pansypotterthedirtyrotter Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 No way. Really? he was live on clyde1, says "like most board votes it will be 8-4 majority", surprising considering it's always been 11-1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Unreal. How can the rules be changed this blatantly and at such short notice just to suit Rangers? Because it needs to changed at short notice to suit rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 D+P asked for delay, maybe to allow Miller time to get passport and attend??? If he becomes owner? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Can someone explain the implications of it being 8-4? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Buzzing for playing against Brora next season. Touche. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pansypotterthedirtyrotter Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Not quite as simple. If it is a 'loan' over 5 years of age the players can tell them to gtf. As someone who is bang on 5 years non acknowledgement of a £25 grand RBS loan I know this i'm well versed on the term "statute barred" but there must be provision made in the accounts for this non payment surely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Who the hell is running the SPL these days - SKY or Duff & Phelps? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 i'm well versed on the term "statute barred" but there must be provision made in the accounts for this non payment surely. Wouldn't matter how they phrased it, 5 years and ''see ya'. If it wasn't goverened under the 1974 CCA, thhat would be even more reason to not persue.' Hell I was bang to rights but they forgot a sig on their side, I twigged and defended it in court myself , only blip is its on my credit rating as I am due it (they just can't ask for it) but that will dissapear very shortly. Here, if nothing else, maybe they could screw up the legends credit ratings? Be fun if nowt else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Can someone explain the implications of it being 8-4? It's means of superglueing the stitches on the stitch up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidthebaw Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) 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. My understanding of EBT's is that once the benefactor has been in place two years at the company they are liable for tax/NI on all income as they are classed as employees and the 'loan' as taxable income. With regards to the loan it has to be proved there was no intention to repay the 'loan' as evidenced by the existence or not of an agreement to repay. Therefore it is up to HMRC to prove their was no intention to repay. Recently the head of the student loan company was caught out by this type of thing . In addition my understanding is that the way rangers structured it was not entirely in line with HMRC guidelines. I'll dig out the links after I have a wee search for them HMRC 2009 and I quote "Spotlight 5: Using trusts and similar entities to reward employees - PAYE and NICs, Corporation Tax and Inheritance TaxHMRC are aware that companies have been seeking to reward employees without operating PAYE (Pay As You Earn)/NICs (National Insurance contributions) by making payments through trusts and other intermediaries that favour the employees or their families. The arrangements usually seek to secure a Corporation Tax deduction, as if the amounts were earnings at the time they are allocated, and also defer PAYE/NICs or avoid them altogether. HMRC's view is that at the time the funds are allocated to the employee or his/her beneficiaries, those funds become earnings on which PAYE and NICs are due and should be accounted for by the employer." So either their tax advisor was a bloke in a pub or they knew it was illegal and didn't give a feck Edited May 7, 2012 by Heidthebaw 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Who the hell is running the SPL these days - SKY or Duff & Phelps? The bigot brothers. As it always has been and as it always will be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Ah, now I get it. Doncaster just saying it 'us' that don't understand the processes...... Surely, based on that interview, the crux of the matter is then - If the clubs require the utmost clarity on the situation, no decision can be made ever until the EBT investigation is complete. Without that information, how can you assess how much they cheated and what the appropriate punishment for that is? That's just the the football angle on clarity? Anyone?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pansypotterthedirtyrotter Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Wouldn't matter how they phrased it, 5 years and ''see ya'. If it wasn't goverened under the 1974 CCA, thhat would be even more reason to not persue.' Hell I was bang to rights but they forgot a sig on their side, I twigged and defended it in court myself , only blip is its on my credit rating as I am due it (they just can't ask for it) but that will dissapear very shortly. Here, if nothing else, maybe they could screw up the legends credit ratings? Be fun if nowt else. only shows from 6 years from date of default being issued, some might say it's worth £25k 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Patterson Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Plus, it would confuse Traynor and Chic so much that their tiny minds might explode and leak out of their ears. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 he was live on clyde1, says "like most board votes it will be 8-4 majority", surprising considering it's always been 11-1 I'm surprised you feel the need to comment when you don't know the facts of the situation. 36. Except where the Act specifies that a particular resolution of the Company requires otherwise or as otherwise provided in these Articles, not less than 66% of the Members of the Company who are entitled to attend and vote at a General Meeting of which notice has been duly given (whether all the Members of the Company actually attend and vote or not) shall be required for the passing of all Ordinary Resolutions of the Company and for the giving of all consents, approvals or the like considered at a General Meeting. From the SPL Articles of Association 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17983600 Rangers' majority shareholder Craig Whyte has held discussions with one-time bidder Brian Kennedy over the transfer of shares. Following Bill Miller's installment as preferred bidder, Kennedy had stated the need for everyone concerned to back the American's plan. While that stance has not changed, Kennedy has been in talks with Whyte. Whyte has voiced his desire for the club to avoid liquidation and remains open to dealing with Kennedy. While Miller's proposal involves a CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement) in parallel with the creation of a "newco" Rangers, without Whyte's agreement to transfer his 85% stake in the club, the "oldco" would ultimately be liquidated, barring a successful legal battle. Hmmm... nah... f**k it, there are just too many angles to bother covering them all. I'll leave it to the rest of you to figure out why the non-preferred bidder has made an attempt to grab on the prized assets at the same time saying people should support another bidders attempt at taking over the club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 only shows from 6 years from date of default being issued, some might say it's worth £25k 5 years up here The fact that the loans weren't from Rangers but a trust complicates things tho. I think we can forget any bills going to former players. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) Unreal. How can the rules be changed this blatantly and at such short notice just to suit Rangers? By the necessary clubs desiring such. he was live on clyde1, says "like most board votes it will be 8-4 majority", surprising considering it's always been 11-1 That's never been the case, you're talking rubbish. Some matters require 11-1, some require 10-2, some require 8-4. Only specialised matters (e.g. reconstruction) aren't 8-4. Edited May 7, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Ah, now I get it. Doncaster just saying it 'us' that don't understand the processes...... That's been Doncuntsters modus operandi since he started. Remember his Comical Ali like denials that there was no fan opposition to a 10 team league and that it was "the only show in town"? Basically every time Doncuntster has come up against a difficult question he's given a troll line of "You don't get it because you are too stupid to get it, just leave it with us, we know what we are doing. Now sit down and enjoy your happy meal". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GirondistNYC Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 1336411775[/url]' post='6210822']Of course, if we're indulging in conspiracy theories then 8-4 also gives Lawwell leeway to vote against a newco to placate the Celtic fans without running the risk of 'no to newco' actually winning. That conspiracy theory sounds sadly plausible to me. In addition to everything else wrong about this situation, I can see a scenario where supporters end up fingerpointing and arguing for years that their club was entirely justified in what they did and Rangers survival was somebody elses fault. Real animosity could develop. Not a good result. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.