Dave King statement on "Big tax case"

[dan_ger 1,454]

7 minutes ago, The Beast said:

It wasn't rocket science mate, it was probably the most important managerial appointment in our history. There was no room for risk.

King and his board fucked it up. End of story.

My understanding is, not that I'm itk, was that King was in favour of a established manager (safe pair of hands type). He was out voted by the board and went along with their choice (twice).

I'm not saying he's perfect but if the above was true, I simply wish he'd insisted and was as stubborn as he's proven to be with MA and SD. I think he's got better intuition with these decisions than the rest of the current board. 

[Brubear 2,935]

4 minutes ago, JCDBigBear said:

Actually the amount of tax saved by the employees (including the players) was only approx £19.1 million over 10 years.  Adding NICs would add approx £4 million I believe.   The Nimmo Smith inquiry document was very detailed.  

The EBT scheme was a clear case of tax avoidance and it was definitely not the (only) other alternative of tax evasion.  Tax evasion is a criminal offence and at all times in claims and appeals it has been stressed that this was not a case of tax evasion.  Nobody has or will be charged with tax evasion.   The total of the HMRC claim on average was only some £2.3 million per annum.   I would point out that the biggest recipient of cash from the EBT scheme was David Murray and that was by a considerable margin.

At no point have I mentioned tax evasion. I am very aware of the difference between avoidance and evasion. I am surprised the tax benefit was as little as £19.1m but as this is an exact figure I assume it has been quoted officially somewhere. The lower amount just makes my point even stronger.

Regarding the LNS document, did you read it, I confess I have not. If you have, did it link the fact we gained no sporting benefit to the fact we had won the first 2 tax tribunals or that we gained very little financial benefit from them.  

 

[McEwan's Lager 30,808]

Level5PR are actually earning their retainer, finally.

The most coherent and simple statement i've seen from the club / King in years.

[Brubear 2,935]

5 minutes ago, Ryju84 said:

With that amount of knowledge of Rangers finances you could actually pass for being a taig 

No just a sad accountant.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

Just now, plumbGER said:

He already has that influence imo

 

He doesn't have direct influence. He has to do it through a third party ie President of the SFA. If he becomes President he will have DIRECT influence on the SFA and who gets hired, fired, and blocked.

[plumbGER 24,518]

17 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

He doesn't have direct influence. He has to do it through a third party ie President of the SFA. If he becomes President he will have DIRECT influence on the SFA and who gets hired, fired, and blocked.

Direct or indirect it's all the same outcome.

Things haven't been right since the beggars forced the referee strike.

[there'sonlyoneamoruso 1,724]

5 hours ago, plumbGER said:

Could the SFA charge the beggars for bringing the game into disrepute by trying to influence matters?

Doubt it would happen but we could press for it.

 

That was my first reaction when I saw they had made a statement. They are too big for their boots and could do with being slapped down. It'll never happen tho...

[Sweetheart 8,458]

10 minutes ago, plumbGER said:

Direct or indirect it's all the same outcome.

Things haven't been right since the beggars forced the referee strike.

It is the same. but indirect influence means other people are involved. Having DIRECT influence means nobody will know his plans until it's too late. For example, the 'title stripping' this could carry on for years but at the moment Liewell has resistance to the idea, but if he was president he could work at it without people knowing what he's up to. I hope DK has enough dry powder to ensure Liewell doesn't gain this position.

 

[danger ranger 922]

21 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

It is the same. but indirect influence means other people are involved. Having DIRECT influence means nobody will know his plans until it's too late. For example, the 'title stripping' this could carry on for years but at the moment Liewell has resistance to the idea, but if he was president he could work at it without people knowing what he's up to. I hope DK has enough dry powder to ensure Liewell doesn't gain this position.

 

They have been undermining Scottish football for years and there is only one path to go down and that is to completely destroy the fabric of scottish football and we stand in their way.

A statement of defence is not nearly enough, a statement of attack is needed and the defence of scottish football will have to happen sooner than later, the three main clubs at the heart of the attacks are all of Catholic Irish origin and the origin of sectarianism in Scottish football, that's a revealing fact that all Rangers fans should know that they hate us with all their heart and soul.

 

[plumbGER 24,518]

1 hour ago, Sweetheart said:

It is the same. but indirect influence means other people are involved. Having DIRECT influence means nobody will know his plans until it's too late. For example, the 'title stripping' this could carry on for years but at the moment Liewell has resistance to the idea, but if he was president he could work at it without people knowing what he's up to. I hope DK has enough dry powder to ensure Liewell doesn't gain this position.

 

What legal grounds does Liewell have to pursue this?

What rule was broken?

None, he is playing to the gallery of the loeest common denominator in the beggar fanbase.

[plumbGER 24,518]

1 hour ago, there'sonlyoneamoruso said:

That was my first reaction when I saw they had made a statement. They are too big for their boots and could do with being slapped down. It'll never happen tho...

Yes mate, if any other club tried to tell the authorities what to do then they would be hit with a disrepute charge.

Maybe that is why they have their lapdogs, Dundee hivs-sheep-etc all hitting out now? Maybe realising they have left themselves open to a charge? Can't charge them all can they? Not if they stick together.

[To Be A Ranger 4,032]

Good for King. About time we kicked these fuckers. Hope the club now realises there's no bridge building with anybody in Scottish football. Every one of them want to rip into us at any opportunity. All these clubs missed the blue pound when we were away so if they want to play with the big boys (or wee boys in the case of the taigs) we starve them of our support . I'm not for boycotts  but if it means showing them we've had enough then we don't take tickets for away grounds.

[thebooler 4,509]

4 hours ago, Lord Lockin said:

The one about away games I've been saying that on other threads and getting dogs abuse for it but I think the sooner we do it the better, with the backing of the club

It would only take 2 or 3 games, and we'd have the SFA, SPFL, and anybody else who cares about football eating out of our hands.

In my opinion, this is what Club1872 and SoS should all be about.

Attacking our enemies, strengthening our support, and doing everything and anything that needs done to let people know that we really are the people. We support a British club, we're very proud of that fact. We support our friends across the water, and our friends in other far off lands, and we'll sing our songs in support of them.

We need to get back to being the people, and the supporters of the club that is known of, and famous worldwide.

We need to bring an end to the charade that is club1872. We need to make sure the RST really are finished. We need to make sure our Board are transparent.

In other words, we need to be together as one, and we need to be singing from the same hymn sheet as one.

No hangers on. No blue pound chasers being accommodated by our club. Support the club, or don't support it.

But if you do, you're there to give, not take. Unless you're taking the enjoyment of supporting the team, and being able to tell people when you go on holiday "I'm a Rangers supporter" with pride.

It'll be a long road, but it can be travelled quickly with a unified support.

It's no good one group constantly taking the fight to our enemies - we all must do so.

[thebooler 4,509]

4 hours ago, siddiqi_drinker said:

Not a fan of King but all in all a good statement and to the point.  Nice he mentioned the benefits to the Murray Group of the EBT's.  Most umbrella companies work on a commission basis, wonder how much MIM Group, who set up the EBTs, raked in over the years?  

Hope the supporters who buy/hit the Record and BBC take on board his message about the media, would love a concerted campaign to put the Record out of business.   

That's no fair. The Dude has a family tae feed. Then again, he's got 4 hens.

[harry handsome 629]

Thats a pretty decent statement from DK - what would be good is for a clear rundown on the numbers of tax avoided, i.e. tax avoided on income of X =Y is that out there for consumption, not the seville version.

 

[thebooler 4,509]

2 hours ago, Sweetheart said:

He doesn't have direct influence. He has to do it through a third party ie President of the SFA. If he becomes President he will have DIRECT influence on the SFA and who gets hired, fired, and blocked.

You don't seem to have too much knowledge of how committees operate sweetheart.

[Drunk and disorderly. 14,590]

Very good work by King.

[The Specky Forum Organiser 65,707]

13 minutes ago, thebooler said:

It would only take 2 or 3 games, and we'd have the SFA, SPFL, and anybody else who cares about football eating out of our hands.

In my opinion, this is what Club1872 and SoS should all be about.

Attacking our enemies, strengthening our support, and doing everything and anything that needs done to let people know that we really are the people. We support a British club, we're very proud of that fact. We support our friends across the water, and our friends in other far off lands, and we'll sing our songs in support of them.

We need to get back to being the people, and the supporters of the club that is known of, and famous worldwide.

We need to bring an end to the charade that is club1872. We need to make sure the RST really are finished. We need to make sure our Board are transparent.

In other words, we need to be together as one, and we need to be singing from the same hymn sheet as one.

No hangers on. No blue pound chasers being accommodated by our club. Support the club, or don't support it.

But if you do, you're there to give, not take. Unless you're taking the enjoyment of supporting the team, and being able to tell people when you go on holiday "I'm a Rangers supporter" with pride.

It'll be a long road, but it can be travelled quickly with a unified support.

It's no good one group constantly taking the fight to our enemies - we all must do so.

Talk of boycotts does the exact opposite of unify the support though, people will never agree on that subject.

[thebooler 4,509]

1 minute ago, Frank Harrison said:

Talk of boycotts does the exact opposite of unify the support though, people will never agree on that subject.

They might if the club, VB, SoS, Club1872, and anybody else who cares requests it.

[The Specky Forum Organiser 65,707]

Just now, thebooler said:

They might if the club, VB, SoS, Club1872, and anybody else who cares requests it.

Can only speak for myself but I'll never boycott a Rangers match unless the club refuses tickets for it no matter what any fans group says.

[thebooler 4,509]

26 minutes ago, Frank Harrison said:

Can only speak for myself but I'll never boycott a Rangers match unless the club refuses tickets for it no matter what any fans group says.

Agree mate. That's why I'm saying it needs to be supported by the club.

[JCDBigBear 10,835]

3 hours ago, Bad Robot said:

Do you have a guesstimate on how much tax and NI and and other govt taxes we were paying per year at that time?

Each year was different but if you wish I will be able to get you approximate figures on an average.  I have copies of all the accounts although it would only be an approximation.

 

[Ozblue 4,331]

9 hours ago, Thewhitesettler said:

Basically telling Lawwell  to shut the fuck up ya greetin  faced bastard.

That's them...since 1888, IF YOU KNEW OUR HISTORY...Aye we fucking know it alright!

[JCDBigBear 10,835]

3 hours ago, Brubear said:

At no point have I mentioned tax evasion. I am very aware of the difference between avoidance and evasion. I am surprised the tax benefit was as little as £19.1m but as this is an exact figure I assume it has been quoted officially somewhere. The lower amount just makes my point even stronger.

Regarding the LNS document, did you read it, I confess I have not. If you have, did it link the fact we gained no sporting benefit to the fact we had won the first 2 tax tribunals or that we gained very little financial benefit from them.  

 

I didn't suggest you mentioned tax avoidance, I was merely making that point for all who read my post.

The amount paid out under the scheme was £47 million.  Top rate tax was 40%.  I have assumed that all the money would have been rated at the top level.  It would certainly be very close to that sum.  What seriously elevated the HMRC claim was interest and penalty sums on a compound basis.  However, my point about the tax which would have been due at the time is still valid.  Yes i did read the LNS decision document and still have a copy on my PC.  It stated that we gained no sporting benefit much to the annoyance of our club's detractors.     The SPL inquiry was limited to infringement of the rules applicable at the time.  It did not take cognisance of any moral issues in the use of tax avoidance in the form of EBTs.  Even HMRC stuck by that view.   Any punishment by the SPL  Inquiry was only due on any football rules broken and how seriously or deliberately they were broken.  All the hair-pulling, gum-bumping and teeth-gnashing of the obviously anti-Rangers mob of ignorant clowns should fall on deaf ears with the authorities who cannot and will not go against legal advice.  If they do, they will undoubtedly lose in a court of law.  One thing I have learned over the years is that the law does not accept mob rule to decide on legal issues.  To ignore the law leads to anarchy.

[Ozblue 4,331]

6 hours ago, JCDBigBear said:

The SPL inquiry settled the matter no matter what the eventual outcome of the HMRC appeal(s) and that was agreed to by the SPL lawyer who is also the Tims lawyer.

The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC.

That was and is the end of the matter (or should be).  If the SPFL is just the SPL with a new name then nothing has changed.  If the SPFL is a new separate entity then it has nothing to do with them.

It has taken 7 years to resolve the BTC and we cannot come to any arrangement with HMRC because Whyte deliberately got us into administration and oldco has now folded.  The BTC did not put us into admin that was Whyte.

I said that in another thread,mate. How can an organization that wasn't even in existence until 2013 adjudicate on matters that happened during the years of 2001-2009 under the auspices of the SFL?