Rangers FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2012/2013

PauloMN

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Is it really???

Going on her boat race, they look to come from the same gene pool anyway.

bobbysands81

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Come on! It was said in jest

I'm fairly gullible mo chara!

Jelle1880

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/charity-begins-at-home-but-is-the-rangers-charity-foundation-in-breach-of-the-law/

What a sad piece.

Maybe the guy that wrote it should be more concerned with the West Fife miners that he represented who are still waiting for their money.

bobbysands81

Jelle1880 wrote: »

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/charity-begins-at-home-but-is-the-rangers-charity-foundation-in-breach-of-the-law/

What a sad piece.

Maybe the guy that wrote it should be more concerned with the West Fife miners that he represented who are still waiting for their money.

What do you think about Rangers organising a charity match and pocketing the proceeds?

Any truth in the rumours about the poppy appeal money?

Fuhrer

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is Kyle's big sister though

Kyle Laffertys sister wants Tims to **** off back to Ireland?

Where shes from?

Jelle1880

bobbysands81 wrote: »

What do you think about Rangers organising a charity match and pocketing the proceeds?

Any truth in the rumours about the poppy appeal money?

It's the Rangers Charity Foundation who will say that they will donate the money to Rangers, that's different than Rangers organising something and pocketing the proceeds right away.

What rumours are those ?

Pompey Magnus

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It's the Rangers Charity Foundation who will say that they will donate the money to Rangers, that's different than Rangers organising something and pocketing the proceeds right away.

The question is though is such a donation legal for a charity?

Is it true the players voted against taking a pay cut?

Jelle1880

Not entirely, they apparently voted against a wage deferment, which has more to do with the hours you work than a wage drop.

For example if you work 40hrs/week you only get paid for 35 of them, the rest is put in a fund for sickness/retirement/...

I think this means that a portion of the money they should receive will either be paid later or not at all, depending on the situation of the club at a certain point.
Apparently it's for the next month.

Madam

Ah well - I had heard charity begins at home but for goodness sake are Rangers fans not a wee bit uncomfortable with taking charity money to help with the running of their club?

PauloMN

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The question is though is such a donation legal for a charity?

Crossed my mind as well. They are a registered charity, I'd wonder about corporate donations.

lubo_moravcik

Jelle1880 wrote: »

bobbysands81 wrote: »

What do you think about Rangers organising a charity match and pocketing the proceeds?

Any truth in the rumours about the poppy appeal money?

It's the Rangers Charity Foundation who will say that they will donate the money to Rangers, that's different than Rangers organising something and pocketing the proceeds right away.

What rumours are those ?

So are Rangers now officially a charity case?

bobbysands81

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

So are Rangers now officially a charity case?

Do the rules of the charity allow such corporate donations?

bobbysands81

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

So are Rangers now officially a charity case?

Rangers are like a two bit whore these days hocking themselves all over the place for a few quid, jumping into bed with all sorts of dodgy characters whilst winking at other dodgy potential suitors.

Eirebear

Whilst i'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of taking money from the charity foundation, it's not exactly as if we're the first team which has held a benefit game in order to keep the wolves from the door.
The Foundation will also still be recieving a cut of the money according to their website, plus - Without Rangers FC, the "Rangers Charity Foundation" wouldnt exactly be viable either would it?

bobbysands81

Eirebear wrote: »

Whilst i'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of taking money from the charity foundation, it's not exactly as if we're the first team which has held a benefit game in order to keep the wolves from the door.
The Foundation will also still be recieving a cut of the money according to their website, plus - Without Rangers FC, the "Rangers Charity Foundation" wouldnt exactly be viable either would it?

So if John O'Shea of GOAL embezzled money from the charity it's ok because GOAL wouldn't exist without him?

Eirebear

bobbysands81 wrote: »

So if John O'Shea of GOAL embezzled money from the charity it's ok because GOAL wouldn't exist without him?

Who's embezzling anything?

It's all very clear and public.

Rangers Football Club has confirmed the glamour legends friendly with AC Milan Glorie at Ibrox Stadium on Friday 30 March 2012 will go ahead with revenue from the match being split between the Club, the Rangers Charity Foundation and the AC Milan Foundation.

Ever think of writing for the Sun Bobby?

Pompey Magnus

Eirebear wrote: »

Whilst i'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of taking money from the charity foundation, it's not exactly as if we're the first team which has held a benefit game in order to keep the wolves from the door.

Yes but how many teams run a benefit game through a charity, thus availing of the many tax exemptions that charities have access to? If Rangers get away with this then why wouldn't every team just do the same, maximise their profits at the expense of HMRC?

Eirebear

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Yes but how many teams run a benefit game through a charity, thus availing of the many tax exemptions that charities have access to? If Rangers get away with this then why wouldn't every team just do the same, maximise their profits at the expense of HMRC?

Look, I don't claim to understand the legalities of it all - however i doubt that A. The Charity and B. The Administrators would be looking to put themselves in a position where things end up even murkier than they are.

The rhetoric on here is the usual from certain people, Rangers are not stealing anything.

bobmalooka

Eirebear wrote: »

Look, I don't claim to understand the legalities of it all - however i doubt that A. The Charity and B. The Administrators would be looking to put themselves in a position where things end up even murkier than they are.

The rhetoric on here is the usual from certain people, Rangers are not stealing anything.

Its another tax scam, If the game was run by the club they would be liable to pay tax. Its being run by a charity to avoid paying tax even though profits are going to a private company.

Working in accounting I can tell you EB that running profits through the books of a charity is tax evasion and HMRC will not let it go.

I'm amazed that the administrators would allow this arrangement to take place knowing that HMRC are breathing down their necks, I can only assume that they believe the charity would be liable for the inevitable legal challange.


The phrase in for a penny in for a pound springs to mind.

Eirebear

bobmalooka wrote: »

Its another tax scam, If the game was run by the club they would be liable to pay tax. Its being run by a charity to avoid paying tax even though profits are going to a private company.

Working in accounting I can tell you EB that running profits through the books of a charity is tax evasion and HMRC will not let it go.

I'm amazed that the administrators would allow this arrangement to take place knowing that HMRC are breathing down their necks, I can only assume that they believe the charity would be liable for the inevitable legal challange.


The phrase in for a penny in for a pound springs to mind.

The game was organised long ago mate - it's not just came to light.

I'm working under the assumption that Rangers will have to pay tax on it, as it's not a charitable donation anymore.
Everyone else is jumping to conclusions the other way.

bobmalooka

Eirebear wrote: »

The game was organised long ago mate - it's not just came to light.

I'm working under the assumption that Rangers will have to pay tax on it, as it's not a charitable donation anymore.
Everyone else is jumping to conclusions the other way.

I know the game was organised long ago but from my reading of the statements issued it seems that the the proceeds of the game organised by the Rangers charity are being donated to Rangers (a private company) instead of registered charities.

This would be an illegal act. Not something a company relying on leniency from 3rd parties should be doing.

Everyone is jumping to conclusions the other way because Rangers have systematically cheated the tax system for 11 years.

I guess we wont know untill after the game , but I think its fair that people would question whats going on.

I'm not sure why you seem put out by people bringing it up given that playing games with the tax system is what has your club on its knees.

lubo_moravcik

Eirebear wrote: »

The game was organised long ago mate
- it's not just came to light.
[/B]
I'm working under the assumption that Rangers will have to pay tax on it, as it's not a charitable donation anymore.
Everyone else is jumping to conclusions the other way.

What game was it and has it/when was it played?

lubo_moravcik

Dunfermline have losses of £189,000 for the year, how much do Rangers owe them?

Eirebear

bobmalooka wrote: »

I know the game was organised long ago but from my reading of the statements issued it seems that the the proceeds of the game organised by the Rangers charity are being donated to Rangers (a private company) instead of registered charities.

This would be an illegal act. Not something a company relying on leniency from 3rd parties should be doing.

Everyone is jumping to conclusions the other way because Rangers have systematically cheated the tax system for 11 years.

I guess we wont know untill after the game , but I think its fair that people would question whats going on.

I'm not sure why you seem put out by people bringing it up given that playing games with the tax system is what has your club on its knees.

Firstly - I'm not getting put out by people questioning it, i'm simply putting the point forward that the usual suspects are jumping to conclusions and using terms such as "Embezzlement" is simply ridiculous.

As far as i can tell the game was organised by Rangers Football Club, for the charity, not by the charity and as such the Charity have offered to take a cut in the percentage of profits which were supposed to go to them in order to help the club.
The AC Milan Charity will still recieve their full share, while the Rangers charity will take a smaller cut.

I don't particularly see anything wrong with that reading of it.

That said, you are indeed correct - none of us will know anything untill afterwards. But it seems to me that this has been done in a public enough manner to suspect that it is above board.

If Whyte was still calling the shots, i'd be more cynical however i don't see what the administrators would have to gain from this move.

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

What game was it and has it/when was it played?

Rangers legends V AC Miland legends. Will be played on 30th March.

Dempsey

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17210537

Dunfermline players and staff have not been paid their full February wages.

The Fife club are suffering from a cash flow problem and some players have received only 60% of their salaries.

Dunfermline are still waiting for £85,000 from Rangers for tickets sold by the Ibrox club to their fans for a match at East End Park on 11 February.

And club chairman John Yorkston told BBC Scotland: "The Rangers situation has had a knock-on effect. I can confirm full wages were not paid."

The effect of Rangers cheating begins to take its toll on other SPL clubs. Can Rangers not pay back £85k? FFS!

Rangers mismanagement

KeithAFC

Dempsey wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17210537



The effect of Rangers cheating begins to take its toll on other SPL clubs. Can Rangers not pay back £85k? FFS!

Rangers mismanagement

Nope. Have no money. We need to survive in order to pay any clubs back. If we go out of business, they will never see this money.

bobmalooka

KeithAFC wrote: »

Nope. Have no money. We need to survive in order to pay any clubs back. If we go out of business, they will never see this money.

Wrong, the the rangers need to be wound up to stop them from doing even more businesses out of money, and they will be.

Red Crow

bobmalooka wrote: »

Wrong, the the rangers need to be wound up to stop them from doing even more businesses out of money, and they will be.

Couldn't Craig Whyte be also made personally liable for some of Rangers' debts?

Also aren't Rangers forced to pay off other football clubs before paying the remaining creditors under current SPL rules?

Eirebear

Havnt we spent years talking about Scottish Football's over reliance on Rangers and Celtic?

This was always going to happen one way or another.
When you have a league of 12, structuring everything around 2 clubs - it's only a mater of time before something goes horribly wrong.

Obviously, Rangers are not blameless in all of this, but let's face it -the SPL needs to take a long hard look at itself.

bobmalooka

Eirebear wrote: »

Havnt we spent years talking about Scottish Football's over reliance on Rangers and Celtic?

This was always going to happen one way or another.
When you have a league of 12, structuring everything around 2 clubs - it's only a mater of time before something goes horribly wrong.

Obviously, Rangers are not blameless in all of this, but let's face it -the SPL needs to take a long hard look at itself.

Ah now

KeithAFC

bobmalooka wrote: »

Wrong, the the rangers need to be wound up to stop them from doing even more businesses out of money, and they will be.

How on earth is it wrong? Logic says that if we go out of business, a lot of this money will never be payed back. We get it, you hate us. We know that.

bobmalooka

Eli Manning wrote: »

Couldn't Craig Whyte be also made personally liable for some of Rangers' debts?

Also aren't Rangers forced to pay off other football clubs before paying the remaining creditors under current SPL rules?

Dont worry the rules will be changed to help out

bobmalooka

KeithAFC wrote: »

How on earth is it wrong? Logic says that if we go out of business, a lot of this money will never be payed back. We get it, you hate us. We know that.

Wrong in the sense that its the best course of action, sorry that wasnt clear. Rangers are taking the piss with their treatment of creditors and it would be a dangerous precedent to forgive their debt.

Rangers cant stay in business without their debt being written off.

KeithAFC

bobmalooka wrote: »

Wrong in the sense that its the best course of action, sorry that wasnt clear. Rangers are taking the piss with their treatment of creditors and it would be a dangerous precedent to forgive their debt.

Rangers cant stay in business without their debt being written off.

What I said wasn't wrong though. Perhaps you should re word your post.

Eirebear

bobmalooka wrote: »

Ah now

Ah now what?

It's perfectly clear - obviously, even discounting the tax case, Rangers have put themselves in this mess, therefore they are not blameless in any way.

However to put it simply down as all being Rangers fault is completely wrong given the rest of Scottish Football's over dependance on rangers and celtic.

It's not exactly rocket science. If Dunfermline have relied too much on the cash cow that is/was "The Old Firm" especially given the widely reported monetary issues at Ibrox over the past 5 years or so, then surely their own mismanagement comes into play too?
We all knew thar rangers and administration was a distinct possibility, are we to believe that it is all a big surprise to Dunfermline and Co.?

Dempsey

So basically, Dunfermline should have done what Celtic are currently doing to Rangers!

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

So basically, Dunfermline should have done what Celtic are currently doing to Rangers!

I don't have an issue with the fact that Celtic asked for the money up front, it happens in business all the time.
GAME are a perfect example of it at the moment in that they cannot take pre-orders for upcoming releases due to the publishers with holding their credit - Celtic done a similar thing, and it wouldnt have been a big deal if the record hadnt scandalised it with talk of "100 yr old agreements" etc.

However, this is about more than simply that one game - clubs like Dinfermline have been living hand to mouth when it comes to Rangers and Celtic games for decades now.

I've said all along that Rangers issues will affect the league massively, yet for some reason people are in denial about the knock on effects it will have.

Fuhrer

Eirebear wrote: »

I don't have an issue with the fact that Celtic asked for the money up front, it happens in business all the time.
GAME are a perfect example of it at the moment in that they cannot take pre-orders for upcoming releases due to the publishers with holding their credit - Celtic done a similar thing, and it wouldnt have been a big deal if the record hadnt scandalised it with talk of "100 yr old agreements" etc.

However, this is about more than simply that one game - clubs like Dinfermline have been living hand to mouth when it comes to Rangers and Celtic games for decades now.

I've said all along that Rangers issues will affect the league massively, yet for some reason people are in denial about the knock on effects it will have.

well, in that case we better have a quick whip around and bail Rangers out, lest they not pay their bills and **** the other clubs out of their money.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

I don't have an issue with the fact that Celtic asked for the money up front, it happens in business all the time.
GAME are a perfect example of it at the moment in that they cannot take pre-orders for upcoming releases due to the publishers with holding their credit - Celtic done a similar thing, and it wouldnt have been a big deal if the record hadnt scandalised it with talk of "100 yr old agreements" etc.

However, this is about more than simply that one game - clubs like Dinfermline have been living hand to mouth when it comes to Rangers and Celtic games for decades now.

I've said all along that Rangers issues will affect the league massively, yet for some reason people are in denial about the knock on effects it will have.

I'm well aware of the knock effect but I think its a necessary evil to force through much needed changes that have reached stalemate. The current form of the SPL needs to die more so than Rangers

Eirebear

Fuhrer wrote: »

well, in that case we better have a quick whip around and bail Rangers out, lest they not pay their bills and **** the other clubs out of their money.

**** me, sometimes it's impossible to actually have a conversation around here.

What makes Rangers different from any other business that goes into administration? It happens all the time.

Do you think Dundee payed all their debts in full on the two occasions they went into administration? or Livingstone? Or Motherwell?
Where you on here ranting and raving about them?

Put your hatred to the side for a few minutes, then we'll chat about the state of play on a wider scale.

bobmalooka

KeithAFC wrote: »

What I said wasn't wrong though. Perhaps you should re word your post.

I'm not sure if you understand how this works or not.

Dunfermline will never get that money because they are a long way back on the list of unsecured creditors.

For Rangers to stay in business that debt needs to written off, so whether Rangers stay or go they wont get paid. Only HMRC and Craig White have any chance of getting money off Rangers.

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

I'm well aware of the knock effect but I think its a necessary evil to force through much needed changes that have reached stalemate. The current form of the SPL needs to die more so than Rangers

Without a doubt.

In many ways this could have happened 20 years ago prior to Fergus McCann stepping in at Celtic.
It just so happens that since then it is us who have been mismanaged and during that time scottish football has become even more reliant on the two Glasgow clubs.

Wether Rangers go into liquidation or not, this has to be a huge wake up call for everyone involved.

KeithAFC

bobmalooka wrote: »

I'm not sure if you understand how this works or not.

Dunfermline will never get that money because they are a long way back on the list of unsecured creditors.

For Rangers to stay in business that debt needs to written off, so whether Rangers stay or go they wont get paid. Only HMRC and Craig White have any chance of getting money off Rangers.

The point is they could get paid if we do survive and start making money again. Then the club over many years can pay the money back. They will never get that money if the club doesn't survive. That is the key difference.

bobmalooka

Eirebear wrote: »

I don't have an issue with the fact that Celtic asked for the money up front, it happens in business all the time.
GAME are a perfect example of it at the moment in that they cannot take pre-orders for upcoming releases due to the publishers with holding their credit - Celtic done a similar thing, and it wouldnt have been a big deal if the record hadnt scandalised it with talk of "100 yr old agreements" etc.

However, this is about more than simply that one game - clubs like Dinfermline have been living hand to mouth when it comes to Rangers and Celtic games for decades now.

I've said all along that Rangers issues will affect the league massively, yet for some reason people are in denial about the knock on effects it will have.

I agree with what your saying, the current league structure is bad for everybody. I think you misunderstand some comments about the knock on affects, its the wake up call scottish football needs and i believe the spl will be better for it in the long run.

Rangers need to die for the long term good of the spl (ye'll be back in no time in a healthier state competing with healthier clubs) because sweeping this mess under the carpet means nothing will have been fixed

KeithAFC

Rangers need to die for the long term good of the spl (ye'll be back in no time in a healthier state competing with healthier clubs) because sweeping this mess under the carpet means nothing will have been fixed

Nonsense.

That will be the end of the SPL.

bobmalooka

KeithAFC wrote: »

The point is they could get paid if we do survive and start making money again. Then the club over many years can pay the money back. They will never get that money if the club doesn't survive. That is the key difference.

you cant exit administration without the debt being resolved.

i understand your point but dunfermline cant get paid till hmrc do. hmrc are demanding their money now.

everybody owed more than 85k can demand to be paid before them. 50+ million needs to come in quickly or all the debt gets written off for Rangers to continue

I honestly think its in everyones interests for Rangers to wind up and start again.

Short term pain for long term gain

bobmalooka

KeithAFC wrote: »

Nonsense.

That will be the end of the SPL.

In its current state.

lubo_moravcik

Eirebear wrote: »

bobmalooka wrote: »

I know the game was organised long ago but from my reading of the statements issued it seems that the the proceeds of the game organised by the Rangers charity are being donated to Rangers (a private company) instead of registered charities.

This would be an illegal act. Not something a company relying on leniency from 3rd parties should be doing.

Everyone is jumping to conclusions the other way because Rangers have systematically cheated the tax system for 11 years.

I guess we wont know untill after the game , but I think its fair that people would question whats going on.

I'm not sure why you seem put out by people bringing it up given that playing games with the tax system is what has your club on its knees.

Firstly - I'm not getting put out by people questioning it, i'm simply putting the point forward that the usual suspects are jumping to conclusions and using terms such as "Embezzlement" is simply ridiculous.

As far as i can tell the game was organised by Rangers Football Club, for the charity, not by the charity and as such the Charity have offered to take a cut in the percentage of profits which were supposed to go to them in order to help the club.
The AC Milan Charity will still recieve their full share, while the Rangers charity will take a smaller cut.

I don't particularly see anything wrong with that reading of it.

That said, you are indeed correct - none of us will know anything untill afterwards. But it seems to me that this has been done in a public enough manner to suspect that it is above board.

If Whyte was still calling the shots, i'd be more cynical however i don't see what the administrators would have to gain from this move.

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

What game was it and has it/when was it played?

Rangers legends V AC Miland legends. Will be played on 30th March.

I thought it had been played already. Given its still to come then, surely since the money is now going to rangers and not the charity that full tax will just be paid then rather than allow the exemptions. No big deal, pay your taxes as normal.

How much are tickets by the way?

Dempsey

KeithAFC wrote: »

Nonsense.

That will be the end of the SPL.

Good, the Scottish Game is in need of re-invention.

Pompey Magnus

KeithAFC wrote: »

Nope. Have no money.

Where did the Administrators find the money that let them okay the Cousin deal? As the deal didn't go ahead presumably there is at least 5k per week that is going spare so why not start paying off your debts to fellow SPL teams by installment?

The Daily Record claims 11 players to be let go today, if McCoist can keep 2nd place he will do well.