Deevers Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 They cant impose any other punishment than a 10 point penalty for administration as that is the rule. If they dished out any other punishment it would be in breach of SPL rules and Rangers lawyers would have a field day. So in essence the SPL are going to look silly if Rangers go into administration. It's the one thing that Doncaster and Co actually excel in!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Part of it is listed. The ground is not worth much as an uncleared development site with a listed building on it, it's only real value is as a football stadium. Unless they do a development like Highbury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Rangers as we currently know them are finished, RTC assures that when the details of the tax case are finally revealed there will also be incredulity and mega-stushie at what went on and how on earth RFC thought they could get away with it and when they did get caught simply carried on regardless anyway. A Rangers football team playing at Ibrox will continue of that I have no doubt but there are many rivers to cross before then and none of it will be plain sailing for RFC nor the custodians of Scottish football or our major clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Rangers as we currently know them are finished, RTC assures that when the details of the tax case are finally revealed there will also be incredulity and mega-stushie at what went on and how on earth RFC thought they could get away with it and when they did get caught simply carried on regardless anyway. A Rangers football team playing at Ibrox will continue of that I have no doubt but there are many rivers to cross before then and none of it will be plain sailing for RFC nor the custodians of Scottish football or our major clubs. I pretty much feel the same as you and expect Rangers will still be around for as long as I'm alive (which might lead to a few on hear wishing me gone ) and it's probably right that they should survive as it was the wrongdoings of only a few people that has got them into this situation. However, the club should suffer, if for no other reason than they did so much gloating and celebrating as a result of the success their scheming brought. Every trophy, every game they won using the players on the EBT scheme denied the clubs involved much needed success and money, and that should not be overlooked, but it almost certainly will be by the SPL/SFA officials and also be forgotten by most of the chairmen of the clubs they cheated, in their frenzy to hold onto the coat-tails of the mighty Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 If this is what ends up happening - without sounding too much like a drama queen - I would give up completely on Scottish football, which would involve my beloved Hearts. I'm in pretty much the same frame of mind. If the game's a complete bogey then why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The Rangers tax case exposes deep flaws not only in the financial running and governance of our major clubs but also of the light touch regulation and oversight responsibilities of the SFA & SPL to ensure good governance and fair & legitimate practice. Rangers potentially have huge debts & tax obligations they simply cannot meet and have made no provision for but apart from their financial mismanagement and tax underpayment they have also potentially made almost every league & cup game over the last decade a mockery if they have breached players eligibility with their non standard contractual and payment arrangements for players. Either the SFA & SPL were ignorant of the full extent of Rangers behaviour or else they were willingly complicit or negligent if they were made aware of it. The implications for the SPL & Scottish football are profound and unprecedented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Would it be the SPL or the SFA that would be involved with this? As remember, Campbell Ogilvie is now pretty high up in the SFA, and he must have been heavily involved with the tax "avoidance" when he was at Rangers. Campbell worked for us during that period Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 With reason. Doncaster has already said they are scouring the world for "best practice" and quoted the case of Parma (who escaped scot-free despite 3 years in administration) as one (indeed the first) example! Scottish football may not be corrupt enough but is apparently willing to learn from those who certainly are! Sorted!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC_Trotski Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 EBT's are commonplace though, and nearly all aren't against the law. The law keeps changing though, so depending who rangers used to administer the trust they might not have realised regulations had changed. At a previous employer we used an offshore trust to distribute shares to the employees (of which I was one, unfortunately not the boss distributing them out). The trust fully assured us that the scheme was fine and there would be no tax implication. Well, they were wrong and it ended up costing the company tens of thousands in tax. This could be a similar situation with rangers. They were given bad advice on how to save money on tax payments. Weren't exactly "cheating" as many on here are putting it (and sounding affy like hobos talking about our finances I must say). Ignorance of the rules and regulations doesn't a sound defence make though, so they could still be seriously screwed, and I for one would take great delight gloating at the previous gloaters in the hun support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The Rangers tax case exposes deep flaws not only in the financial running and governance of our major clubs but also of the light touch regulation and oversight responsibilities of the SFA & SPL to ensure good governance and fair & legitimate practice. Rangers potentially have huge debts & tax obligations they simply cannot meet and have made no provision for but apart from their financial mismanagement and tax underpayment they have also potentially made almost every league & cup game over the last decade a mockery if they have breached players eligibility with their non standard contractual and payment arrangements for players. Either the SFA & SPL were ignorant of the full extent of Rangers behaviour or else they were willingly complicit or negligent if they were made aware of it. The implications for the SPL & Scottish football are profound and unprecedented. How this is handled by the authorities will prove/disprove the extent of corruption in the game in this country! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Campbell worked for us during that period 2000 was when they started doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackney Hearts Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Regarding any vote to admit a Newco into the SPL - how about asking the fans, rather than the chairmen? It wouldn't be that hard to arrange a referendum of season ticket holders of the other SPL clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Regarding any vote to admit a Newco into the SPL - how about asking the fans, rather than the chairmen? It wouldn't be that hard to arrange a referendum of season ticket holders of the other SPL clubs. Or a poll on the SPL website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Or a poll on the SPL website. The SPL polled the fans on reconstruction but rejected the fans wishes to see SPL expansion in favour of the insane 10 team proposals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackney Hearts Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Or a poll on the SPL website. ... asking Rangers fans to please not vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 ... asking Rangers fans to please not vote. It's ok, their little hooked paws can't use a mouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Or a poll on the SPL website. Just about every poll I ever see online relating to SPL in any way is always hijacked to death by Rangers and/or Celtic fans. There are too many of them to ever make that sort of thing a successful or fair representation of what other fans might think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Just about every poll I ever see online relating to SPL in any way is always hijacked to death by Rangers and/or Celtic fans. There are too many of them to ever make that sort of thing a successful or fair representation of what other fans might think. I've never particpated in or even seen a poll on the SPL website, but what you say doesn't surprise me, it was more a dig at them (SPL) as I think that was what they used to poll the opinions of the fans on league re-construction. Nobody seemed to know about the poll till the result was produced. (though I might be wrong ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I've never particpated in or even seen a poll on the SPL website, but what you say doesn't surprise me, it was more a dig at them (SPL) as I think that was what they used to poll the opinions of the fans on league re-construction. Nobody seemed to know about the poll till the result was produced. (though I might be wrong ) To be fair it took Neil Doncaster months & months of posting votes until he got the results he wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 They cant impose any other punishment than a 10 point penalty for administration as that is the rule. If they dished out any other punishment it would be in breach of SPL rules and Rangers lawyers would have a field day. So in essence the SPL are going to look silly if Rangers go into administration. You're right, but only up to a point. If Rangers go into administration the SPL will deduct ten points - for that - but there may well be other offences they can/should be punished for. If Rangers lose the tax case, have they then failed to act "with the utmost good faith" as required under section A3.1 of the SPL's rules? We know (!) that the sanctions for that are limitless. Have they brought the game into disrepute, in breech of SFA rules, that could attract a penalty from there? Will they actually be able to clear 100% of their football debts to other clubs (Inc us!) to their players, to their season ticket holders? Administration and the mandatory ten point deduction are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to sanctions Rangers could be facing. Whether the SFA and the SPL have the balls to take any action is another question entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.S. Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I can see there being loads of threads on league reconstruction when rangers go bust. So I'll add this here and then no doubt add it to all the other threads too. The other teams must take this opportunity to take the power of scottish football out of glasgow. They've had the power from day one and look what they've done to the game. All the trophies go to glasgow the majority of refs support the glasgow clubs the rules are all bent to help the glasgow clubs The other clubs have stood back and let this happen. Time for change With only celtic left, give them zero power. Let no ex old firm players or supporters of those clubs anywhere near the positions of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Simple administration carries a 10 point penalty for each season it's ongoing and also teams in administration cannot compete in UEFA competitions. I strongly suspect Rangers case will go way beyond a simple administration process and could involve a receivership or pre-pack sale, possible eventual liquidation of the oldco and a new company formed in it's place. Should that happen then things like SFA membership, SPL membership & playing contracts are supposed to be non-transferrable under the rules and a newco would have to apply for membership of league & SFA and sign & register new players under new contracts as the old ones would be voided. Liquidation should also mean automatic league expulsion and a newco would have to APPLY to join the Scottish Leagues with normal practice being teams join at the lowest level ie SFL Division-3. This is what SHOULD happen and what the current rules dictate ........ we will of course see what does happen and if any new rules or interpretations are hurriedly imposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 As far as voting is concerned, Celtic are in a very difficult position. The financial argument re TV money and sponsorship would suggest that they would vote for a newco, but on the foootballing side, if they can guarantee themselves access to the CL (even to the qualifying rounds) for a few years while RFC regained their status then it would be in their interests to vote against the newco. It is unclear what the impact on ST sales would be in a league without RFC or should it become uncompetitive. Looking at the fan base, then there is likely to be strong lobby for Celtic to vote against a newco. Should the club go against their wishes, then there could be a backlash in that people may not renew their STs claiming the league's integrity had been thrown away. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with that stance. FF, I tend to agree too but Indo not think tthe Celtic Board would. Celtic and Rangers are like Siamese twins and without one the other may die. That is the view the Celtic board would take and I believe if they could save Rangers they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambopompey Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 FF, I tend to agree too but Indo not think tthe Celtic Board would. Celtic and Rangers are like Siamese twins and without one the other may die. That is the view the Celtic board would take and I believe if they could save Rangers they would. that i fear as well, for 2 teams that are meant to hate each other, they spend a lot of time in bed with each other, same sponsors, joint statements etc, celtic would be the club to loose the most IF rangers go to the wall, they will not have a great rival that will help sellout a game against, they have plenty of empty seats again almost every club, but come round the old firm game its a sellout, they will see their crowds drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 a queston for someone. people are saying that ibrox could be sold to a supermarket or for land for housing etc. but i have a recollection from possibly jkb that part of ibrox is a listed building, is this correct and if so that surely would limit the sales market and thus the price I think this would be like the main stand at Tynecastle. It too is listed but its a catch 22 situation where if Hearts were not allowed to knock it down then they would move to a new location and the stand would fall to bits as nobody would maintain it. Therefore permission is granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I think this would be like the main stand at Tynecastle. It too is listed but its a catch 22 situation where if Hearts were not allowed to knock it down then they would move to a new location and the stand would fall to bits as nobody would maintain it. Therefore permission is granted. It isn't. (And although the original main stand at Ibrox is listed this would not preclude it being incorporated in a new housing development, as happened with the East Stand at Highbury (although Govan prices compared to Highbury prices would make the economics a bit different). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 that i fear as well, for 2 teams that are meant to hate each other, they spend a lot of time in bed with each other, same sponsors, joint statements etc, celtic would be the club to loose the most IF rangers go to the wall, they will not have a great rival that will help sellout a game against, they have plenty of empty seats again almost every club, but come round the old firm game its a sellout, they will see their crowds drop. add to that the fact the SPL TV deal is made up for old firm game. Not just Celtic v Rangers matches would go, but Rangers v anyone. And the SPL league coefficient would drop without a 2nd 'big' team bring in the points and therefore the SPL champions (props Celtic) would have a harder time to progress and collect the TV money. This will hurt Celtic more IMO the low crowds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 It isn't. (And although the original main stand at Ibrox is listed this would not preclude it being incorporated in a new housing development, as happened with the East Stand at Highbury (although Govan prices compared to Highbury prices would make the economics a bit different). I stand corrected... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tynecastle_Stadium Im sure read that it was.... sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamboelite Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 EBT's are commonplace though, and nearly all aren't against the law. The law keeps changing though, so depending who rangers used to administer the trust they might not have realised regulations had changed. At a previous employer we used an offshore trust to distribute shares to the employees (of which I was one, unfortunately not the boss distributing them out). The trust fully assured us that the scheme was fine and there would be no tax implication. Well, they were wrong and it ended up costing the company tens of thousands in tax. This could be a similar situation with rangers. They were given bad advice on how to save money on tax payments. Weren't exactly "cheating" as many on here are putting it (and sounding affy like hobos talking about our finances I must say). Ignorance of the rules and regulations doesn't a sound defence make though, so they could still be seriously screwed, and I for one would take great delight gloating at the previous gloaters in the hun support. The trouble appears to be that it was alleged that those who are supposed to be independant in the trust werent and that the executives of Rangers were aware that using EBT's for wages and bonuses for contractual employees was illegal. It appears to suggest that they kept very good booking keeping which effectively signs their own death warrant. All conjecture until the true facts come out but it doesnt look good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
givememychoice Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Somebody with access to the SPL rule book should be able to tell me.... Couldnt Newco apply straight to the SPL? As far as i remember the SPL is sufficiently different from the SFL that they could invite any club to join should they wish. so, rangers go bust and another team gets relegated. 1 team comes up from the First division, and as far as I am aware, the SPL could then choose another, so actually if that is the case then the corrupt sfa/spl wouldnt be breaking any rules by letting them in.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Somebody with access to the SPL rule book should be able to tell me.... Couldnt Newco apply straight to the SPL? As far as i remember the SPL is sufficiently different from the SFL that they could invite any club to join should they wish. so, rangers go bust and another team gets relegated. 1 team comes up from the First division, and as far as I am aware, the SPL could then choose another, so actually if that is the case then the corrupt sfa/spl wouldnt be breaking any rules by letting them in.... From the SPL Rules Club ceasing to play and be a member of the League H5 If any Club in the League ceases to operate or to be member of the League for any reason, its playing record in the League may be expunged and the number of relegation places from the League shall be reduced accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The trouble appears to be that it was alleged that those who are supposed to be independant in the trust werent and that the executives of Rangers were aware that using EBT's for wages and bonuses for contractual employees was illegal. It appears to suggest that they kept very good booking keeping which effectively signs their own death warrant. All conjecture until the true facts come out but it doesnt look good Why have they not been charged? They want to put Redknapp in the slammer for bumping the taxman out of ?10,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 From the SPL Rules Club ceasing to play and be a member of the League H5 If any Club in the League ceases to operate or to be member of the League for any reason, its playing record in the League may be expunged and the number of relegation places from the League shall be reduced accordingly. ... the "may be" is maybe significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Why have they not been charged? They want to put Redknapp in the slammer for bumping the taxman out of ?10,000 ... yet? It hasn't yet been established that the EBTs were invalid. That's what the Tribunal is determining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 So if they rule in favour of the tax man, will Rangers go under? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 ... yet? It hasn't yet been established that the EBTs were invalid. That's what the Tribunal is determining. OK, Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 So if they rule in favour of the tax man, will Rangers go under? My conclusions from the 47 page and 13 page threads on this topic are "probably" and "we all (with the very odd exception) sincerely hope so" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VALDOS Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 So if they rule in favour of the tax man, will Rangers go under? If they land a guilty verdict and then get hit with the expected ?15/20 million Bill then they will either limp along with the enormous debt or go into administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 My conclusions from the 47 page and 13 page threads on this topic are "probably" and "we all (with the very odd exception) sincerely hope so" Cheers mate. Sorry, was too lazy to go through the pages and read loads of different opinions, just wanted the more reality aspect of the outcome :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 If they land a guilty verdict and then get hit with the expected ?15/20 million Bill then they will either limp along with the enormous debt or go into administration. Would that be on top of the ?49 million they already owe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VALDOS Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Would that be on top of the ?49 million they already owe? They don't owe ?49 million. Right now their debt stands at around ?24 million and until the season ticket fiasco is actually ironed out its hard to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 They don't owe ?49 million. Right now their debt stands at around ?24 million and until the season ticket fiasco is actually ironed out its hard to say. Ah, ok. Cheers mate :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 If they land a guilty verdict and then get hit with the expected ?15/20 million Bill then they will either limp along with the enormous debt or go into administration. The expectation is that if they lose the tax case they will face a bill of ?49m, ?34m in unpaid tax and ?15m in interest and penalties. This will add to their existing debt, whatever that is, hidden at present by the failure to publish audited accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The expectation is that if they lose the tax case they will face a bill of ?49m, ?34m in unpaid tax and ?15m in interest and penalties. This will add to their existing debt, whatever that is, hidden at present by the failure to publish audited accounts. Some of the folk I was speaking to in Glasgow last week thought that the total (with the Tax bill) might not be too far short of ?80m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VALDOS Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The expectation is that if they lose the tax case they will face a bill of ?49m, ?34m in unpaid tax and ?15m in interest and penalties. This will add to their existing debt, whatever that is, hidden at present by the failure to publish audited accounts. No, that's the bill the Red tops have jumped on, the actual figure if found guilty will be less than half of that. Remember this case is a tribunal, therefore even on a guilty verdict the middle man will put the final figure on a fine. HMRC's calculations will amount to the ?49 million, that is what they believe they are due. If it was their decision, that is the total RFC would have to pay......but it's not HMRC's decision to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Some of the folk I was speaking to in Glasgow last week thought that the total (with the Tax bill) might not be too far short of ?80m. I think the ?80 million figure takes into account the mortgage of future season's ticket money, an act which means that for the next three to four seasons they will have naff all to spend, as every penny made through ST money will go straight to the company providing the mortgage, with interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 No, that's the bill the Red tops have jumped on, the actual figure if found guilty will be less than half of that. Remember this case is a tribunal, therefore even on a guilty verdict the middle man will put the final figure on a fine. HMRC's calculations will amount to the ?49 million, that is what they believe they are due. If it was their decision, that is the total RFC would have to pay......but it's not HMRC's decision to make. It is only the core bill plus interest (approx ?24M + ?12M) that is subject to the FTT. The penalty (50-70%) will be added afterwards. The decision from the FTT will therfore be no more than ?36M. My gut feel is that the FTT ruling will be around the ?30M mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 No, that's the bill the Red tops have jumped on, the actual figure if found guilty will be less than half of that. Remember this case is a tribunal, therefore even on a guilty verdict the middle man will put the final figure on a fine. HMRC's calculations will amount to the ?49 million, that is what they believe they are due. If it was their decision, that is the total RFC would have to pay......but it's not HMRC's decision to make. But surely if HMRC win the tribunal, by saying they are due ?49million, then the tribunal panel are hardly going to say, yes you (RFC) are guilty of tax evasion to the sum of ?34million and should have payed that plus fines and interest of ?15million, but we'll let you off with all that and only demand you pay ?20million.(or whatever) If found guilty, they will have to pay the full amount they are being chased for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Minus the appeal, when will the verdict be? Was supposed to be last week wasnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 But surely if HMRC win the tribunal, by saying they are due ?49million, then the tribunal panel are hardly going to say, yes you (RFC) are guilty of tax evasion to the sum of ?34million and should have payed that plus fines and interest of ?15million, but we'll let you off with all that and only demand you pay ?20million.(or whatever) If found guilty, they will have to pay the full amount they are being chased for. It's not a black and white or all or nothing decision. The FTT may rule that certain transactions were taxable and that others may not be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.