Homme Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Have no idea what this means Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Who will be liable for that the Old Co or the persons receiving the EBT? Oldco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Getting all the good news out on the same day. Nice tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaka Demus & pliers Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beavers Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Oldco So hmrc will be first in the queue ahead of creditors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshallschunkychicken Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 <p> Highlights from a quick read of the accounts There is a hefty Operating loss of ?9.94M Final ST sales came in at 26,515 with an average price (net of VAT) of ?237 ?The Group or Company has not made any qualifying third-party indemnity provisions for the benefit of its Directors during the period.? Shareholder loans currently stand at ?3.75M, of which ?1.5M is King?s Cash used in Operations (Cash burn) ?12.18M Cash burn financed by ?8.75M loans and ?2.844M share issue Cash in the bank at 30 June ?1.091M Staff costs of ?13.29M against a turnover of ?16.47M gives a true wage to turnover ratio of 80.7% RRL profit was ?2.173M for the year to April 2015 (Shared with SD) Inter company debt to due by TRFC now up to ?18.099M "The Group paid SDI Retail Services Limited ?620,000 in respect of the costs of closure of stores" A hearing was held on 29/30 October re the ?250K EBT fine which is disputed by the club. Any idea why the MASH loan of ?5m isn't showing under the shareholder loan figure above, FF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 So what does this mean for Sevco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB52 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Have no idea what this means it means that the old rangers have been proved to have cheated for years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Oldco I wonder if GASL still thinks it's a good idea to resurrect the Oldco now ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Just another ?75m for King to find to resurrect his real Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungry hippo Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 So what does this mean for Sevco? Nothing other than their fans are desperate to win this case so they can pretend the liquidation was a great injustice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Any idea why the MASH loan of ?5m isn't showing under the shareholder loan figure above, FF? The loan isn't from the shareholder, MASH, but from Sports Direct International. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector Riva Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Niiiicccce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 So hmrc will be first in the queue ahead of creditors? They won't be ahead of any other creditor. It's just that they will take a bigger share of the pot. That assumes that the Oldco doesn't appeal to the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durham Jambo Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I suspect that HMRC will now take a very close look at the fraud trial regarding the sale of Oldco. I would imagine that if the courts prove that there was criminal conspiracy to place Oldco into liquidation and sell off the assets to Newco at a reduced value then there may be some legal recourse. Now that would be funny. Back to the 3rd Division. Do not pass go. Do not collect ?200, but give all your assets to HMRC....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Seeing as all the Orcs and their sympathisers claim they're the same club as before would BDO be looking for a contribution for the EBT tax bill from Kings merry band of men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBJambo Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) alex thomson ?@alextomo ? 3m3 minutes ago So Rangers are found to have won a series of titles whilst comprehensively cheating the tax man. alex thomson ?@alextomo ? 6m6 minutes ago The judgement is comprehensive and damning on Rangers - EBTs should have attracted PAYE no ifs, no buts Edited November 4, 2015 by jambovambo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Oldco FF, If LNS had waited till the due process and appeals had completed, how likely would his view still have been of no sporting advantage? Or would Brysons Law still take precedence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Will this have any bearing on their claim to trophies won as Oldco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 We can finally put to bed SDMs innocence in this whole saga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) With only ?1m in the bank and monthly running costs, various legal liabilities pending, SD ?5m due it's going to be some size of a hat that's needed to be passed round to collect the offerings. Edited November 4, 2015 by Dannie Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Ding Ding! Round...? I'd like this to be a knockout blow, but I'll wait until I hear positive spin from Ibrox, before getting all misty eyed. I don't think it impacts on Rangers mark 2 except that it might nail the beliefs of the faithful that they are the same club. Accounts per Sky Sports suggests that they need ?2.5m to see their way to the end of the season. Rangers mark 3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollyWolly Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) So what does this mean for Sevco? Not a whole lot since they are in liquidation. It merely earmarks more of what is recovered for HMRC coffers rather than other creditors. However there is a possible impact on the recipients of the EBT's IMO.Their historical earnings have now been established as being taxable. Whether they knew that or not and despite what they thought they were signing up for, that tax liability surely still exists and if it cant be recovered from the liquidated company surely HMRC can go to the direct beneficiaries (the players) and recover it from them ? There is also a far more wide ranging impact on some of the big clubs in England who were also operating EBT's and they will now be shiting themselves. I wonder who was paying on behalf of Oldco to defend this case ? Edited November 4, 2015 by CollyWolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Pleasing that Hector finally won. Irrelevant to the future of Sevco unless oldco benefit from fraud convictions from Chuck Green, the founding father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williejamiesonlesftfoot Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 They will get soft loans of 2.5 million im sure. But Mike Ashleys 5m is due soon. Im sure there will be no money to pay it back. What honestly do folk think MA will do if it doesnt get paid back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 FF, If LNS had waited till the due process and appeals had completed, how likely would his view still have been of no sporting advantage? Or would Brysons Law still take precedence? In my view the LNS decision on no sporting advantage should be revisited (I very much doubt that it will though). LNS' view was formed on the basis of EBTs being a legal form of remuneration which was thus available to any other club. LNS also failed to consider the "wee tax case" which was illegal. Thus there was no sanction against the club on that charge. Bryson's Law effectively diminished the non disclosure of the side letters with their contracts as an administrative error, hence the players were still eligible to play. The club was still found guilty and fined ?250,000, which is still outstanding, although according to the accounts a tribunal was held on 29/30 October. The result has not been announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Will any money hmrc get out of all of this even cover their costs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The ?2.5M requirement is a bit lower than I expected. I am forming a view that King wants Ashley to pull the plug on the club sooner rather than later. Special Resolution 11 is aimed at removing Ashley's voting rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Pleasing that Hector finally won. Irrelevant to the future of Sevco unless oldco benefit from fraud convictions from Chuck Green, the founding father. If HMRC had not won it would have been a sad day for honest taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locky Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Jobby creek beckons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollyWolly Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) Will any money hmrc get out of all of this even cover their costs? Its not about the Sevco money for HMRC. It probably isn't recoverable to any great degree unless they can go after the employees who benefitted. Its about establishing the legal precedent so they can go after City, Utd and Chelsea amongst others. Edited November 4, 2015 by CollyWolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Will any money hmrc get out of all of this even cover their costs? Blood .........stone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) Will any money hmrc get out of all of this even cover their costs? Without a doubt. They will get around two thirds of the ?18M in the creditors pot, and now they have the precedent they require to pursue other football clubs and companies who used EBTs. Edited November 4, 2015 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf's Mate Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Will any money hmrc get out of all of this even cover their costs? In a lot of cases with HMRC it doesn't however it's more them sending a warning to others that they will not relent when they believe there's been wrongdoing. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie86 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Always got the feeling HMRC went for rangers as being the easy target. Wonder how many out of court settlements some of the big guns will make in the coming months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollyWolly Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Always got the feeling HMRC went for rangers as being the easy target. Wonder how many out of court settlements some of the big guns will make in the coming months? That would be none I would think. HMRC don't negotiate on outstanding tax amounts. They can negotiate on time to pay but if you are liable for tax, you are liable for all of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 What exactly is stopping HMRC pursuing the individual recipient's for income tax due? Bob the self employed builder would be in jail by now if he had non disclosed income of a few thousand never mind several hundreds of thousands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locky Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 One thing I don't get is, if HMRC won the appeal, how do they get reimbursed as such? Won't they be compensated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meadows Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Totally (almost ) off subject but one of the 3 bears John Gilligan has went back to work. He has been appointed sales Director with Wallces TCB (Tennents), his 'old' employer. Needing more income perchance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 One thing I don't get is, if HMRC won the appeal, how do they get reimbursed as such? Won't they be compensated? It is difficult to see where compensation would come from except to give them a larger share of the carcass to the detriment of other creditors. I'm sure the HMRC line was never about simply beating Rangers. They were probably the first club they looked at but, if they win, as they have done, that creates a strong base to get money more easily out of other big clubs using a similar EBT scheme. A sprat to catch a mackerel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 What exactly is stopping HMRC pursuing the individual recipient's for income tax due? Bob the self employed builder would be in jail by now if he had non disclosed income of a few thousand never mind several hundreds of thousands. That may yet happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboGuy Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 That would be none I would think. HMRC don't negotiate on outstanding tax amounts. They can negotiate on time to pay but if you are liable for tax, you are liable for all of it. Unless you are Vodafone or some other donor to the Nasty Party that is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I remember all the Huns on the Clyde 1 phone in crowing when the FTTT result came in. Vindicated they were. Went into administration for nothing so they did. Witch hunt it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrasbraw Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The ?2.5M requirement is a bit lower than I expected. I am forming a view that King wants Ashley to pull the plug on the club sooner rather than later. Special Resolution 11 is aimed at removing Ashley's voting rights. Do you know how much debt they owe all in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 That may yet happen. I think its highly doubtful. Most of the players had indemnity letters confirming that the club would be liable for any future tax assessments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollyWolly Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) Unless you are Vodafone or some other donor to the Nasty Party that is Or your tax liability is not proven, is in a grey area and the liability hasn't been tested in court or they(HMRC) feel they would lose if they did test it ? None of which now applies to EBTs Edited November 4, 2015 by CollyWolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altyjambo Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I can't imagine that Resolution 11 will be submitted without a legal challenge from Ashley. From his point of view, he has bought shares in a business which traded on a recognised exchange. Since then, the method of easily trading these shares has been removed, and now the voting rights associated with these shares are to be withdrawn on a whim. I suspect Mr Ashley could now claim that his shares are worthless, and take action against those who have made them worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Do you know how much debt they owe all in? ?8.75M between MASH, King and the 3 Bears. There are always other creditors waiting to be paid but there is nothing out of the ordinary there that I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3,282
Recommended Posts