DETTY29 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Summary of the first day of the UTTT from STV http://news.stv.tv/w...-appeal-begins/ I'm sure McLeish was the one person to pay his loan back. Bit harsh to be first named. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The orcs are getting restless. From an email: Fan groups statement regarding loans from Easdale and Laxey Rangers Supporters Association, Assembly & Trust Statement The Rangers Supporters Association, Assembly and Trust have been contacted by a number of Rangers supporters, who are also current shareholders, indicating they would have provided a secured loan of ?1.5m on more favourable terms than the combined Laxey Partners/ Easdale loans. The terms of the Laxey loan in particular seem unduly onerous. We are concerned that not all shareholders are being treated equally. Fans and shareholders both deserve an explanation as to why other shareholders were not approached to provide this loan. The 3 groups call on Rangers, or the NOMAD Daniel Stewart, to clarify the matter. Either in public or through a direct meeting with fan representatives. We have contacted both companies with our concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnybob72 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 We see Dave King being mentioned here and there and the fans hope he will ride in to their rescue but what's in it for the likes of King? Why would anyone with serious money want to get involved with The Rangers. The best they will ever be is a big fish in a small pond. Pre EPL and current CL format they were involved in what was to all intents and purposes a CL semi final against Marseille which they lost. They way that the (same) big clubs in Europe hoover up all the CL TV money means that they will never ever get close to that again. The odd season of CL group stage hosings is the best they are ever likely to achieve if they can even get to the group stage. Celtic have a very wealthy guy there (Dominic Desmond or Derek Domino of something) but I don't think he really puts any money in as such - most of their income is through the normal streams. If they can't get a sugar daddy to bankroll them to bigger and better things then there is even less chance of The Rangers doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) Here is another summary from a TSFM poster who attended the tribunal today Nothing of any great substance to report from today?s UTTT hearing. I was there for 9.30 , but the kick-off wasn?t till 10.00. That gave time for a little bit of socialising: I didn?t meet the Grant Russell chap from STV, but only a chap from the ?Sun?, and a director from Murray Group, and Mr Thornhill (QC for the respondents,i.e the MG),who came to make himself known to me and another TSFM person. A big surprise to me was that it was not Lord Bishopp presiding, but Lord Doherty ( which, of course, kept the business within the Scottish house) Apparently, the respondents had appealed against the time allocation set by Judge Bishopp, and it was reduced from 20 to 10 days, and Judge Bishopp stood down for some reason. At kick-off, there were ,besides Judge Doherty and the clerical officer, there were 15 persons in the Tribunal room. On the left, Roderick Thomson QC for HMRC,supported by 6 other lawyers(none of whom actually sat beside him,but behind). On the right, Andrew Thornhill QC for the respondents, supported by 2 other lawyers (one of whom sat beside him, the other one behind). Behind them was the Finance Director of the Murray group, the chap from the ?Sun?, and me and a lurker. On my left were two young women one of whom was there, she told me, as part of her training, as newly qualified and in her first job in a solicitor?s office as a qualified solicitor. The other took copious notes and was probably a lawyer as well. (Mind you, so did I take copious notes,and I?m no lawyer!) She did not turn up for the second half. The 17th person must have been Russell of STV, but he was sitting beside the lawyers behind Thomson,QC, so I had clocked him as a lawyer. Lord Doherty reminded counsel that the names of the HMRC officers who gave evidence at the FTTT should not be disclosed, nor should the names of 3 witnesses who had given evidence on the basis of anonymity. Mr Thomson said he would try to remember that if or when he had occasion to mention their testimony in the course of the hearing. Mr Thomson invited His lordship - to overturn the decision of the First Tier Tax Tribunal and uphold HMRC?s assessments. He added that he would later have something to say about ?unreasonable comments? made by the FTTT. or, if His Lordship was not minded to make any additional findings of fact, then to remit the case to a fresh Tribunal. He gave a very short summary of the background. To wit, that the FTTT had heard evidence for 17 days, and that the evidence bundles shows that much of the documentation was provided by the MG, and that there had been extensive reference to that documentation. Put very simply, the MG had argued a) that for earnings to be taxable, there had to be ABSOLUTE legal title to them, and that under the EBT Trust scheme there was no such absolute title. Payments made under them were something other than bonuses or emoluments and that the recipients of loans had had been no ?unreserved disposal? of the money that was on offer as loans. and b.) that the Trust scheme had not been shown to be a sham. Mr Thomson said that HMRC?s view was that the evidence showed that there had been an underlying tacit agreement between the parties involved that loans would not ever be recalled, that interest due would be rolled up, until death, when the interest and repayment would be able to be offset against inheritance tax. He said that the idea that the idea that payments under the Trust arrangements were something ?other? than taxable earnings was merely an assertion by the MG that did not reflect reality. The rest of the day was spent by Mr Thomson ripping the FTTT?s whole approach to their hearing apart, and using quite harsh words their failure of duty to examine the evidence, make complete findings of fact, and apply the principles of the Ramsay case and a couple of other relevant cases properly, if at all. He referred to the minority report of DR Poon as showing how many findings of fact were there to be made, which the majority had missed, and how their understanding and application of the Ramsay and other relevant cases had been erroneous and actually missed the very point of those cases. He went on to say that the FTTT majority had failed to address the submissions made by HMRC, and that a pattern emerged of the FTTT simply accepting the MG?s submission, and of failing to make findings of fact to support arguments. There was not merely understandable error in law, but deeply flawed submissions by the Majority, wholesale faiure to exercise their judicial duty. And so on all day till 4.00 pm, with frequent references to the legal authorities and the true interpretation of the case which is, that while there may be all the legal documentation to show that there was a proper, valid Trust, it was necessary to look at whether people in fact worked the Trust properly. The Trust may be perfectly legal and not a sham, but the Trustees could ( and in this case, did, act beyond their powers) by making loans to people who were not entitled to such under the trust, making loans without requiring evidence of security or requiring repayment or interest payments -and all involved knew this to be the case. And, of course, the Trustees who began to ask for security etc were dismissed and another more compliant lot were brought in. ?? That all sounds as dry as dust, but I actually quite enjoyed the day, And I?ll be back tomorrow. I still have 18 pages of notes to decipher: I can write legibly, and I can write fast: but not both at the same time! I'm sure that the true blue Bears will be up in arms that someone named "Joseph Raymond Doherty" is now in charge of the Tribunal. They will probably think that it is a Peter Lawwell inspired conspiracy. Edited February 24, 2014 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 You only have to ask how many of these so called loans have ever been repaid to know that they were not loans at all but just a tax fiddle payment. Case closed Newco would be rolling in dough if these loans were called in. They wont be though so ha ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I'm sure McLeish was the one person to pay his loan back. Bit harsh to be first named. or Mr Violet as he likes to be known......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Mr Ogilvie. Yes. Can we have a word, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The orcs are getting restless. From an email: Fan groups statement regarding loans from Easdale and Laxey Rangers Supporters Association, Assembly & Trust Statement The Rangers Supporters Association, Assembly and Trust have been contacted by a number of Rangers supporters, who are also current shareholders, indicating they would have provided a secured loan of ?1.5m on more favourable terms than the combined Laxey Partners/ Easdale loans. The terms of the Laxey loan in particular seem unduly onerous. We are concerned that not all shareholders are being treated equally. Fans and shareholders both deserve an explanation as to why other shareholders were not approached to provide this loan. The 3 groups call on Rangers, or the NOMAD Daniel Stewart, to clarify the matter. Either in public or through a direct meeting with fan representatives. We have contacted both companies with our concerns. The orcs are finally smelling the coffee the spivs are milking them blind buy a season ticket keep a spiv in profit orcs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) You clearly didn't pick up on the point I made about running a deficit without CL money. In their last season in the CL Group stages (2010-11) they received ?18,526,000 and additionally received a further ?724,972 when they dropped into the EL. Those sums do not include the gates and hospitality income that they earned from 3 x CL group and 2 x EL knock out ties. Yes their net debt was coming down in those seasons they qualified for the group stages, but their UEFA income went up by over ?20M in each of those seasons. In their last (non admin) season without CL group stages in 2008/09 their turnover ?39.7M but their net debt went up by ?9.6M to ?31.1M Their next two season with CL group stages in 2009/10 and 2010/11, their turnover was up to ?56.3M and ?57.2M respectively but their debt only fell to ?27.1M and ?14.1M. So their net debt only fell by ?17M over two seasons while they received over ?40M in additional income from their CL exploits. So I stand by my assertion that they were running a deficit of around ?10M a year without CL football. That was the scenario they faced in 2011/12, but there was no longer the facility to be bailed out by LBG, hence they ended up in administration, then liquidation. Sorry but creative accounting doesn't make what you want true. Yes the debt position was reducing and of course european money was helping but at the same time the wage bill was being slashed so the costs were reducing. When the club was sold it was capable of running on its own two feet. The bank were not calling in the debt partly due to its reduction and partly because of the bad publicity it would bring...........of course though when an escape route presented itself they took it especially as at that time the tribunal decision was still pending. There are attempts to rewrite history being made so lets focus on truth not what you thought might happen. Murray/The Bank sold the club in May 2011 and Rangers won the league that May so had qualified for the champions league third qualifying round. So at the time of sale they were in the champions league once more (allbeit qualifying groups) so this shortfall you speak of had not even happened and was pure speculation on your part..........as I said rewriting history. Thats the problem with this whole saga people forgetting just what happened pre Whyte and after. Edited February 24, 2014 by CJGJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 @BBCAlLamont: Could be interesting at the Court of Session tomorrow if what I'm hearing is true. Possible twist to Imran Ahmad v The Rangers FC Ltd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Sorry but creative accounting doesn't make what you want true. Yes the debt position was reducing and of course european money was helping but at the same time the wage bill was being slashed so the costs were reducing. When the club was sold it was capable of running on its own two feet. The bank were not calling in the debt partly due to its reduction and partly because of the bad publicity it would bring...........of course though when an escape route presented itself they took it especially as at that time the tribunal decision was still pending. There are attempts to rewrite history being made so lets focus on truth not what you thought might happen. Murray/The Bank sold the club in May 2011 and Rangers won the league that May so had qualified for the champions league third qualifying round. So at the time of sale they were in the champions league once more (allbeit qualifying groups) so this shortfall you speak of had not even happened and was pure speculation on your part..........as I said rewriting history. Thats the problem with this whole saga people forgetting just what happened pre Whyte and after. The reason Lloyds wanted out was because of the exposure to the whole Murray group. That is not spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 @BBCAlLamont: Could be interesting at the Court of Session tomorrow if what I'm hearing is true. Possible twist to Imran Ahmad v The Rangers FC Ltd. ... and subsequent replies to him, suggesting Ahmad might have settled out if court ... even to the tune of ... ?1.5m Now ... where have I seen that sum written about recently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Hardcastle Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Pleasing stuff from Imran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 @BBCAlLamont: Lawyers for Rangers' former commercial director Imran Ahmad will on Tuesday ask a judge to arrest funds of ?750,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 @BBCAlLamont: Ahmad's lawyers will argue the Rangers Football Club Ltd is trading insolvently and would be unable to pay if he won his claim against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26333152 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 @BBCAlLamont: Ahmad's lawyers will argue the Rangers Football Club Ltd is trading insolvently and would be unable to pay if he won his claim against them. Even if that amount doesn't get frozen, having more sources saying the club is insolvent is not good for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Whittaker's Tache Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 What exactly was the bonus for? Spivvery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Sounds like these additional loans from other shareholders on 'improved terms' might just come in handy after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 The reason Lloyds wanted out was because of the exposure to the whole Murray group. That is not spin. No one denies they wanted out but the discussion was not about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 No one denies they wanted out but the discussion was not about that. It is the major point though. Rangers were a basket case who no one wanted DESPITE CL qualification on a regular basis. The BTC, of course, was the elephant in the room but they were still in no position to trade out of their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9173811/Rangers-in-administration-Martin-Bain-drops-legal-action-against-Ibrox-club.html http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/martin-bain-gets-480000-of-rangers-1081725 wonder if ahmed will show as much goodwill to the Rangers cause as Martin Bain was? Edited February 25, 2014 by DETTY29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skivingatwork Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) Sounds like these additional loans from other shareholders on 'improved terms' might just come in handy after all. Sorry but you're reading this all wrong. Those funds aren't additional loans they are clearly a cash windfall as reported in a section of our national press. You really should put more faith in a quality journalist who has been spot on all the way through the 'The rangers' saga. (Can't do sarcasm smiley from phone) Just a thought, but if they needed the ?1.5m to see them through until season ticket money arrived and Ahmed is successful in ring fencing ?750k, that presumably leaves them short and in need of another ?750k of spivtastic pay-day loans to keep the wolves from the door? Edited February 25, 2014 by Skivingatwork Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Sorry but you're reading this all wrong. Those funds aren't additional loans they are clearly a cash windfall as reported in a section of our national press. You really should put more faith in a quality journalist who has been spot on all the way through the 'The rangers' saga. (Can't do sarcasm smiley from phone) Just a thought, but if they needed the ?1.5m to see them through until season ticket money arrived and Ahmed is successful in ring fencing ?750k, that presumably leaves them short and in need of another ?750k of spivtastic pay-day loans to keep the wolves from the door? I think Ahmed is the whole reason for the loan being put in place. Its no coincidence that a day or two after its in place he wants his money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Or Ahmed is an opportunist ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Sorry but creative accounting doesn't make what you want true. Yes the debt position was reducing and of course european money was helping but at the same time the wage bill was being slashed so the costs were reducing. When the club was sold it was capable of running on its own two feet. The bank were not calling in the debt partly due to its reduction and partly because of the bad publicity it would bring...........of course though when an escape route presented itself they took it especially as at that time the tribunal decision was still pending. There are attempts to rewrite history being made so lets focus on truth not what you thought might happen. Murray/The Bank sold the club in May 2011 and Rangers won the league that May so had qualified for the champions league third qualifying round. So at the time of sale they were in the champions league once more (allbeit qualifying groups) so this shortfall you speak of had not even happened and was pure speculation on your part..........as I said rewriting history. Thats the problem with this whole saga people forgetting just what happened pre Whyte and after. I'm sorry, but it is yourself who is engaged in the creative accounting. Wage bills 2008/09 - ?30.662M 2009/10 - ?28.133M 2010/11 - ?29.666M Hardly slashing the wage bill. Indeed the wages went up in the last season before their administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musemic Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/26333152 what a lovely smug smile that rascal has.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 What exactly was the bonus for? Spivvery? I was told at the time that his deal included a bonus based on a percentage of the income brought in to the club. He's claimed he's still due his cut for the money from season tickets, which was never intended to be part of the deal, but was never actually excluded from it. Green does have previous for missing the bleeding obvious, you just need to look at his "understanding" of TUPE, so this explanation has a certain ring of truth about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Going to be a very interesting day, If Imran can provide proof to the courts that Newco are trading insolvent, then any good will goes with it, nobody will do business with them whatsoever, everybody at that point will start asking for any cash due, even if it is not due just yet. so pretty much half the money they were loaned could be decided upon to be frozen, Imran doing this in case the club becomes insolvent yet the action of it is a trigger to effectively cause that, the loan could have seen them out of trouble, but lets get real it was always going to delay the inevitable. As for the big tax case, this hopefully will prove very uncomfortable for the SFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Sorry but you're reading this all wrong. Those funds aren't additional loans they are clearly a cash windfall as reported in a section of our national press. You really should put more faith in a quality journalist who has been spot on all the way through the 'The rangers' saga. (Can't do sarcasm smiley from phone) Just a thought, but if they needed the ?1.5m to see them through until season ticket money arrived and Ahmed is successful in ring fencing ?750k, that presumably leaves them short and in need of another ?750k of spivtastic pay-day loans to keep the wolves from the door? Sorry. Sorry. I don't know what I was thinking. This is a fortuitous set of circumstances. Not the desperate situation that I thought it might be. How embarrassing Out of interest, roughly how much would their monthly salary bill be? Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Keith Jacksons interview with Wallace, warning this clip may contain a high level of BS and sycophantic journalism which may case extreme nausea: KJ: You do appreciate the fans will be hugely concerned you need to raise this £1.5million in the first place? They are repeatedly told there is no need for alarm but you must see why they would be so jittery. The need for this new money ? just a year after raising ?22m in IPO cash ? doesn't suggest the healthiest of financial positions, does it? GW: The money raised through the IPO has been spent in a variety of ways. But that's in the past. I can't respond in detail as to how those monies were used. What I can do is look at the business as we see it now and how we are going to move it forward. The need for a financial facility is no different for Rangers than for any normal business. We need time for people to see how the business is being operated and for people's trust in Rangers as an organisation and trust in the credibility of those who are running it. KJ: But you are getting a hard time about this loan from elements of your own support. Many of them ask why Laxey and why the Easdales? Why were other shareholders not invited to loan the club their money? GW: The board looked at a long list of alternative sources of short-term funding. The club, through its adviser, thought this opportunity made the most sense. A third of the money is coming totally interest free. No costs, no interest and no cost to the club to service the facility. That's the cheapest money you will ever get and if there is a long list of people wishing to support the club to that level then I'd like to talk to them. KJ: Haven't you created a potential problem with other shareholders or would-be investors who might ask why they weren't invited to make a similar loan? And I'm talking here specifically about Dave King. GW: The board has had a dialogue in recent weeks with Dave King. He has not been rebuffed by the board. He is not currently a shareholder. He has indicated he'd be an interested participant in a future equity raising at the appropriate point in time. Our shareholder base has also expressed willingness to invest in fresh equity. Dave King has not come to the club with an offer, other than an interest in participating in a future equity. KJ: Just to be clear, are you saying Dave King has not offered the club short-term funding? GW: He has not done that, no. Dave is not a shareholder and he has not made the club any offer of financial assistance. That's not a criticism of Dave King. I have not met him but as a board we have had some dialogue to try to understand his intentions because there has been a lot of talk about his interest in investing. There has been no other proposal made by him at all. KJ: At the time of the agm, the board said there were a bunch of investors lining up to plough money into the club. So were they there at all if ultimately this money has had to come from the Easdales and Laxey? GW: The board did consider a range of alternatives from a mix of shareholders and other sources. It was an extensive process and the facility received the support and sign-off of the company's NOMAD as an appropriate facility and one which was arrived at in the right way. KJ: How difficult would the financial situation have become without this investment? GW: Football is a very cyclical business, with big incomes generated early in the summer which progressively run down. So this is not a crisis move. It's not a last-gasp policy. We have some fairly significant income streams that will arise in the summer. So this is just a short-term facility. We have no bank debt, no overdraft and a balance sheet which is probably the envy of a lot of football clubs but yet consistently everybody talks about us being in a crisis. KJ: If there's no crisis then the financial situation will not impact on Ally McCoist's budget then? GW: People laugh when we talk about putting in place a medium-term strategy but when you are signing a player on a long-term contract it's a significant financial obligation. So we need a clear idea of what the financial outlook looks like. We are looking at this summer's window and beyond, over the next 24 months. But it's too premature to say right now what the outcome of that will be. KJ: Will his budget have to come down this summer or not? GW: Player costs are not surprisingly the biggest aspect of the business. We'll look at what we need on the football side and what -costs are. We'll do it in a very considered way. There will be no knee-jerk reactions. Fans will expect us to take a medium to long-term view. KJ: The trust of these supporters is crucial to the club's financial position. Do they trust you? GW: I have said the club needs to engage to a greater extent with the supporters and I mean it. But people require a period of time to form a view on what is being done. I don't expect them to instantly accept what we say. All I ask is for a reasonable period of time to get the business refocused and to demonstrate that we are listening to them. We have to show that we are doing things for the right reasons ? for the greater good of this club. KJ: You're bang on there, given the behaviour of some individuals around this club in the last few years. You have to be seen to be acting in Rangers' best interests. GW: That's right and I can say from the time I have been here people are 100 per cent focused on doing the right thing for Rangers. It does take time to demonstrate that. We'll be judged on our success and on our ability to do things in the right way. When you hear external comment about the club teetering on the verge of administration or whatever, some of it is quite irresponsible. There is no way this business was ever going to go into administration again because the fundamentals are too strong. Some of these stories will quite naturally have alarmed supporters given what they have come through. But hopefully, in time, the supporters will recognise that the board and myself are doing the right things for their club. KJ: But then they see Laxey picking up ?150k for giving you a secured loan, doesn't that smack of the previous regime and people with their noses in the trough? GW: I can understand why people might look at it this way. The other way to look at it is it's no different from any other commercial organisation which would make loan capital available to a business. There is a level of return that they would expect for their money. The cost we've agreed with Laxey is deemed appropriate in the market. I don't think there should be any concerns about the level of commerciality on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 This is the MSS statement that there are no American Tanks in Edmiston Drive: GW: The money raised through the IPO has been spent in a variety of ways. But that's in the past. I can't respond in detail as to how those monies were used. What I can do is look at the business as we see it now and how we are going to move it forward. The need for a financial facility is no different for Rangers than for any normal business. What I don't get is why he was not pressed on a detailed explanation of where the money has gone, because it is in the present and over the last financial year, he brushed it off like it was years ago. This cash spend is relevant how can you go forward without detailing which variety of ways has the cash been spent and continues to be spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Some updates from the Court of Session hearing with Imran Ahmad moo ?@moo_ted 19m In CoS now. Lord Tyre asking why there's no accounts . IA arguing that they are continually making losses month on month .trying to prove insolvency. IA going over the auditors statement of accounts from last year. Tweets in court not allowed. Ill pop in and out for updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 OK so this Big Tax Case. Now we all know that oldco Rangers died, and newco Rangers are a different club. But the SFA, now no doubt SPFL, and Sevco and Rangers fans are all pretending that it is the same club. They might accept it is a new corporate entity but the club and its history is the same. Ok, lets accept that for arguments sake. What happens when the BTC finds against oldco (which it will), on the above argument it will be the club that will essentially have been found guilty of cheating? Presumably in such circumstances the SPFL will have no option but to punish "the club"? That's right isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 OK so this Big Tax Case. Now we all know that oldco Rangers died, and newco Rangers are a different club. But the SFA, now no doubt SPFL, and Sevco and Rangers fans are all pretending that it is the same club. They might accept it is a new corporate entity but the club and its history is the same. Ok, lets accept that for arguments sake. What happens when the BTC finds against oldco (which it will), on the above argument it will be the club that will essentially have been found guilty of cheating? Presumably in such circumstances the SPFL will have no option but to punish "the club"? That's right isnt it? Now that sir is what I call blind optimism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 OK so this Big Tax Case. Now we all know that oldco Rangers died, and newco Rangers are a different club. But the SFA, now no doubt SPFL, and Sevco and Rangers fans are all pretending that it is the same club. They might accept it is a new corporate entity but the club and its history is the same. Ok, lets accept that for arguments sake. What happens when the BTC finds against oldco (which it will), on the above argument it will be the club that will essentially have been found guilty of cheating? Presumably in such circumstances the SPFL will have no option but to punish "the club"? That's right isnt it? No they will simply invoke the newly created rule that the "same club" can't be punished for misdeeds of an "old same club". Seriously, the bill will end up with the oldco (RFC 2012) and the newco/club will be free to say that "it's nothing to do with us guv". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERJEAN51 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 No they will simply invoke the newly created rule that the "same club" can't be punished for misdeeds of an "old same club". Seriously, the bill will end up with the oldco (RFC 2012) and the newco/club will be free to say that "it's nothing to do with us guv". On that premise then how on earth can they still claim to be the most successful team in the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 On that premise then how on earth can they still claim to be the most successful team in the world? Anything good is kept, especially trophy's. Anything bad wisnae them, a big laddie done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) No they will simply invoke the newly created rule that the "same club" can't be punished for misdeeds of an "old same club". Seriously, the bill will end up with the oldco (RFC 2012) and the newco/club will be free to say that "it's nothing to do with us guv". Legally and corporately - ok But I am talking about the parallel world of Scottish football where sevco and oldco are viewed as the same club That argument cant prevail if this tax case finds that "the club" has been guilty of gross breaches of law and as a consequence bringing the game into disrepute, gaining unfair sporting advantage, trashing the concept of sporting integrity, without the administrators of Scottish football calling them to task. I dont expect it to happen, but I cant for the life of me see how it could legitimately be avoided. Edited February 25, 2014 by Jammy T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 On that premise then how on earth can they still claim to be the most successful team in the world? Cos they arra peepul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 If Ahmad wins that ring fence order in court, Fc Newco might not have enough funds to make payroll in 2 days. Now that would be very interesting indeed. Instant administration due to insolvency ?. Hmfc the team for me ... What I want to know is why is Wallce/Sevco so apparently desperate to avoid administration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambodan1998 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 @moo_ted Lord Tyre suggesting it might not be reasonable to grant the IA motion as it may put them into insolvency. @moo_ted IMO Lord Trye is leaning towards RIFC ! @moo_ted Going back in now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 All it needs now is for Craig Whyte to poke his head above the parapet again and the fun would really start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairneyhill Jambo Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) All it needs now is for Craig Whyte to poke his head above the parapet again and the fun would really start. From the BBC website "It emerged earlier this month that Ahmad's lawyers wished to call Green as a witness, something Rangers are reluctant to see happen. " I wonder why?? Fuhrerfuhrer.com would be in meltdown if that happened Edited February 25, 2014 by Cairneyhill Jambo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingstonjambo Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 @moo_ted Lord Tyre suggesting it might not be reasonable to grant the IA motion as it may put them into insolvency. @moo_ted IMO Lord Trye is leaning towards RIFC ! @moo_ted Going back in now That makes no sense. Surely if there is a threat of insolvency then IA is correct and the judge will need to grant the arrest of the funds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 That makes no sense. Surely if there is a threat of insolvency then IA is correct and the judge will need to grant the arrest of the funds I get what you mean but playing Devil's Advocate it would be a bit unfair if they were to win the case but ring fencing the money put them under regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 That makes no sense. Surely if there is a threat of insolvency then IA is correct and the judge will need to grant the arrest of the funds The act of ring fencing this cash would certainly trigger an insolvency event, so things must be that bad, so by refusing it they are effectively giving Newco time to get their act together, rather than Imrans greed. But at the same time he is also stating that they are borderline and thus confirming that Zombieco are indeed a basket case but giving them a chance of recovery, but recovery is not part of Greedcos' remit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22HMFC22 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 The fact that ring fencing this cash would trigger an insolvency event is all the proof I need that they are up the creek without a paddle ( again) ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I get what you mean but playing Devil's Advocate it would be a bit unfair if they were to win the case but ring fencing the money put them under regardless. But if the Spiv wins and all the money is gone then not fair to the Spiv if by ringfencing the money it would trigger Admin 2 though and Sevco can prove this then i doubt the Judge would allow that to happen. The 1.5 Million Emergency loan was for allowing them to stagger along till season ticket money can be gathered into the greedy spivs hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alva-Jambo Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Genuine question: If the REvenue is successful in its appeal, where can they get their millions, from? Can they take Ibrox from Newco for example or is newco ring fenced? Separately I see King would buy shares 'at the next fundraising' but would he wait for Newco to go insolvent first? How would this work out? Also if Newco goes insovent over the summer, they would have to be deducted 15 or 18? points. That could be useful to us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts