The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Phil D. Corners]

Police should be called over this.

To be fair, Deloitte should be calling them.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

An even after spending that and lots & lots more money they still were an utter failure in Europe.

Of course that squad was way too good and strong for the rest of us in Scotland but the money wasn't spent just to win the Scottish League or Scottish Cup, European glory was the goal.

 

What the orcs don't quite get when they go on about the Champions League in 3 years time and all that is this.

They had a really good squad littered with full current top internationalist's back then and still couldn't conquer Europe, so what chance do they have with free transfers from the 3rd tier in England?

Just how much money would it cost nowadays to put a squad like that together, probably somewhere well beyond ?100m and the rest.

Spot on, James. Loved Murray's pouty face as he announces Smith's imminent resignation, and the failed CL bid.

[Angus Young]

The S. Herald are running this piece today on Deloitte quitting as auditors after their staff were threatened & intimidated over a 2 year period.

 

 

 

 

My guess is MA Has put the squeeze on them to resign leaving the Glib Liar and Pot Less Paul with more problems to deal with.

[CMc]

I see they are attempting to copy us even to the extent of having a mainly white goalies top. 

 

Is that not an old away top theyve recycled?

[Norm]

Better than hearts shite

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tartofmidlothian]

 

Better than hearts shite

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[naeclue]

My guess is MA Has put the squeeze on them to resign leaving the Glib Liar and Pot Less Paul with more problems to deal with.

 

I think that there are two possibilities:

 

The Current Regime are linked to the third parties that issued threats to Deloittes staff, and they want nothing to do with them.

 

or

 

The next audit is going to be truly, magnificently and damningly ugly and Deloitte don't want to be shot as the bringer of that particular message.

 

Any other guesses?

[Paul cherry]

I think that there are two possibilities:

 

The Current Regime are linked to the third parties that issued threats to Deloittes staff, and they want nothing to do with them.

 

or

 

The next audit is going to be truly, magnificently and damningly ugly and Deloitte don't want to be shot as the bringer of that particular message.

 

Any other guesses?

Pleeeease let it be the second one. Pleeeeeeease.

[Turkishcap]

Proves its right to keep this thread open, it's not over till.......you tell me.

[Guess The Crowd]

 

Better than hearts shite

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's brilliant! Anyone know the chap in the glasses? Edited July 6, 2015 by Guess The Crowd

[Unknown user]

That's brilliant! Anyone know the chap in the glasses?

I don't but he'll be getting a free point if I bump into him, good lad

[Jambof3tornado]

The fat lady hasnt even done her vocals warm up yet.

 

Great stuff.

[JamboGuy]

The S. Herald are running this piece today on Deloitte quitting as auditors after their staff were threatened & intimidated over a 2 year period.

 

 

 

The question that puzzles me is why whichever Rangers Board(s) and management(s) were in place at the time did nothing when Deloittes advised them that the threats were being received?

 

As advisors, Deloittes had no alternative but to so advise their client (and did so).

 

It can, therefore, be absolutely no surprise to the Board that Deloittes walked away at Rangers' inaction. Any protestations of surprise by the Board now would likely owe more to the advice of their PR "guru" than genuine lack of preparedness for this happening. In reality, they will have seen this coming for some time.

 

Given the previous comments Deloittes had made about the company's trading position as well, I am sure the partners there (especially those receiving threats but not being connected to the audit) were quite happy to terminate the relationship.

 

I seriously doubt that MA had anything to do with it. It is far more about personal safety and professional reputation (which to equity partners at Deloittes, is almost the same thing).

[Jambo 4 Ever]

The question that puzzles me is why whichever Rangers Board(s) and management(s) were in place at the time did nothing when Deloittes advised them that the threats were being received?

 

As advisors, Deloittes had no alternative but to so advise their client (and did so).

 

It can, therefore, be absolutely no surprise to the Board that Deloittes walked away at Rangers' inaction. Any protestations of surprise by the Board now would likely owe more to the advice of their PR "guru" than genuine lack of preparedness for this happening. In reality, they will have seen this coming for some time.

 

Given the previous comments Deloittes had made about the company's trading position as well, I am sure the partners there (especially those receiving threats but not being connected to the audit) were quite happy to terminate the relationship.

 

I seriously doubt that MA had anything to do with it. It is far more about personal safety and professional reputation (which to equity partners at Deloittes, is almost the same thing).

Will it make any potential auditors think twice about being their auditor now do you think?  Or will it be quite straightforward to find a replacement

[JamboGuy]

Will it make any potential auditors think twice about being their auditor now do you think?  Or will it be quite straightforward to find a replacement

 

That is the million dollar question. And at first sight the answer is hard to get to.

 

But consider - if you were the audit partner of a competing firm, hearing public reports of unresolved threats to staff and families, and of a company with alleged credit risks, would you gamble your own firm's reputation on bidding for the audit at a price likely to be accepted?

 

Oh, you may BID for the work, but pitch your rates so high that they cannot be accepted. You would not want to be tarnished with the "refused to bid" tag, just in case.

 

But audit firms focus on businesses they can help grow and work with for several years - where in the RIFC mega-shambles is a company you really expect to be a good client for 5-10 years?

[I P Knightley]

The S. Herald are running this piece today on Deloitte quitting as auditors after their staff were threatened & intimidated over a 2 year period.

 

 

 

 

I'm quite certain that Deloitte wouldn't have walked away had there been a guarantee of healthy fee income over the coming years. Audit firms often turn a blind eye on questions of ethics and taking a fee from dodgy characters. The most likely reason for taking the moral high ground is that they see nothing in the coffers for them.

[Paul cherry]

Will it make any potential auditors think twice about being their auditor now do you think?  Or will it be quite straightforward to find a replacement

Guys like Deloitte are not in the auditing business to be popular, so I'd wager it's pretty exceptional for them to cut ties with a decent sized business like the Rangers international. Tlr won't necessarily struggle to find another auditor, but the quality of the firm, and the fees they will get charged could be a challenge For them

[I.T.K]

I think that there are two possibilities:

 

The Current Regime are linked to the third parties that issued threats to Deloittes staff, and they want nothing to do with them.

 

or

 

The next audit is going to be truly, magnificently and damningly ugly and Deloitte don't want to be shot as the bringer of that particular message.

 

Any other guesses?

 

 

 

Does anyone know what the 'third party' were so upset about? 

[Rudolf]

Maybe Deloittes simply want nothing to do with a company who's chairman is a convicted criminal?

[Tasavallan]

Looking at their letter I thought it was signed by 'Dolittle'. 

[SUTOL]

Nobody at Deloittes wanted to do the audit anyway. Nobody would personally sign it off. So no surprise they aren't continuing irrespective of the threats.

[Jamdub]

Maybe Deloittes simply want nothing to do with a company who's chairman is a convicted criminal?

 

Plus a glib and shameless liar.

[Dutchmul]

My guess is MA Has put the squeeze on them to resign leaving the Glib Liar and Pot Less Paul with more problems to deal with.

 

 

I think that there are two possibilities:

 

The Current Regime are linked to the third parties that issued threats to Deloittes staff, and they want nothing to do with them.

 

or

 

The next audit is going to be truly, magnificently and damningly ugly and Deloitte don't want to be shot as the bringer of that particular message.

 

Any other guesses?

 

Delloite's announced last year they where giving up the audit of sevco, this formal resignation is presumably down to the fact that sevco have done nothing to appoint another auditor.

 

the last 2 sets of accounts had damaging notes on them from deloittes, I think they have realised that the fee's are far outweighed by the negativity that will attach(and already has attached) to them if they continue as auditors.

 

I don't expect any of the other 4 big audit firms to jump at the chance either.

 

So, no nomad, no stock market listing, no auditor, no investment from the GASL, looking good for promotion this season.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

I'd be shocked if they couldn't get another auditor in.

 

It's all to do with Dave King IMO.

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

That's brilliant! Anyone know the chap in the glasses?

Looks a bit like Walter White!

[alicante jambo]

Looks like everybody loves baz

[Mikey1874]

Finances are shit is the story

[colinmaroon]

Delloite's announced last year they where giving up the audit of sevco, this formal resignation is presumably down to the fact that sevco have done nothing to appoint another auditor.

 

the last 2 sets of accounts had damaging notes on them from deloittes, I think they have realised that the fee's are far outweighed by the negativity that will attach(and already has attached) to them if they continue as auditors.

 

I don't expect any of the other 4 big audit firms to jump at the chance either.

 

So, no nomad, no stock market listing, no auditor, no investment from the GASL, looking good for promotion this season.

 

 

 

I believe Flaherty, O'Donnell, Carragher, O'Neill & Prtrs have volunteered

[Angus Young]

Now as expected they are seeking cash from the orcs not a penny from the Glib and Shameless Liar  http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/rangers-board-hold-talks-over-potential-supporter-group-merger.131200415?

[Ron Swanson]

 

[altyjambo]

Rangers are the worst of all possible clients for a big 4 auditor.Very high profile, very small in size (?18m turnover is very small indeed for these guys), little chance of big fees, high risk of not being paid and risk of orcs having a go at them, leading to increased security costs.

 

I'm sure Rangers don't need a big 4 firm - they can't raise any money publicly as no stock exchange will have them, and that's the only reason it's worth having them. 

There will be plenty of takers in the next rank of auditors, especially now that the GASL's untold wealth will be available to remove those pesky going concern notes. 

[Unknown user]

Now as expected they are seeking cash from the orcs not a penny from the Glib and Shameless Liar http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/rangers-board-hold-talks-over-potential-supporter-group-merger.131200415?

I think you might be reading a different story from me when you click that link, that story's about unifying the fan groups

[Mysterion]

I think you might be reading a different story from me when you click that link, that story's about unifying the fan groups

The story makes reference to fan groups buying shares and investing money (giving away their money) into supporting the club infrastructure.

 

The idea being a strong unified group = more money.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Mysterion

[Unknown user]

The story makes reference to fan groups buying shares and investing money (giving away their money) into supporting the club infrastructure.

 

The idea being a strong unified group = more money.

They want to sell 45k season tickets and the fan group will be able to buy shares and invest.

That's a long way from what our friend munch seemed to be implying

 

EDIT it's the article mentioned the STs by the way, that's not a quote from anyone

Edited July 7, 2015 by Smithee

[Don Dan]

I wonder how the court case is going today HMRC want their (our) money.

[tartofmidlothian]

I wonder how the court case is going today HMRC want their (our) money.

 

Who are they chasing for it?

[Don Dan]

Who are they chasing for it?

 

The case concerns the use of Employee Benefit Trusts

Three senior judges have begun hearing a legal challenge to the original outcome of the so-called Rangers "big tax case".

In 2012 a tribunal ruled that the club's use of Employee Benefit Trusts, which provided tax-free loans, was not illegal.

Lawyers acting for HMRC told the court it was being asked to endorse a "fantastically silly proposition".

The challenge concerns the company which ran Rangers until 2012.

It was liquidated following non-payment of a tax bill.

The hearing, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, is expected to last four days.

In July 2014, an upper-tier tax tribunal dismissed an HMRC appeal against a first-tier decision on payments made to players and other employees.

The tax authority argued unsuccessfully that the payments should be taxable.

The appellants in the case, companies which were part of the Murray Group, argued that the payments were loans.

[The Mighty Thor]

Who are they chasing for it?

 

It's all the same club isn't it. Well i'm sure what the Chief Executive of the SPFL said.

 

[tartofmidlothian]

The case concerns the use of Employee Benefit Trusts

Three senior judges have begun hearing a legal challenge to the original outcome of the so-called Rangers "big tax case".

In 2012 a tribunal ruled that the club's use of Employee Benefit Trusts, which provided tax-free loans, was not illegal.

Lawyers acting for HMRC told the court it was being asked to endorse a "fantastically silly proposition".

The challenge concerns the company which ran Rangers until 2012.

It was liquidated following non-payment of a tax bill.

The hearing, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, is expected to last four days.

In July 2014, an upper-tier tax tribunal dismissed an HMRC appeal against a first-tier decision on payments made to players and other employees.

The tax authority argued unsuccessfully that the payments should be taxable.

The appellants in the case, companies which were part of the Murray Group, argued that the payments were loans.

 

But who are they chasing? The owners of the club at the time? Those who were paid the EBTs? The current club? Or is that what they're trying to establish here?

[OmiyaHearts]

But who are they chasing? The owners of the club at the time? Those who were paid the EBTs? The current club? Or is that what they're trying to establish here?

The liquidated oldco will be liable for it.

 

I don't think the point of this case is about what they can get out it financially - it's what it could mean long term. If they lose it sets a precedent and would have an impact on any future cases like this where they take action.

 

Maybe I'm talking pish.

[disgruntledfan]

The liquidated oldco will be liable for it.

 

I don't think the point of this case is about what they can get out it financially - it's what it could mean long term. If they lose it sets a precedent and would have an impact on any future cases like this where they take action.

 

Maybe I'm talking pish.

Think you are correct on this, Rangers is the litmus test, if they win this it opens a whole can of worms for other clubs that used EBTs in the past and stops them being used in the future. Lose, well I dont think they will, its HMRC they always seem to get their way.

[DETTY29]

The case concerns the use of Employee Benefit Trusts

Three senior judges have begun hearing a legal challenge to the original outcome of the so-called Rangers "big tax case".

In 2012 a tribunal ruled that the club's use of Employee Benefit Trusts, which provided tax-free loans, was not illegal.

Lawyers acting for HMRC told the court it was being asked to endorse a "fantastically silly proposition".

The challenge concerns the company which ran Rangers until 2012.

It was liquidated following non-payment of a tax bill.

The hearing, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, is expected to last four days.

In July 2014, an upper-tier tax tribunal dismissed an HMRC appeal against a first-tier decision on payments made to players and other employees.

The tax authority argued unsuccessfully that the payments should be taxable.

The appellants in the case, companies which were part of the Murray Group, argued that the payments were loans.

What was the source of that text.

 

I don't know the exact numbers but HMRC won a handful of cases and dozens of part payments were referred back to the FTT.

 

And no-one knows the value of the HMRC confirmed victories or the value of the the cases referred back.

 

I'm sure FF will have a better handle on more precise details.

[Don Dan]

What was the source of that text.

 

I don't know the exact numbers but HMRC won a handful of cases and dozens of part payments were referred back to the FTT.

 

And no-one knows the value of the HMRC confirmed victories or the value of the the cases referred back.

 

I'm sure FF will have a better handle on more precise details.

Came from the BBC.

 

And this from the Scotsman which is a perfectly valid argument IMO.

 

 

"HM Revenue and Customs maintains that the effect of previous tribunal decisions in the case is that employees can avoid paying income tax by agreeing that payments be made to others of their choosing, rather than getting the money themselves.

 

But Julian Ghosh QC, for the revenue, told judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh it was ?still part of the remuneration package.?

 

Mr Ghosh said: ?When money is paid for something you did it is also derived by the earner, the worker.?

 

?This cash payment was part of the remuneration package. It was wages and bonuses. This money was earned for work done,? he said.

 

He said so far as the players were concerned it was for appearing in football matches and winning games and for the executives for work performances.

 

Mr Ghosh argued it would be ?odd beyond measure? if tax was to be avoided in the circumstances of the case.

 

He said the court was being asked to endorse a situation where an employee said to anyone who paid them for work done, do not pay me but pay another such as my brother or my wife."

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Footballfirst]

The original RTC has woken from his slumbers with this reminder.

 

Rangers Tax-Case ?@rangerstaxcase 1h1 hour ago

Remember current appeal only covers part of the BTC. RFC have already admitted guilt in 5 cases and several others sent back to FTT.

[The Comedian]

I think you'll find the Hun were VINDICATED and there isn't anything else to be seen here.

[davieholt]

I think you'll find the Hun were VINDICATED and there isn't anything else to be seen here.

 

I think 'vindicated' is a bit strong. Not guilty by a majority which is being challenged just now - and even then only because they got their shredders working in time!

[Wilson]

I think you'll find the Hun were VINDICATED and there isn't anything else to be seen here.

No they were not .

 

They accepted the charges on 5 cases prior to Tribunal and 3 were referred back to First Tier Tribunal.

 

They cheated.

[Wilson]

I think you'll find the Hun were VINDICATED and there isn't anything else to be seen here.

No they were not .

 

They accepted the charges on 5 cases prior to Tribunal and 3 were referred back to First Tier Tribunal.

 

They cheated.

[DETTY29]

No they were not .

 

They accepted the charges on 5 cases prior to Tribunal and 3 were referred back to First Tier Tribunal.

 

They cheated.

To be fair tok, some of the stuff sent back referred to what the Murrays and key execs claimed.

[Footballfirst]

The EBTs that related to the Murray family members and Murray group execs were referred back to the FTTT with a direction to find in Murray's favour.

 

EBT payments in relation to termination payments (35 sub-trusts involved) were also referred back because the original FTTT failed to make a decision on them.

 

A further issue referred back related to the "grossing up" of tax payments, also for determination by the FTTT.