The Mighty Thor Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Superb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 THAT is sheer class... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossmor38 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Why has this truly wonderful thread been allowed to dwindle, any way update from today http://uk.news.yahoo.com/taxman-rapped-over-deals-firms-001532009.html The tax man has been told not to go easy on any company, which puts paid to the rumour that they were going to settle for ?5m (according to rangers forum). This Newco Rangers, where is it goig to come from there are only 2 options 1. buy out an existing league club and rename them, provided there is a seller out there? 2. form a new club and apply for membership? this is high risk as there are a few clubs vying for league status, Spartans, Gala, Frazerburgh and a few others will be highly competative, and with the voting rights beingh given equal status to lower league clubs, there might not be an appatite to have turkeys voting for christmas I think there's going to be a huge amount of folk on here who are going to be very upset with outcome of this case. The latest word is that the bill is going to be nowhere near ?49m if it's going to be charged at all. More likely to be under ?10m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I think there's going to be a huge amount of folk on here who are going to be very upset with outcome of this case. The latest word is that the bill is going to be nowhere near ?49m if it's going to be charged at all. More likely to be under ?10m. I think you have been listening to too much Media House spin. RFC have allegedly already offered in excess of that sum around a year ago and been told where to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VALDOS Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I think you have been listening to too much Media House spin. RFC have allegedly already offered in excess of that sum around a year ago and been told where to go. To be fair there has been recent rumours that Whyte is back in talks with HMRC over an out of court settlement, believed to be in the region of ?15 million. HMRC have reportedly lost 2 cases similar to that of Rangers, although they were on a smaller scale. So it may well be that they now feel that sum of money is acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 To be fair there has been recent rumours that Whyte is back in talks with HMRC over an out of court settlement, believed to be in the region of ?15 million. HMRC have reportedly lost 2 cases similar to that of Rangers, although they were on a smaller scale. So it may well be that they now feel that sum of money is acceptable. I still think that it is spin that is being put out by Media House that RFC are talking to HMRC. CW's record with HMRC, including an alleged ?3.5M tax avoidance when he relocated to Monaco and his recent record of arrestment of the "wee" tax case, and alleged late payments of PAYE and NIC, would suggest that HMRC will not give him the time of day. No two EBT cases are alike and that is part of the problem of seeking parallels with previous judgements. The suggestion that RFC provided side letters to players who benefited from the EBT would weigh heavily against RFC escaping relatively unscathed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 No two EBT cases are alike and that is part of the problem of seeking parallels with previous judgements. The suggestion that RFC provided side letters to players who benefited from the EBT would weigh heavily against RFC escaping relatively unscathed. This is very true and I have heard, on good authority, that these side letters or contract addendums were indeed issued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beverley Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 footballfirst tell me to bolt if you like cos its not my business, but how are you so knowledgeable about the types of process that this case may follow? is this your line of work, or just stuff you've learned through following this?? its been really helpful of you to break down a lot of stuff the way you have for folk like me who know diddly squat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 footballfirst tell me to bolt if you like cos its not my business, but how are you so knowledgeable about the types of process that this case may follow? is this your line of work, or just stuff you've learned through following this?? its been really helpful of you to break down a lot of stuff the way you have for folk like me who know diddly squat I'm just an amateur sleuth. I've no financial background, but I do have an interest in football finances. I've learned most of the processes involved from other blogs (particularly "Rangers Tax Case") where there are a few knowledgeable posters who are professionals with HMRC, Lawyers, Accountants etc. Several of them are clearly ITK, particularly when it comes to court cases coming up, or providing analysis of what has been said or agreed etc. There are also public records that anyone can access, particularly at Companies House, or other websites that provide information about company history, ownership, directors or accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavySlaveJambo Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Ok I had a look at the tax case blog earlier and found this The 5million that everyone talks of is not what it seems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Brightside Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 A lot of people are making claims about the SKY TV deal insiting on four OF games. Surely this is just PR from SKY as the deal is split bewteen SKY and ESPN and the assumption is that both of the OF clubs will be in the top six each season and SKY get to show the OF games rather than ESPN. I don't think SKY would be able to pull out of the deal if one of the OF clubs finished 7th one season (unlikely, I know). If the deal is not signed yet, I think SKY would offer a reduced package if Rangers were not in the SPL as a result of the tax case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phage Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Murray Park is owned by a private school or university and only leased by Rangers... exactly the same gig as we have with Riccarton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phage Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 The SFA shouldn't be signing deals promising 4 Old Firm games a year. If they miss the top six or worse then surely the SFA are not dumb enough to get embroiled with this future yet to unravel mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 The SFA shouldn't be signing deals promising 4 Old Firm games a year. If they miss the top six or worse then surely the SFA are not dumb enough to get embroiled with this future yet to unravel mess. The SFA are not dumb enough, its the SPL who signed the deal for 4 old firm games a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Murray Park is owned by a private school or university and only leased by Rangers... exactly the same gig as we have with Riccarton. It's not clear what the status of Murray Park is. There is a Standard Security from 1999 held jointly by Kelvinside Academy War Memorial Trust and Kelvinside Academical Club on two pieces of land at Auchenhowie (Murray Park), but there is no indication of the extent of Rangers obligations. Rangers spent ?12M building the Murray Park facility around 1999-2001. My best guess is that Rangers have a long term lease on the ground (100 years?) at a peppercorn rent, but own outright all the buildings and other facilities there. However there is no indication of a lease in RFC's accounts. Indeed the last valuation of Rangers fixed assets described them as freehold and heritable properties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Murray Park is owned by a private school or university and only leased by Rangers... exactly the same gig as we have with Riccarton. Your post is probably the most made up post of the day on Kickback. Murray Park has no affiliations to any University or School in the local area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 It is increasingly looking like RFC supporters are being prepared for the worst following the FTT ruling. Here is a link to a record of a meeting between CW and Rangers Supporters Assembly. http://www.facebook....200509926704378 The Bluenose - Rangers Supporters Assembly Assembly meeting with Chairman Craig Whyte MEETING WITH CRAIG WHYTE - No scope for negotiating a settlement with HMRC due to the criticism they have had from MPs and the Media about some high-profile "deals". That means the case could take even more time to resolve as any outcome is likely to be appealed by either party. - If the decision is adverse and the Club appeal, HMRC can still seek to enforce the decision - not clear if they would but they can start to pursue payment of the tax liability. - He hopes "Rangers Football Club Plc" could survive any administration event but feels it would not be the end of the world if it didn't - I think he said that at our last meeting. - There are no concerns about current cash flow and the day to day running of the Club although he acknowledges that the running costs must be reduced - again that was said at our last meeting. - There will be comings and goings in the January transfer window - however, players need to go to ensure any new arrivals don't increase the number of players and the salary costs and it is unlikely that all income will be used to buy new players. He emphasised we need creative players and strikers. There is a list of targets but no names were mentioned. - He is really pleased with the backing from the fans and will continue to robustly defend the fans when necessary. The AGM will probably take place in March 2012 - the accounts are as yet unaudited - the delay is due to awaiting legal opinion on the tax case! He hopes by then to be able to give shareholders more information and be better placed to answer the questions that will inevitably be asked. He will remain accessible to us and he offered an "open-door" to raise any key issues. Despite suggestions that RFC were in negotiations with HMRC it is apparent that was never a goer, therefore is is spin that is being put out by RFC's PR machine. I understand that RFC plan to start their season ticket nenewals earlier and and seeking that those who pay by installments to have paid in full by the start of the season. I don't think I would be putting any money up front in RFC before the FTT ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I was going to add to this last week as tere has been some additional news CW met with fans cheifs last week and their view on this and the statement made from CW it looks bad and those fans have now woken up and have realised this is bad. First they have now had to accept thet there wont be any kind of deal being able to be made with HMRC as recent critisim over favouritism by some companies has now made this more highly visible and accountable. Secondly the statement that "Ranger could survive administration and it would not be the end of the world if it did not" The "could survive" set alarm bells ringing but still a state of total denial of the "NOT the end of the world bit" nobody asked about that part I will try and find the full release later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I was going to add to this last week as tere has been some additional news CW met with fans cheifs last week and their view on this and the statement made from CW it looks bad and those fans have now woken up and have realised this is bad. First they have now had to accept thet there wont be any kind of deal being able to be made with HMRC as recent critisim over favouritism by some companies has now made this more highly visible and accountable. Secondly the statement that "Ranger could survive administration and it would not be the end of the world if it did not" The "could survive" set alarm bells ringing but still a state of total denial of the "NOT the end of the world bit" nobody asked about that part I will try and find the full release later To me it means that CW views the likely route is to form a "new" Rangers if "Rangers Football Club PLC" can not survive adminstration, so he will simply create for example "Rangers Football Club 2012" and have them the same as Rangers (with I presume most of the assets from before such as Ibrox stadium and the players, like what Airdrie United did.) But it does make me chuckle the thought of Craig Whyte going to a room full of die-hard Rangers fans and saying if Rangers dont survive administration it is not the end of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 An extract on the tax case Assembly meeting with Chairman Craig Whyte - No scope for negotiating a settlement with HMRC due to the criticism they have had from MPs and the Media about some high-profile "deals". That means the case could take even more time to resolve as any outcome is likely to be appealed by either party. - If the decision is adverse and the Club appeal, HMRC can still seek to enforce the decision - not clear if they would but they can start to pursue payment of the tax liability. - He hopes "Rangers Football Club Plc" could survive any administration event but feels it would not be the end of the world if it didn't - I think he said that at our last meeting. - There are no concerns about current cash flow and the day to day running of the Club although he acknowledges that the running costs must be reduced - again that was said at our last meeting. What was clarified is if Rangers win then the Tax man will appeal, dragging it out longer, but if the Tax man wins then regardless of Rangers appeal they WILL start proceeedings to obtain their money, even if Rangers win the appeal they can claim back their money later, but in most cases its already too late, as the cost of the legals can be enough to tip the scales the wrong way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Indeed the last valuation of Rangers fixed assets described them as freehold and heritable properties. It's a while since I did Scots Law but isn't 'Freehold' only a term used in England & Wales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 It's a while since I did Scots Law but isn't 'Freehold' only a term used in England & Wales? I'm no lawyer, but RFC's accounts use the term "Freehold" The Scottish equivalent term may be "unfettered ownership" or "absolute ownership". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeeVee Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 It's a while since I did Scots Law but isn't 'Freehold' only a term used in England & Wales? Tynecastle is described as freehold in HMFC's accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Absolute interests in land This means that a person has unfettered ownership of property, the equivalent of a freehold in English land law. In Scotland historically until the abolition of the feudal system there were two distinct legal estates, superiority and feu. The estate of superior was unfettered, and therefore absolute. Under a feudal estate the actual owner (or "feuar") must not have breached the feuing conditions, but he was otherwise entitled to complete possession of his property for all time, and therefore his ownership is also regarded as absolute, subject to any statutory restrictions, eg planning. taken from http://www.scottishl...otslawland.html Suggests freehold is NOT a Scots legal term, although as a legal status there is an equivalent. Feuhold is the Scots equivalent as far as I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebeto Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 It's not clear what the status of Murray Park is. There is a Standard Security from 1999 held jointly by Kelvinside Academy War Memorial Trust and Kelvinside Academical Club on two pieces of land at Auchenhowie (Murray Park), but there is no indication of the extent of Rangers obligations. Rangers spent ?12M building the Murray Park facility around 1999-2001. My best guess is that Rangers have a long term lease on the ground (100 years?) at a peppercorn rent, but own outright all the buildings and other facilities there. However there is no indication of a lease in RFC's accounts. Indeed the last valuation of Rangers fixed assets described them as freehold and heritable properties. Kelvinside Academy did own the land. They have playing fields just of Great Western Road and were going to sell this to Rangers and build on Auchenhowie. Advocatt said the site at GWR was too small and urged Rangers to buy Auchenhowie from the school. They offered silly money and purchased Auchenhowie and Kelvinside redeveloped GWR. Both my brothers were at the school at the time hence the knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Here is the first impact of the lack of audited accounts being provided before the end of December General Suspension of Trading. The following company has been suspended from trading on PLUS with effect 12.00pm on 09/01/2012, for breach of Rule 51 of the PLUS Rules for Issuers. The Rangers Football Club Plc. Rule 51 An Issuer must publish annual audited accounts within the time frame required by the jurisdiction to which it is primarily subject or its applicable accounting standards or, if no such time frame is decreed, within a timetable which the issuer must agree in advance with PLUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Pleasing to think that Rangers have been pleading with HMRC to cut a deal and HMRC have told them to F' OFF!!! God save Her Majesty's revenue and customs!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Rangers statement to the market As a result of the delay in publishing its audited accounts to 30 June 2011 the board announce that the Company?s shares have been suspended from trading on PLUS pursuant to Rule 51. The delay has been caused as a result of finalising the audit, which the board believe will be complete on or around 31 January 2012. The delay in finalising the audit is principally related to the ongoing HMRC tax tribunal. The board of the Rangers Football Club plc is currently considering the merit of maintaining its listing on the PLUS market after 6 May 2012 being the date 12 months following the acquisition of the 85.3 per cent. holding of the Company by The Rangers FC Group Limited. The Directors of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. accept responsibility for this announcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchies75 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Rangers statement to the market As a result of the delay in publishing its audited accounts to 30 June 2011 the board announce that the Company?s shares have been suspended from trading on PLUS pursuant to Rule 51. The delay has been caused as a result of finalising the audit, which the board believe will be complete on or around 31 January 2012. The delay in finalising the audit is principally related to the ongoing HMRC tax tribunal. The board of the Rangers Football Club plc is currently considering the merit of maintaining its listing on the PLUS market after 6 May 2012 being the date 12 months following the acquisition of the 85.3 per cent. holding of the Company by The Rangers FC Group Limited. The Directors of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. accept responsibility for this announcement. Now on STV website http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/292920-rangers-suspended-from-stock-exchange-over-failing-to-file-accounts/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 BBC news too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchies75 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Rangers statement to the market As a result of the delay in publishing its audited accounts to 30 June 2011 the board announce that the Company?s shares have been suspended from trading on PLUS pursuant to Rule 51. The delay has been caused as a result of finalising the audit, which the board believe will be complete on or around 31 January 2012. The delay in finalising the audit is principally related to the ongoing HMRC tax tribunal. The board of the Rangers Football Club plc is currently considering the merit of maintaining its listing on the PLUS market after 6 May 2012 being the date 12 months following the acquisition of the 85.3 per cent. holding of the Company by The Rangers FC Group Limited. The Directors of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. accept responsibility for this announcement. What does this mean in practical terms? Presumably it doesnt stop them buying and selling players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheepie Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 What does this mean in practical terms? Presumably it doesnt stop them buying and selling players. Nothing in footballing terms. Certainly does not stop them buying/selling players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 What does this mean in practical terms? Presumably it doesnt stop them buying and selling players. From the STV link above: Rangers' ability to buy and/or sell players in the January transfer window is not affected by the announcement. Scottish Premier League rules state a club will only be subject to a registration embargo if it suffers an "insolvency event", such as going into administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 The delay has been caused as a result of finalising the audit, which the board believe will be complete on or around 31 January 2012. The delay in finalising the audit is principally related to the ongoing HMRC tax tribunal. Can any of the better informed on matters financial on JBK clarify : does this mean Rangers awaited accounts for last year , when finally published, will now reflect the HMRC bombshell that exploded last year ? ie financial armageddon will actually be predicted in the accounts ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 What does this mean in practical terms? Presumably it doesnt stop them buying and selling players. It only prevents anyone from buying and selling shares on the open market. The suspension is simply down to them failing to submit audited accounts by the deadline of 31st December. The suspension will be lifted once audited accounts are supplied. They will proobably incur a small fine for the delay, although I suspect the CW won't pay it until he's threatened with court action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego10 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Nothing in footballing terms. Certainly does not stop them buying/selling players. Correct. However, being absolutely skint will stop them buying players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Trading in shares suspended!!! Sorry, should have posted on the gargantuan HMRC thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 The delay has been caused as a result of finalising the audit, which the board believe will be complete on or around 31 January 2012. The delay in finalising the audit is principally related to the ongoing HMRC tax tribunal. Can any of the better informed on matters financial on JBK clarify : does this mean Rangers awaited accounts for last year , when finally published, will now reflect the HMRC bombshell that exploded last year ? ie financial armageddon will actually be predicted in the accounts ? The tax case had been referred to in previous accounts as an ongoing investigation and that RFC were confident of there being no case to answer, hence no need for contingent liabilities to be recorded. I would guess that Grant Thornton, the auditors, are insisting that further recognition of the risk of losing the FTT are properly recorded. i.e. they are liable to go bust if the decision substantially goes against them. Note that Hearts accounts have carried similar indications of an ongoing investigation for the past 3 years. That may well come to an end before too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locky Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 The end is nigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Colin's in his own little world. Merge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Lithuania Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 What impact does this have on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Its a mechanism for protecting inverstors, but I doubt there is a rule within the SFA/SPL withholding any transfer dealings. There will be one about Vlad rants though. Business as normal sadly but there can be a ?100k max fine. I think they might be having a problem with getting their accounts to be audited regardless of the tax case. And another note, they dont have to pay any tax while they they are in dispute, but that will still have to be paid at a future point even if they win the case. I bet they get an easy ride in the press over this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Colin's in his own little world. Merge. Note my edit to OP but, sometimes it's worth posting an outstanding piece of news so that those of us who can't be bahookied reading through miles of posts can catch the headline - all safe in the knowledge that the excellent mods will merge eventually! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsychocAndy Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Note my edit to OP but, sometimes it's worth posting an outstanding piece of news so that those of us who can't be bahookied reading through miles of posts can catch the headline - all safe in the knowledge that the excellent mods will merge eventually! This outstanding piece of information wouldn't have been caught by a lot of people in the other post. Well done OP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Note my edit to OP but, sometimes it's worth posting an outstanding piece of news so that those of us who can't be bahookied reading through miles of posts can catch the headline - all safe in the knowledge that the excellent mods will merge eventually! I'd agree with that TBH. Hate the merging of threads so unless you keep reading it constantly you don't know if anything new has happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JyTees Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Note my edit to OP but, sometimes it's worth posting an outstanding piece of news so that those of us who can't be bahookied reading through miles of posts can catch the headline - all safe in the knowledge that the excellent mods will merge eventually! This completely. Anything of any significance pales into the background of the 40 odd pages of complete drivel. Cheers Mr Maroon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buba Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 So for those of us that don't have a clue aboit finances and shares... What does/can tgis mean??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Its a mechanism for protecting inverstors, but I doubt there is a rule within the SFA/SPL withholding any transfer dealings. There will be one about Vlad rants though. Business as normal sadly but there can be a ?100k max fine. I think they might be having a problem with getting their accounts to be audited regardless of the tax case. And another note, they dont have to pay any tax while they they are in dispute, but that will still have to be paid at a future point even if they win the case. I bet they get an easy ride in the press over this one On the first point the word "principally" in the statement seems to confirm your view. ... and the easy ride has begun with an immediate assurance to the fans that transfer dealings won't be affected. So that's all right then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3,115
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.