Jump to content

1690 Posts

Senior Member
  • Posts

    2,503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Boyne

Recent Profile Visitors

1,730 profile views

1690 Posts's Achievements

Star Player

Star Player (9/12)

-71

Reputation

  1. If you buy something that has a liability attached you also buy the liability. Green knew about the alleged dual contract allegations and that the SPL were requesting documentation from D&P, documentation D&P were withholding. So the investigation started prior to Green buying the titles.
  2. People need to stop burying their heads in the sand. I bet you were one of the ones who went raging at the record and BBC for attacking oor Craigy Whyte when what they were really doing was doing us a favour.
  3. So do you, of a lack of education. That and the sand you bury your head in.
  4. If we could have afforded those players, why did we have a humongous debt that we couldn't service? D&P put it at up to £134 million.
  5. This would mean no one could remove Lance Armstrong's tour de France titles because he isn't a member of any cycling bodies these days. But we know that's not the case.
  6. It reads: “The Commission has considered all the preliminary issues raised in the list submitted by Newco and points raised in letters from solicitors acting for Newco and for Oldco. It has decided: “1.The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions. “2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules, will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as they think fit. “3. Newco, as the current owner and operator of Rangers FC, although not alleged by the SPL to have committed any breach of SPL Rules, will also have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as it thinks fit. “4. Written reasons for this decision will be made available in due course.” The statement added: “Further to the decision made today the Commission make the following procedural orders: “1. We set a date for a hearing to commence on Tuesday 13 November 2012 with continuations from day to day as may be required until Friday 16 November 2012. We will also allocate Tuesday 20 and Wednesday 21 November 2012 as additional dates should any further continuation be required. “2. We direct that the solicitors for The Scottish Premier League Limited lodge any documents, additional to those already lodged, together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses by 4 pm on Friday 19 October 2012. “3. We direct that Oldco, Newco or any other person claiming an interest and wishing to appear and be represented at the hearing give intimation to that effect and lodge any documents together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses, all by 4 pm on Thursday 1 November 2012. “4. We direct that intimation of the aforesaid decision and of these directions be made to the solicitors for Oldco and Newco.” The outcome of the First Tier Tribunal covering the case against Rangers by HMRC has still to be announced.
  7. Andy Park ‏@radioandypark SPL independent commission have set the date for a hearing into Rangers alleged dual contracts. The hearing will commence on Tues 13th Nov. #Rangers hearing to commence on 13th November and last until 21st November. Oldco and newcomer invited invited to appear. Bbc chris
  8. hris McLaughlin ‏@BBCchrismclaug commission set up to investigate allegations of dual contracts at #Rangers throw out clubs protest over legal authority. Probe will continue Well put in their place...
  9. Chris McLaughlin ‏@BBCchrismclaug commission set up to investigate allegations of dual contracts at #Rangers throw out clubs protest over legal authority. Probe will continue
  10. The result of the 'big' tax case involving Rangers’ use of an offshore tax avoidance scheme is expected to be released next month. On Wednesday, the First Tier Tax Tribunal confirmed it hoped to conclude the long-running case in October. Rangers were found by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to have breached tax rules through their use of employee benefit trusts (EBTs) to pay players and directors between 2001 and 2010. The Ibrox club, then under the ownership of Sir David Murray, contested this, which resulted in the case being heard at the tribunal in Edinburgh. Hearings in the tax case concluded in January, but its findings were not reached by the time the Ibrox club plunged into administration on February 14 this year. A spokesman for the tax tribunal said the verdict in the case was expected next month but he "could not be more specific" than that. Insolvency firm Duff and Phelps was appointed to take over the running of the club after owner Craig Whyte had run up debts of up to £134m, including unpaid PAYE and VAT of £18m, which was deducted from employee’s wages but never paid to HMRC. According to Duff and Phelps, the outcome of the case could land Rangers with a bill of up to £75m should they fail in the appeal. Although virtually none of this would be repaid, it could possibly impact upon the liquidation of Rangers oldco, which will occur when neutral insolvency firm BDO are appointed in the future. It could give practitioners an opportunity to pursue those who received EBTs for repayment, to cover the costs of liquidation and to put some money towards the hundreds of creditors owed money. Mr Whyte purchased Sir David Murray’s 85% stake in Rangers for £1 last May and used a £25.3m deal with Ticketus for future Ibrox season tickets to pay off the club’s £18m debt to Lloyds Banking Group. Sir David has defended the use of EBTs at Rangers, which he also implemented to pay several executives at his own business, Murray International Holdings. The First Tier Tax Tribunal case is against both the Ibrox club and Sir David’s company. During his 22 years at Ibrox, the 60-year-old also oversaw the use of a discounted options scheme to pay players Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer between 2000 and 2003. This became the basis of the 'wee' tax case dispute between Rangers and HMRC. The club agreed to pay the tax authority around £3m for this, but it did not do so before calling in administrators. Rangers oldco failed to exit administration through a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) funded by the Sevco consortium in June after HMRC said the club had breached its rules on persistent non-payment of tax. The assets of the club, including Ibrox stadium and the Murray Park training ground, were purchased by the Charles Green-led Sevco group in a deal worth £5.5m, before they were then transferred to a newco.
  11. BBC Scotland has learned that a verdict on the First Tier Tax tribunal between Rangers and HM Revenue & Customs is expected in October. In 2010, the previous owners of Rangers contested an unpaid tax relating to the use of Employee Benefit Trusts, believed to be in the region on £49m. The club entered administration in February 2012 over a separate tax issue and applied for insolvency in July. The Scottish Courts Service said an announcement will be made next month.
  12. That statement concerns me a little, more for what he didn't say than what he did. Johnston had the opportunity there to deny the existence of second contracts (side letters), but he didn't and that's telling. He suggests the SFA were given all the information they asked for a couple of years ago, handed Rangers their licence to play and didn't instigate any investigation and his suggestion is that means they saw nothing wrong then so they should see nothing wrong now. But, were they given copies of the second contracts at the time? Lets be clear, giving players money via EBT's would not in itself fall foul of SPL rules. The only way to fall foul of the player registration is by not informing the SPL of all the contracted payments to players - second contracts. David Murray maintained, as recently as March this year, that the EBT's were not contractual and players never had second contracts therefore the SFA could not have been given evidence or information about second contracts at the time Johnstone was referring. Therefore they gave us a licence based on that information. So crucially, if there are second contracts - side letters, that have come to light recently then the SPL are within their rights to instigate an investigation and Alistair Johnston's piece was little more than an exercise in obfuscation.
  13. Flourish? You call the UK consistently languishing miles behind the Scandinavian countries in the standard of living index as "flourishing"? Bizarre stuff. Scotland would be run on a similar model to Scandinavia and would easily be placed higher than England and Wales on the standard of living index. Sure we'd have to create a few things but that's not something to either be afraid of or something to avoid. What we would avoid is the almost nazi like approach of successive Westminster governments when it comes to foreign countries and taking one in the ass from Republican maniacs in the USA so we can remain their bestest fweinds.
  14. Reply from Roger Mitchell. For someone who claimed the Scottish Premier League was a really bad idea a few weeks ago, I found myself surprised that I felt the strong urge to defend my former organisation in the face of the bombast from Charles Green. I truly hope by the time that this is read, someone officially representing the SPL will have done likewise. I ask myself, does Green actually buy this stuff? Let's take a look: Claim 1 Rangers ceased to be subject to the SPL's rules when they were ejected from their league. Fact Rangers oldco was not ejected from the SPL. The fact that Rangers went into liquidation automatically expelled them from the league. The SPL shareholders then decided not to make an exception and let them back in. Two very different things. Claim 2 The outcome of the SPL's process will have no legal effect. Fact What the SPL are deciding upon is whether their tournament and their trophy was assigned to the correct club in the years in question. The SPL have every right to examine whether participants in their competition behaved within the rules. And if they find they haven't, they can apply their rule book as recourse. More Green nonsense. I do, however, agree with him that "whatever decision they reach is a decision of the SPL". Indeed. But the SPL should be proud of that, and not hide behind the Law Lords. The SPL are examining the conduct of the participants in their competition well before Rangers went into liquidation, in particular the conduct of the club then owned by Sir David Murray, with the club secretary role (in charge of those player registrations) held by Campbell Ogilvie (whatever happened to him?). Charles Green and Sevco have nothing to do with this. Whatsoever. Claim 3 The new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies. Fact Green said on June 2012 that if his CVA proposal was to fail (which it did) and Rangers were to be liquidated (which they are), "the history, the tradition, everything that's great about this club is swept aside". Therefore he admits he has not purchased titles and trophies. Sevco has no titles and trophies. By the way, Charles, I would not provoke commentators like me to dig this up, because what you said is not what the Rangers fans want to hear now, as you now correctly realise. Let it lie, Charlie, let it lie. So, even one with a leaning towards Govan would argue that, under the most superficial scrutiny, Green's attack is less than robust. But sometimes you have to chuck a dog a bone. So, to be fair, Charlie is right with his complaint on the SPL's lack of consistency, Green states: "The SPL took part in discussions regarding the new company's league status, where 'the EBT issue' would be dealt with as part of a package of sanctions which would be implemented in return for membership. "We do not accept that people who are willing to come to an agreement on such matters then have a right to instigate a full-blown inquisition when matters do not unfold as they thought they would." Sadly this falls into the general shambles of the management of the affair by the SFA/SPL. I made my own view clear on the leadership of both bodies in the summer. But I cannot see how the credibility of the current process on a simple point of law over false registration of players with Employee Benefit Trusts (being handled by independent top QCs) can be derailed by claims that the prosecutor behaved incoherently months earlier. Good debating point, Charles, but it's not enough. Instead, all of us who love the game and who hold true sporting values in our Hearts (SFL3 feeder club) have a simple question: Did Rangers oldco gain unfair advantage by registering players on a basis where their full employment conditions were not declared to the SPL/SFA? In my mind the answer is undoubtedly 'yes'. But let's not forget the lessons of Versailles: bloodlust rebounds. The SPL enquiry punishment doesn't arouse great passion in me. And it shouldn't either for Celtic fans. For them I'd argue the victory is in the fact that their greatest rival died. The 125-year long struggle ended with the collapse of the adversary. The war was won. Achilles vanquished Hector. In closing, from Mark Anthony onwards history tells us that well-crafted oratory can influence the mob. While Charles Green is no great speaker or statesman, I must admit, he is no dummy. And there is no doubt that his audience is the mob, whose money and favour he needs in order to exit the Rangers investment project with a financial return. Stoking up hatred has always energised "the base", another example of which we saw in the Republican convention in these days. Well done, Charles. Initial Public Offering of shares here we come. For Scottish football, the days of enlightenment around the Tommy Burns funeral are long gone, and I fear the worst.
  15. Begs the question, would he then pay the tax bill in full should MIM lose the first tier tax case?
×
×
  • Create New...