Rangers FC Off Field Discussion Thread.

weldoninhio

dreamers75 wrote: »

Do any Rangers fans comment on this? Or is it just Celtic fans?

Seems to be a train wreck of a thread.

Rangers fans prefer to pretend that everything is rosy an they are fully funded and everything will be fine.

Saadyst

Would be nice if you guys would provide some context or links to all of these court cases and problems that have been mentioned as of late..

weldoninhio

Saadyst wrote: »

Would be nice if you guys would provide some context or links to all of these court cases and problems that have been mentioned as of late..

www.google.com

themont85

The Rangers situation is fascinating. I can't keep up with all the people suing, countersuing and with their fingers in the pie but it's very interesting all the same.

I read today that the 5 million Dave King said was in the bank and ready to be paid to Sports Direct has not being paid and there is 4.5 million there.

bobbysands81

themont85 wrote: »

The Rangers situation is fascinating. I can't keep up with all the people suing, countersuing and with their fingers in the pie but it's very interesting all the same.

I read today that the 5 million Dave King said was in the bank and ready to be paid to Sports Direct has not being paid and there is 4.5 million there.

Dave King has a history of lying to the judiciary. A South African judge called him a glib and shameless liar.

bobbysands81

Charles Green in court today looking for Rangers to pay his legal costs.

A Dub in Glasgo

So Rangers have taken out a loan of £6.5m to repay the previous loan of £5m from Ashley

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14177708.Rangers_take_out_new___6_5_million_loan_to_pay_off_Mike_Ashley/

weldoninhio

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So Rangers have taken out a loan of £6.5m to repay the previous loan of £5m from Ashley

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14177708.Rangers_take_out_new___6_5_million_loan_to_pay_off_Mike_Ashley/

How many loans is that that they've gotten to pay off previous loans, each time the debt gets higher and higher.

Laois_Man

On the 45th anniversary, RIP to the 66

A Dub in Glasgo

Whole load in the High Court today with some serious allegations of fraud, if found guilty, the whole thing could get messy for the current Rangers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35235611

12.CW, GW, DW, PC, CG & IA conspired to defraud creditors by purchasing the club’s business and assets significantly below market value.

13.CW, GW, DW, PC, CG & IA participated in a conspiracy to purchase the business and assets of the club depriving creditors of the rightful sums due to them and the material benefit going to themselves

Amazingly, there were no questions asked in the media at the time of the Rangers liquidation about how 'an asset rich' company could be sold for just £5.5m. I did post the following in the appropriate thread here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79367508&postcount=3378

A Dub in Glasgo

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14198666.Rangers_fight___300_000_arrestment_of_funds_by_WiFi_firm_over_fears_of_club_insolvency/

bobbysands81

Took this from the HB, anyone know what it's about?

"Court of session, misuse of the company act, Lord woolman the judge"

bobbysands81

2 cases tomorrow in court.

Charles Green back in court against them and the lads who put the wi-fi into the stadium want paying.

TheBuilder

Can't believe this thread even exists, but at the same time I'm not surprised at the one sided posting involved.

So the Wi-Fi guys wanted paying, despite knowingly installing a product which was never going to work and charging about 5 times the price it actually cost, funnily enough pals of the Easdale's involved. The club well within their rights to challenge it.

Charles Green laughed out of court.

Mike Ashley and Sports Direct ripped apart in court with their attempts to get King jailed etc, why no mention on this Celtic fans? After all your the set of fans that funded that journalist's trips to court to cover this case because you all expected King to get locked up?

Might be worth you following up all your posts about these court cases with the actual results of them, and not just the one's that suit you.

weldoninhio

Lord Malcolm says Rangers only talked about two different entities 'so they could still say they won the league" - Judge today was on the ball

Coillte_Bhoy

No-one knows what the Rangers football club is

:pac:

Dempsey

In legal terms, its a different club. It has bought the assets & intellectual property of another entity. Only idiots will say different. The SFA, SPL and UEFA have not only failed to protect fans from unscrupulous businessmen, they have been complicit in allowing them to misrepresent the truth in the name of making money.

Its not even funny anymore how bad this situation is anymore. Oh how hard I have laughed at the delusion but its has damaged the Scottish Game almost beyond repair. The final nail in the coffin will be the expansion of the league to a 16 club top tier for all the wrong reasons.

weldoninhio

£29m in debt so far, up to June 2015. And that's even after Sports Directs £5m was paid back. The old financial advisors must have TUPE'd over.

bobbysands81

Resolution 11 fails by 0.4%.

No new share issue unless current shareholders get option to keep the share they currently have.

Difficult to see how Rangers get out of this hole, completely reliant on generosity of sugar daddies.

Some talk that they will also fall foul of UEFA rules for fair play so won't play in Europe even if they qualify.

blahfckingblah

HMRC won the big tax case. No appeal possible.

A Dub in Glasgo

Guilty as sin

PauloMN

IMO, the SFA should now strip Rangers of titles/cups won by cheating. To not do so is basically saying it's ok to cheat your way to titles.

Jelle1880

PauloMN wrote: »

IMO, the SFA should now strip Rangers of titles/cups won by cheating. To not do so is basically saying it's ok to cheat your way to titles.

They already said no trophies will be stripped and they will only look at Lord Nimmo Smith's verdict.

You could of course write an angry letter.
Or a blog post.
Maybe change your Facebook picture.

Berserker

Jelle1880 wrote: »

They already said no titles will be stripped.
You could of course write an angry letter.
Or a blog post.

I reckon they'll opt for a banner instead. They love a good banner.

Savage Tyrant

blahfckingblah wrote: »

HMRC won the big tax case. No appeal possible.

Ouch. Their most embarrassing defeat in the last 12 hours.

Jelle1880

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

Ouch. Their most embarrassing defeat in the last 12 hours.

Surely it's the old club ?

PauloMN

Berserker wrote: »

I reckon that'll opt for a banner instead. They love a good banner.

Nah, a green boot ban and some WATP posters is the order of the day I reckon. Worked wonders last night.

LiamoSail

So what was the final tax bill that the dead club left behind? Something in the region of £70m?

They cheated the crown, the tax payer and the league. This being the cause of their death is probably a fitting eulogy to the most bigoted, cheating and tax dodging football club that has ever existed in the uk.

Savage Tyrant

PauloMN wrote: »

IMO, the SFA should now strip Rangers of titles/cups won by cheating. To not do so is basically saying it's ok to cheat your way to titles.

100% that is what should happen. Let's be honest though, I can't see it happening. It's not very likely.
But now all argument has been removed. WE know they cheated. THEY know they cheated. Everyone in the footballing community in Scotland and many outside of it are aware of it too....
Follow follow forums thread is hilarious. (Yes, I lurk, why wouldn't I?) Comment after comment "That's the oldco and doesn't affect us" ... That's hilarious, but it's not wrong either. If they don't care about the debts, then they shouldn't care about the trophies then either cause in most people's opinions wether it's 5 or 54, NONE of them truly belong to the current club.
Let them continue pretending. WE know. THEY know. That's what matters.

A Dub in Glasgo

Jelle1880 wrote: »

They already said no trophies will be stripped and they will only look at Lord Nimmo Smith's verdict.

LNS verdict is now null and void as it was predilected on EBTs being tax compliant

Jelle1880

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

100% that is what should happen. Let's be honest though, I can't see it happening. It's not very likely.
But now all argument has been removed. WE know they cheated. THEY know they cheated. Everyone in the footballing community in Scotland and many outside of it are aware of it too....
Follow follow forums thread is hilarious. (Yes, I lurk, why wouldn't I?) Comment after comment "That's the oldco and doesn't affect us" ... That's hilarious, but it's not wrong either. If they don't care about the debts, then they shouldn't care about the trophies then either cause in most people's opinions wether it's 5 or 54, NONE of them truly belong to the current club.
Let them continue pretending. WE know. THEY know. That's what matters.

That post shows you still haven't got the slightest idea what this was about, at this moment it is 'only' an unpaid tax bill. Once HMRC bill this to BDO and it's paid (sort of, probably pennies on the pound) that's that. You can howl at the moon all you want about cheating.

The use of EBT's wasn't illegal, unless I missed the criminal proceedings that went on afterwards. The issue was whether tax was due on them or not, it was deemed that it was so now a backdated bill will be sent to BDO and it will be paid (sort of), and that will be that. There's a reason it's called tax avoidance and not evasion.

Any wrongdoing by Rangers has already been dealt with under SPL rules.

Cheating is knowingly doing something illegal or unlawful (tax avoidance is neither) to gain an advantage. Rangers were given legal advice back then that everything was above board (which is also why everything regarding the EBT's appeared in the accounts), and it can't be proven that the players Rangers signed in that period wouldn't have signed for Rangers if the EBT scheme wasn't in place.

But sure, 'you were pyoor cheated annat'.
Maybe your fans can write to UEFA about it again.

Savage Tyrant

You had players on the park you couldn't afford to pay legally... dress it up how you like, but even an idiot can see that amounts to a sporting advantage... and from a rivals perspective, that's what it boils down to. I don't care about the tax bill owed that won't be paid... or even the poor independent small business creditors yous screwed. I care about the fact we had to play against a club that was cheating by paying players they couldn't afford.
I've said that I don't expect to see titles stripped (though they should be) and I definitely don't want them reallocated to us or anyone else who were beaten on the pitch. But we all know it amounts to cheating. That's not even debatable anymore.

Jelle1880

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

You had players on the park you couldn't afford to pay legally... dress it up how you like, but even an idiot can see that amounts to a sporting advantage... and from a rivals perspective, that's what it boils down to. I don't care about the tax bill owed that won't be paid... or even the poor independent small business creditors yous screwed. I care about the fact we had to play against a club that was cheating by paying players they couldn't afford.
I've said that I don't expect to see titles stripped (though they should be) and I definitely don't want them reallocated to us or anyone else who were beaten on the pitch. But we all know it amounts to cheating. That's not even debatable anymore.

There is absolutely no way you can say that for certain. And what the hell is this obsession with 'legal' ? EBT's were legal back then, that is documented fact.
If the club hadn't used EBT's there could have been other ways to get those players. Soft loans, building up debt,...

That's not cheating, that's just bad management. Rangers under Murray took legal counsel and took their word for it, that turned out to be wrong. You're desperately making it out as if they set up the EBT scheme despite knowing it was wrong and deliberately cheating, which simply isn't the case.
Or are you saying that if Rangers had paid more tax Scott McDonald wouldn't have scored twice in 2005 ?

If you use a scheme that at the time is lawful, how can you even remotely say it's cheating ? It's only after HMRC closed the loophole that it became unlawful, after which Rangers stopped using it.

Seems like the SFA had their say already:

The Board of the Scottish FA notes the judgment of the Supreme Court and wishes to clarify the implications of this final legal decision from a football regulatory perspective.

In light of the Inner House of the Court of Session decision, the Board of the Scottish FA sought external senior counsel opinion to ensure a robust and independent consideration of all implications of today’s judgment.

The Board received written advice from Senior Counsel, amplified when the QC attended a full meeting of the Board to discuss his conclusions.

Specifically, Senior Counsel was asked to anticipate whether a determination in favour of HMRC, as announced today, could imply that there had been a breach of the Scottish FA’s Disciplinary Rules as they applied at the time of the EBT payments.

The clear opinion of Senior Counsel is that there is a very limited chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any complaint regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would also be limited in their scope.

Accordingly, having had time to consider the opinion from Senior Counsel, and having examined the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, the Board has determined that no further disciplinary action should be taken by the Scottish FA at this time.

LiamoSail

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Cheating is knowingly doing something illegal or unlawful.

Just on this point, the side letters weren't disclosed to the SFA because paying players through such was against the league rules. This is cheating

Broxi_Bear_Eire

LiamoSail wrote: »

Just on this point, the side letters weren't disclosed to the SFA because paying players through such was against the league rules. This is cheating

Which the club was fined for

LiamoSail

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Which the club was fined for

My point is that they hid it because to disclose would have shown they were paying players they couldn't afford within the rules. This is cheating.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

LiamoSail wrote: »

My point is that they hid it because to disclose would have shown they were paying players they couldn't afford within the rules. This is cheating.[/QUOTE
That's supposition no one knowns that for fact.

Berserker

Have to say that the reaction of tic fans to the decision earlier today has taken my mind off that debacle last night and cheered me up. Some outrageous nonsense coming from them.

bobmalooka

Fantastic nonsense here tonight.

Non-disclosure puts the directors in breach of company law. It'll never be prosecuted because the substantive issue is setting the precedent on EBT's accruing tax.

There's no doubt law was broken - its highly unlikely to be pursued. Split the hairs as you like.

Nothing a few WATP posters in the dressing rooms won't fix anyway

Savage Tyrant

Berserker wrote: »

Have to say that the reaction of tic fans to the decision earlier today has taken my mind off that debacle last night and cheered me up. Some outrageous nonsense coming from them.

That's nice... We've had plenty to be cheery about ourselves in recent times.

Berserker

Berserker wrote: »

Have to say that the reaction of tic fans to the decision earlier today has taken my mind off that debacle last night and cheered me up. Some outrageous nonsense coming from them.

You've little to be cheered up about. 'EBT' 'Rangers' and 'tax avoidance' will feature in the same sentences for many years to come. The club will never be free of the association with wrong doing no matter how many times you attempt to deflect. It's like witnessing a version of a Russian maskirovka.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Deleted User wrote: »

You've little to be cheered up about. 'EBT' 'Rangers' and 'tax avoidance' will feature in the same sentences for many years to come. The club will never be free of the association with wrong doing no matter how many times you attempt to deflect. It's like witnessing a version of a Russian maskirovka.

Only because idiot like yourself want to cRy about it with monotonous regularity

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Only because idiot like yourself want to cRy about it with monotonous regularity

Good lad. Thanks for proving my point......

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Deleted User wrote: »

Good lad. Thanks for proving my point......

;)

weldoninhio

Jelle1880 wrote: »

That post shows you still haven't got the slightest idea what this was about, at this moment it is 'only' an unpaid tax bill. Once HMRC bill this to BDO and it's paid (sort of, probably pennies on the pound) that's that. You can howl at the moon all you want about cheating.

The use of EBT's wasn't illegal, unless I missed the criminal proceedings that went on afterwards. The issue was whether tax was due on them or not, it was deemed that it was so now a backdated bill will be sent to BDO and it will be paid (sort of), and that will be that. There's a reason it's called tax avoidance and not evasion.

Any wrongdoing by Rangers has already been dealt with under SPL rules.

Cheating is knowingly doing something illegal or unlawful (tax avoidance is neither) to gain an advantage. Rangers were given legal advice back then that everything was above board (which is also why everything regarding the EBT's appeared in the accounts), and it can't be proven that the players Rangers signed in that period wouldn't have signed for Rangers if the EBT scheme wasn't in place.

But sure, 'you were pyoor cheated annat'.
Maybe your fans can write to UEFA about it again.

All wage payments to players must be declared to the SPL. These EBT payments have now been proven in the Supreme Court as being wages, rather than "loans". Incomplete paper work means the players were ineligible to play, the punishment for playing ineligible players is normally a 3-0 loss.

Regarding the legality of EBT's, the SUPREME COURT has literally stated yesterday that they were illegal.

"and it can't be proven that the players Rangers signed in that period wouldn't have signed for Rangers if the EBT scheme wasn't in place" and as for this nonsense, how about "So far as Rangers was concerned it enabled the club to attract players who WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN OBTAINABLE" - quote directly from Rangers Chairman Sir David Murray, at the First Tier Tax tribunal.

"If we didn't pay the same kind of money Celtic paid their players we would have been behind them" - EBT recipient and former Rangers manager Alec McLeish when asked about EBT's on BBC Documentary.

Jelle1880

weldoninhio wrote: »

All wage payments to players must be declared to the SPL. These EBT payments have now been proven in the Supreme Court as being wages, rather than "loans". Incomplete paper work means the players were ineligible to play, the punishment for playing ineligible players is normally a 3-0 loss.

Regarding the legality of EBT's, the SUPREME COURT has literally stated yesterday that they were illegal.

"and it can't be proven that the players Rangers signed in that period wouldn't have signed for Rangers if the EBT scheme wasn't in place"[/B] and as for this nonsense, how about "So far as Rangers was concerned it enabled the club to attract players who WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN OBTAINABLE" - quote directly from Rangers Chairman Sir David Murray, at the First Tier Tax tribunal.

"If we didn't pay the same kind of money Celtic paid their players we would have been behind them" - EBT recipient and former Rangers manager Alec McLeish when asked about EBT's on BBC Documentary.

More lies. Yesterday wasn't about the legality of it, it has already been established in the past that EBT's were legal. That was made crystal clear before on several occasions, but you seem to deliberately ignore it.
The issue is how Rangers used the scheme and whether tax was due on it, not that they actually used it. And Rangers were punished for that under the LNS ruling (which, contrary to what you believe wasn't overruled). The rules meant that because they were still registered they were eligible to play as the SPL did not have provisions in place to retrospectively remove a player's registration. They could remove a player's registration but not back-date it. That means that the players were eligible to play and legitimately registered. Non-disclosure of the letters was penalised with the £250,000 fine. Every Rangers player who had an EBT was eligible to play as they were registered, and that is fact.

And again (because you seem to be unable to comprehend this): Claiming Rangers could not have afforded those players otherwise is simply wrong. There's a lot of other ways to get players if you don't actually have the money for it. Rangers chose to use the then-legal way of EBT's, other clubs used soft loans, taking on extra debt,...

You seem to love focusing on the 'you used players you couldn't afford so you cheated', if you follow that argument then a massive amount of clubs world wide are cheats. Which of course is nonsense.

LiamoSail

Regarding the use of players Rangers couldn't afford, plenty of clubs do this as noted above. Gretna for example did it and went bust, yet retained the titles.

Look at clubs like Chelsea or Man City. Both signed players they couldn't afford, yet were financed by an external source. Considering the much malangeled term "sporting integrity", I don't see how City or Chelsea finding a benefactor that Rangers couldn't makes there wins fair yet Rangers unfair. On this basis, I don't think title stripping is justified.

Where I have an issue is in the manner Rangers paid players. EBTs are legal, and continue to be legal however Rangers disguised salaries as loans in a deliberate attempt to deceive HMRC. Rangers didn't use the legal EBT scheme, they abused the EBT scheme as part of a tax evasion strategy to give themselves a financial advantage others didn't have.

Without this scheme, Rangers wouldn't have had the side on the park they did.

The existence and non-disclosure of side letters to the SPL is evidence of this attempt at deception. It's this aspect i have difficulty with as its tantamount to cheating.

I certainly believe this justifies a debate about title stripping.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

LiamoSail wrote: »

Regarding the use of players Rangers couldn't afford, plenty of clubs do this as noted above. Gretna for example did it and went bust, yet retained the titles.

Look at clubs like Chelsea or Man City. Both signed players they couldn't afford, yet were financed by an external source. Considering the much malangeled term "sporting integrity", I don't see how City or Chelsea finding a benefactor that Rangers couldn't makes there wins fair yet Rangers unfair. On this basis, I don't think title stripping is justified.

Where I have an issue is in the manner Rangers paid players. EBTs are legal, and continue to be legal however Rangers disguised salaries as loans in a deliberate attempt to deceive HMRC. Rangers didn't use the legal EBT scheme, they abused the EBT scheme as part of a tax evasion strategy to give themselves a financial advantage others didn't have.

Without this scheme, Rangers wouldn't have had the side on the park they did.

The existence and non-disclosure of side letters to the SPL is evidence of this attempt at deception. It's this aspect i have difficulty with as its tantamount to cheating.

I certainly believe this justifies a debate about title stripping.

So we receive a fine for the side letters and you want us done again that is not how justice works or rather it's not supposed to. Unless you are a tic fan

weldoninhio

Jelle1880 wrote: »

More lies. Yesterday wasn't about the legality of it, it has already been established in the past that EBT's were legal. That was made crystal clear before on several occasions, but you seem to deliberately ignore it.
The issue is how Rangers used the scheme and whether tax was due on it, not that they actually used it. And Rangers were punished for that under the LNS ruling (which, contrary to what you believe wasn't overruled). The rules meant that because they were still registered they were eligible to play as the SPL did not have provisions in place to retrospectively remove a player's registration. They could remove a player's registration but not back-date it. That means that the players were eligible to play and legitimately registered. Non-disclosure of the letters was penalised with the £250,000 fine. Every Rangers player who had an EBT was eligible to play as they were registered, and that is fact.

And again (because you seem to be unable to comprehend this): Claiming Rangers could not have afforded those players otherwise is simply wrong. There's a lot of other ways to get players if you don't actually have the money for it. Rangers chose to use the then-legal way of EBT's, other clubs used soft loans, taking on extra debt,...

You seem to love focusing on the 'you used players you couldn't afford so you cheated', if you follow that argument then a massive amount of clubs world wide are cheats. Which of course is nonsense.

EBT's are legal when used correctly.

"HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS has claimed victory against Rangers FC after the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled the Glasgow club’s use of Employee Benefit Trusts to pay players and staff was illegal." - as reported broadly.

bobmalooka

Jelle1880 wrote: »

More lies. Yesterday wasn't about the legality of it, it has already been established in the past that EBT's were legal. That was made crystal clear before on several occasions, but you seem to deliberately ignore it.
The issue is how Rangers used the scheme and whether tax was due on it, not that they actually used it. And Rangers were punished for that under the LNS ruling (which, contrary to what you believe wasn't overruled). The rules meant that because they were still registered they were eligible to play as the SPL did not have provisions in place to retrospectively remove a player's registration. They could remove a player's registration but not back-date it. That means that the players were eligible to play and legitimately registered. Non-disclosure of the letters was penalised with the £250,000 fine. Every Rangers player who had an EBT was eligible to play as they were registered, and that is fact.

And again (because you seem to be unable to comprehend this): Claiming Rangers could not have afforded those players otherwise is simply wrong. There's a lot of other ways to get players if you don't actually have the money for it. Rangers chose to use the then-legal way of EBT's, other clubs used soft loans, taking on extra debt,...

You seem to love focusing on the 'you used players you couldn't afford so you cheated', if you follow that argument then a massive amount of clubs world wide are cheats. Which of course is nonsense.

It's much more simple - EBT's is and was legal. Not paying taxes on EBT's is and was illegal.