case is that EBTs were not illegal per-se, but their application as employed by RFC was a deliberate attempt to 'stiff' the tax authorities. The fooball case is that they were not disclosed as a 2nd form of remuneration which rendered player registrations invalid.

Rangers argument is that the EBTs were not remuneration but loans made to the players. It would seem to me to be a very tricky case for the authorities to pursue even if HMRC is successful in court. Rangers would almost certainly sue the SPL and contest any sanctions in court.

There is also the outcome that the improper registrations could be resolved with a fine rather than a forfeit of the match. There is nothing to say that the matches must be forfeited.

[Monkey Tennis]

Well, I think that will be determined by the tribunal. My guess is that some will be invalidated due to errors in how they were set up or administered while others will be deemed valid. As such the taxes, penalty and interest due will be somewhat less than the headline figures being bandied around. On the footballing front, I think there will be no evidence to show that they constituted a separate contract particularly given the way they were disclosed in the annual reports.

And yet Bain wanted documentation related to his arrangement, popped in the shredder?

[7-2]

Vote delayed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/17983379

Are they just waiting for Yorkston to leave?

ETA: oops, several pages too late....

Too much store has been put on what Yorkston said. He only said he would argue against Rangers, not that he would actually vote that way. Massive difference.

[vikingTON]

Rangers argument is that the EBTs were not remuneration but loans made to the players.

Presumably Duff and Phelps have been looking for repayment of those 'loans' to help the creditors then? Seems an easy yes/no question that holes the Rangers' case below the waterline.

The money was just 'resting' in their account, honest guv'.

[Drooper]

My link read from article 3.3.1

Only clubs which have been granted the UEFA Licence by the SFA and which have qualified on the basis of their sporting results or on the basis of the UEFA fair play rankings, may enter the UEFA club competitions for the forthcoming season

This refers to the Champions League and Europa League, NOT the domestic league championships.

[thelegendthatis]

The whole point of an EBT is to legally avoid tax. So, in common with any other tax efficient structure they are designed - as you so eloquently put it - to 'stiff' the tax authorities.

The football case is a bit of a red herring as the EBTs were disclosed over a period of years to anyone who cared to read an annual report.

This is absolute drivel about being in the annual report.

If you really believe the EBTs were all open and above board you might have told Martin Bain and John McLelland who obviously thought it 'prudent' to destroy evidence of EBT transactions. And of course the audit trail of what was going on at Rangers sat in the offices of David Murray. You might ask why! And of course Duff and Duffer had to go to court to get access to these records. Normally a phone call to David Murray asking " can you ship across to us what records you have to do with Rangers" would have meant a delivery in a day or so. The fact it had to go beyond that normal cooperation must ring bells.

Anyway it matters not a jot what you say and what I say. This is all now in the hands of the legal system and those involved will await the decision, just as we will have to. And of course if HMRC lose, they will appeal.

If the SFA, SPL or other authorities such as the fraud squad wish to pursue the directors of Rangers for reasons associated with how the EBTs were managed that will be up to them.

[stonedsailor]

From the Scottish Football Association rules on Club Licensing (specifically Part 3, Section 03 – The Club as Licence Applicant and the UEFA Licence). Emphasis ours.

"3.1.1 The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member). The licence applicant is responsible for the fulfillment of the club licensing criteria.

This membership must have been in place at the start of the licence season for a minimum period of three consecutive years

.

[...]

3.3.1 UEFA Licence Awards for Scottish Premier League Clubs (SPL)

A Licence cannot be transferred from one legal entity to another

.

"

NB: "UEFA Licence" does not denote a licence to compete in UEFA competitions, which are governed by an entirely different set of criteria. As the SFA website explains:

"National Club Licensing applies to Scottish FA member clubs and UEFA Club Licensing applies to Scottish Premier League clubs."

In other words, to play in the SPL you must have a UEFA Club Licence, regardless of whether you actually compete in UEFA competitions or not. (SFL clubs, who in normal circumstances wouldn't be expected to qualify for European tournaments, are dealt with separately via an "extraordinary procedure" in the event that they do.)

Yeah, I saw this before and reposted it a few pages back but no-where does it say that an SPL club must have a UEFA licence.

I have found this the SPLs membership criteria but again no specification that members must have a UEFA licence.

[Araminta Moonbeam QC]

I know it is hence starting with 'It's not going to happen of course'.

Should we start an internet campaign to try and float this idea again? Shipping them off down South would be as good as them going totally bust, their deluded support would be dreaming of gubbing Man Yoo every week, when in fact they'd be getting hammered by Rushden and Diamonds. Their glory hunting support would melt away and their idiot away brigade would bankrupt themselves trying to afford trips to the arse end of England every other week.

Plus, it would confuse Traynor and Chic so much that their tiny minds might explode and leak out of their ears.

[The DA]

My link read from article 3.3.1

I'm not doubting you but I don't see anything in that part of the document that says a UEFA license is required to play in the SPL. 3.3.2 says that a license is required to play in 'the UEFA Club Competitions' but there's no mention in the section you've linked to that says it's needed for SPL participation.

I'd be delighted to be proved wrong - is there another section that covers this?

[WaffenThinMint]

Rangers argument is that the EBTs were not remuneration but loans made to the players. It would seem to me to be a very tricky case for the authorities to pursue even if HMRC is successful in court. Rangers would almost certainly sue the SPL and contest any sanctions in court.

There is also the outcome that the improper registrations could be resolved with a fine rather than a forfeit of the match. There is nothing to say that the matches must be forfeited.

To sue, you need money in the first place to fight a case, something Rangers no longer have.

Should we start an internet campaign to try and float this idea again? Shipping them off down South would be as good as them going totally bust, their deluded support would be dreaming of gubbing Man Yoo every week, when in fact they'd be getting hammered by Rushden and Diamonds. Their glory hunting support would melt away and their idiot away brigade would bankrupt themselves trying to afford trips to the arse end of England every other week.

Plus, it would confuse Traynor and Chic so much that their tiny minds might explode and leak out of their ears.

No need to wait that long. If Chelsea win the Champions League, that will be the start of the "loyal" switching to their mythical "alliance" as the prospect of no Europe for three years and no hope of winning a trophy for at least two seeing them melt away like snow off a dyke.

Edited May 7, 2012 by WaffenThinMint

[pansypotterthedirtyrotter]

Sorry if this has been posted before in the previous 800+ pages... But I think the voting "members" should re-read this before they do their bit...

http://www.scotprem....t.asp?page=s109

Much talk of "financial fair play", time now for sporting integrity.

that's the first time i've seen this and it's absoloutely fvcking priceless, how good would it be to see doncaster interviewed and asked for his response after this has been thrust under his nose.

i think he would take a dive quicker than sone aluko.

[Drooper]

Yeah, I saw this before and reposted it a few pages back but no-where does it say that an SPL club must have a UEFA licence.

I have found this the SPLs membership criteria but again no specification that members must have a UEFA licence.

Spot on - as noted above I don't believe such a requirement exists.

[GirondistNYC]

1336403836[/url]' post='6210350']

Agreed. It's a re-rerun of every club in insolvency fiasco there's every been in Scotland, doing nothing until they're absolutely forced to in the hope they will go bust and no longer be their problem.

Now Miller knows he's not going to get his way, not going to get his guarantees, and his unsavoury political dealings are starting to come out as well (the good old boy opposing Martin Luther King Day, eh?), he may take this as a sign that it's not worth his bother, especially as like most of his kind he'll be more interested in throwing money at the Republican to ensure Obama's kicked out come November. Save Rangers, or get rid of a black President of the USA? What do you think he's going to more interested in putting his money in?

Come Friday, expect the inevitable announcement.

Much as I would love to see Bill Miller's bid collapse in a stream of bad publicity linking him to Timothy McVeigh, Gadaffi and/or orgies with Tommy Sheridan and Strauss-Kahn, the whole Ron Paul thing is a damp squib without more evidence. The nasty racist stuff people are linking to come fom Paul's newsletter decades ago when the libertarian movement was trying to overcome its electoral relevance and hit on fairly blatant pandering to racist paranoids. The New Republic magazine, which broke the story, concluded the pieces were not written by Paul and doubted they reflected his beliefs even at the time. Paul rightly got a kicking for the association and it became one of the thousand reasons why no sane person wants him to be nominated by a major party but it's a stretch to say Ron Paul in 2012, lt alone somebody ho gave money to him in the last electoral cycle, believes in those quotes.

The interesting thing to be drawn from this for Rangers is Bill Miller could have backed any number of far right evangelical Christian theocrat candidates (Hukabee, Bachman, etc.) who briefly looked viable or staid business friendly establishment candidates (McCain, Romney) and instead chose a batshit crazy Ayn Rand ideologue. Given that the core principles of Paultards are fiscal rectitude as an aim in itself, capitalist creative destruction and a secular approach to moral questions I'm thinking if this travesty goes through the crab flute people are going to be in for quite a shock.

Just to be clear, I think Ron Paul supporters should be banned fom the Internet and I despise the man, but he's neither KKK or UVF.

[RotWeissEssen]

This seems like good news to me.

However, an SPL spokesperson said the 11 member clubs present at Monday's meeting "unanimously called for the power to deal with any newco application to be moved from the board to the clubs".

"This requires 21 clear days' notice," added the spokesperson. "The clubs will therefore meet again on 30 May to consider a resolution designed to achieve this.

"In the event that an application for transfer of share to a newco is received before 30 May, then it can be dealt with by the SPL board.

"The SPL board have indicated that they would, in those circumstances, call together the clubs before any such decision was made.

So

- All the clubs will get a vote

- Even if the newco apply now all the clubs will vote

- The decision is taken out of Doncaster s hand

So It wont just be down to the SPL board it will be down to all the clubs. Ok we might not like what they decide however no

club and the SPL cannot shy away from it.

What I think they should do is

- Vote on if any newco now and in the future is allowed in and put this in the rules

- If the newcos are allowed then vote on punishments

Put these rules in there and then stick with them.

I would prefer if they combine with the SFL and say that newcos are allowed and that they are demoted X number of divisions.

If they could agree this then I think 2 divisions would be fair.

Once/of a newco returns to the SPL they lose % of there income for every year they spend in the SPL for X seasons.

So in Rangers case a newco would go to division 2. They would then lose say 50% of there income for

there first 3 season back in the SPL.

Again Doncaster has quite smugly for months said it would be the SPL board who decides well not any more.

[Claymores]

Well, I think that will be determined by the tribunal. My guess is that some will be invalidated due to errors in how they were set up or administered while others will be deemed valid. As such the taxes, penalty and interest due will be somewhat less than the headline figures being bandied around. On the footballing front, I think there will be no evidence to show that they constituted a separate contract particularly given the way they were disclosed in the annual reports.

That is entirely irrelevant - the process of applying for registration clearly states:

Rule 2.2.1 of the procedures states: “Unless lodged in accordance with Procedures Rule 2.13, a non-recreational contract player registration form will not be valid unless it is accompanied by the contract entered into between the club concerned and the player stating all the terms and conditions in conformity with Procedures Rule 4.”

Failure to disclose player EBTs from the outset renders registrations invalid. To be clear, it is not something left to accounting post mortems from accounts published months/years later.

[thelegendthatis]

Well, I think that will be determined by the tribunal. My guess is that some will be invalidated due to errors in how they were set up or administered while others will be deemed valid. As such the taxes, penalty and interest due will be somewhat less than the headline figures being bandied around. On the footballing front, I think there will be no evidence to show that they constituted a separate contract particularly given the way they were disclosed in the annual reports.

"the way" they were disclosed in the annual reports? What does the way exactly? You either disclose them or you don't.

Just to help you here is a link to the annual report from 2010 http://www.rangers.c...5~153334,00.pdf

Can you point to the page(s) where the EBT are included?

Edited May 7, 2012 by thelegendthatis