The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[The Don]

If HMRC win this then they can chase those in charge of oldco for outstanding amounts along with the players/execs that benefitted from EBT's. It will also give them ammunition for future cases. 

 

Implications for Newco ? if they are found guilty of illegally paying players could that have an impact on newco? afterall they have been telling us for 4 years they are the same club, even their groin sniffing lapdog Dungcaster is on record as saying so, surely if it is deemed in a court of law they illegally paid players some kind of retrospective punishment must be dealt out. They have never been punished for "Cheating" illegal use of EBT's have they? their only consequence was that which followed liquidation. 

[Riccarton3]

Weir critical of lack of scouting network today. Is there more to that than meets the eye?

Edited July 7, 2015 by Riccarton3

[Footballfirst]

If HMRC win this then they can chase those in charge of oldco for outstanding amounts along with the players/execs that benefitted from EBT's. It will also give them ammunition for future cases. 

 

Implications for Newco ? if they are found guilty of illegally paying players could that have an impact on newco? afterall they have been telling us for 4 years they are the same club, even their groin sniffing lapdog Dungcaster is on record as saying so, surely if it is deemed in a court of law they illegally paid players some kind of retrospective punishment must be dealt out. They have never been punished for "Cheating" illegal use of EBT's have they? their only consequence was that which followed liquidation. 

 

They almost certainly won't be able to go after the ex players and employees as they will have been given side letters  by the Oldco indemnifying them against any future tax liability.

 

Any sums due will be against the Oldco and will only serve to reduce the amount distributed to creditors other than HMRC.

[Feeno]

They almost certainly won't be able to go after the ex players and employees as they will have been given side letters by the Oldco indemnifying them against any future tax liability.

 

Any sums due will be against the Oldco and will only serve to reduce the amount distributed to creditors other than HMRC.

So, potentially, the money King is due would decrease?

[itsnomarooned]

They almost certainly won't be able to go after the ex players and employees as they will have been given side letters by the Oldco indemnifying them against any future tax liability.

 

Any sums due will be against the Oldco and will only serve to reduce the amount distributed to creditors other than HMRC.

I suspect it's entirely up to HMRC to determine where liability might lie irrespective of whatever assurances Oldco may have given. I don't think this is about the money as such though, more the precedent for future cases - as has been pointed out before.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Footballfirst]

So, potentially, the money King is due would decrease?

 

We still don't know if BDO have allowed King's claim, but in terms of an interim dividend (if he receives one) it will have been calculated on the basis of HMRC's maximum claim.  If HMRC's claim is subsequently reduced folowing the appeals process, then there would be scope for a further dividend to other creditors.

[Dutchmul]

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.

 

 

 

They also lost the "wee" tax case as well.

[Everybody loves Baz]

Looks like everybody loves baz

Lol, it's no me Murphy, though it is the kind of shit I used to get up to at games.

[Footballfirst]

From a TSFM poster who attended the CoS appeal today.

 

 

Today in Court 2 in Parliament House.

 

The teams:
For HMRC: Mr Julian Ghosh QC, Mr Thomson QC. Supported by 2 solicitors and a number of HMRC people.

For MG and Others, Mr Dunlop, QC and another bewigged person whose name I didn?t catch,supported by three solicitors.

On the bench , my lords Carloway, Mackenzie and Drummond-Young, bewigged or gowned.

 

Sadly, Mr Ghosh is very quiet-spoken and from 4 rows back and him with his back to us,I missed quite a lot through hearing only parts of what he said, usually the links of his argument!
Very briefly,Mr Ghosh gave an outline of the essence of the scheme.

 

He made much of the point that the Main Trustee knew from a ?letter of wishes? and the loan application how much was to be settled in any sub-trust.

 

He emphasised that this Trust money was part of the remuneration package earned for work done.The only reason it was deemed not taxable was that the money was not paid directly to the employee.

 

The employee was free to say ? don?t pay me, pay someone else..my wife, brother or whatever.?

 

In this case, the ?someone else? was the Main Trust, in the employee?s belief that loans would be obtained, that the Trustee?s discretion would be used in the right way.

 

That, said Mr Ghosh, is the principle involved. It would be catastrophic for the public purse if that was all that needed to be done to avoid tax.

 

The finding that it was a true exercise of discretion is unsound. The significance of that point was missed by the FTT.

 

Judge Mackenzie : It was not apparent.

 

Mr Ghosh said that it is that principle that this Court is to decide.

 

He then discussed the Main Trust (set up by MGL) documents, mentioned that were 5 different employers, and then a whole lot of sub-trusts. And subsequent variations . In one Trust only, Sir David Murray as Protector was given ?absolute? powers ( And here Mr Ghosh said that what SDM did in exercise of those powers ?he simply could not do!)
I kind of missed what it was he did, but apparently he had power to exclude future employees and/or include them, or maybe both

 

Mr Ghosh said the scheme worked thus: communication between the Trust and the employer, communication between employer and employee, and communication by ?letter of wish? between the employee as Protector of his sub-trust and the Main Trust.

 

He selected three particular cases- Bain, McLean and McCann, and discussed relevant documents, (letters of wishes and side letters) showing the true nature of the Trusts, with the employer undertaking to make payment if a loan were ever to be refused. For example, in the McLean case the letter said ? In the event that the?..the CLUB will pay to you the balance?.?

 

And the monies to be paid were in all footballer cases earned income, and in Bain?s case, bonus for good performance.

 

So,Mr Ghosh said, we have got to a place where cash payments were being made by the employer on terms where the money is being paid to someone else, in a diversion of earnings to avoid tax.

 

He then ran through how various sections of the Income Tax Act would apply to such earnings ( requirement on employer to deduct tax, even if payment made to an intermediary or to a person acting on behalf of the employer.

 

he moved on to consider whether these payments whether made by the employer to the Main trust or whether by the Main trust to a sub-Trust, were to be regarded as ?emoluments?.

 

He referred to a number of cases :A case involving a partner in KPMG who tried to assign his earnings { and, in parenthesis, he observed that Mr Thornhill had argued that it was an assignment of proprietary interest in his assets as a partner, in the only case that he had won: discreet smiles all round}

 

And the case of Collins, in which in the sale of shares part of the ?consideration? was to be paid to the Company to be held by someone else.

 

The overall argument, in Mr Ghosh?s submission is ?YOU the employee are due the money. if was paid to someone else at your request, so what?

 

He went on to fillet the Defra case, the Edwards and Roberts case, and showed that a true reading of these did not support any view that payments made by an employer into a Trust were anything other than remuneration.

 

in the present case, the footballers were given an unconditional guarantee that they would get paid, even if their Trust were to refuse a loan.

 

There was then discussion by Mr Ghosh of Lord Hodge?s judgement in a NIC case in which a distinction had been made by Lord H between earnings and emoluments in so far as National Insurance Contributions was concerned? The case of Mr McHugh, a company director who benefited because his Trust provided a pension for life ( when he was aged 54 , provided he lived to age 60).

 

There was no such contingency applying to the Trust loans: the football players had a very present hope and expectation of being paid here and now.

 

Mr Ghosh?s position is that here we have the employee getting a payment of remuneration in a way that he is happy with..

 

Then Mr Ghosh gave his view of how Ramsay was to be understood.Basically, look at the true transaction, look at the parties, what is the transaction realistically. One is to assess the actual parties, and the relevant actions, and look at the provisions and then look at the actions realistically.

 

Is it part of a remuneration package?

 

Yes, it is! Thar?s what McLean got, and McCann?

 

He cited the SPI(?) case where they wanted to sell gilts to City Bank, and wanted them back commercially.To beat Ramsay, there was a contingency clause about there being a sale, and then a sale back.It is not good enough to build in artificial contingencies just to beat Ramsay.

 

The true transaction was that there was no sale.

 

At this point Mr Ghosh explained that he was not attacking the findings of fact of the FTTT.

 

But we just have to accept that the payments made to the trust were the application of wages.

 

Ramsay, Edwards and Roberts tell us? the players were told if you get a loan we?ll pay you money, and the letter of wishes is what decides the settlement.

 

There followed a bit from Mr Ghosh about the ?causal connection? between the money paid into the Main trust and the the money paid to the Sub-trust and, subsequently to the player.

Lord McKenzie remarked that if there was no causal connection between the employer and the Main Trust, isn?t the link broken?

 

Mr Ghosh replied that the causal chain doesn?t start until the money is paid to the player following receipt of letter of wishes and loan application.  I think that?s what he said

 

And in the case of non-players, if the money was not paid to the appellant as an employee, then on what basis would it have been paid?

 

And Mr Ghosh moved on to show that what was paid was ?remuneration? He used McMillan?s ( Group tax and pensions manager)letter in which he used words and phrases such as ?footballer?s packge?and balance recorded in the side-letters? ?remuneration package, part payable through the trust? and ?for non-footballers, payment in lieu of bonus earned?

 

Mr Ghosh again emphasised he was not attacking the Findings of fact. But he remarked that the it was annoying the way the Tribunal recorded the evidence)

 

He then itemised certain sentences and word in the evidence given by McCann?s agent, Naco Novo?s agent, Mr Bain?s side letters relating to his discussion with SDM about looking for payment in respect of 6grand tax that Bain had had to pay,

 

and then, on the question of ?unreserved disposal? he faulted the the arguments in the Sempra case as being quite wrong.

 

And criticised a number of the FTTT?s paragraphs ( 234 misses the point,it has nothing to do with entitlement), 235 is incorrect (nobody is talking about ?absolute transfer of funds),237 is just rubbish or irrelevant- ?absolutely and unreservedly is NOT the test.

 

And the Finding in Law number 4 is mistaken( This seems to be about Trust Law, and Lord Drummond-Young clarified what Mr Ghosh was saying, and then both agreed on the point (whatever it was)

 

Mr ghosh continued by saying that the FTTT had made several non-findings of fact and non-findings of law, and arrive at ?Accordingly..?

at which point Lord Carloway interjected that ?accordingly is usually followed by a non-sequitur.!

 

And then it was home time, at 4.00 pm.
Court reconvenes at 10.30 tomorrow.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Footballfirst

[john brownlee]

They almost certainly won't be able to go after the ex players and employees as they will have been given side letters by the Oldco indemnifying them against any future tax liability.

 

Any sums due will be against the Oldco and will only serve to reduce the amount distributed to creditors other than HMRC.

Not strictly true. I worked for a company that didn't pay tax or NI for over a year , it took the HMRC that long to chase me down and get the money. In the end I had to pay the back tax even though I had it deduced by the cheating barstuards, on the other hand the NI were Ok and allowed me some leeway. As I said on a previous post they will get what's due.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jam Tarts 1874]

With the tax case I suppose that there is still some fun to be had from watching the cretins in the weegia trying to find a way of separating Rangers from The Rangers in this tax case, but keeping them together when banging on about the "old firm" etc.

[Tazio]

On a less financial level, remember the young lad they were going to sign from Spurs?

 

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/winks-on-new-contract-070715/

[SUTOL]

On a less financial level, remember the young lad they were going to sign from Spurs?

 

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/winks-on-new-contract-070715/

 

 

They could still get him on a loan.

[Tazio]

They could still get him on a loan.

 

They could. But you have to bear in mind last year Spurs put their good youngsters on loan to places like Swansea. Not the Scottish Championship. It isn't outside the bounds of possibility but a pretty long shot I reckon.

[Deevers]

I wonder if HMRC win this case, is it out with the bounds of possibility that they might go after SEVCO as a "Phoenix Company" looking to recoup some of what they are owed. After all with some of the same directors, same name, and the Orcs baying that they are the same club, might this happen?

Edited July 8, 2015 by Deevers

[Mysterion]

I wonder if HMRC win this case, is it out with the bounds of possibility that they might go after SEVCO as a "Phoenix Company" looking to recoup some of what they are owed. After all with some of the same directors, same name, and the Orcs baying that they are the same club, might this happen?

 

I think the legal battle over that would take too long and cost too much. 

 

When they reformed as Rangers it wasn't as a phoenix - they were a new company with a different name and different people running the club. After setting up the business they were given permission to change their name - i think by BDO?

 

I think it might be viewed legally as enough of a separation of the business despite the Sports side of things being viewed as a continuation by the football authorities.

[J Cheever Loophole]

They could. But you have to bear in mind last year Spurs put their good youngsters on loan to places like Swansea. Not the Scottish Championship. It isn't outside the bounds of possibility but a pretty long shot I reckon.

But, but, they would be up against the team that plays the best football this side of the Sun!

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Weir critical of lack of scouting network today. Is there more to that than meets the eye?

 

I read that to mean.

 

It's not our fault we can only get free transfers from the 3rd tier in England as it was the previous regime who got rid of Wee Stevie so we don't have any scouting network now.

 

What Weir doesn't mention is that all the years he played for Rangers there wasn't a scouting network then and he would have known that before he took the job on.

What I think he is doing is to lay the blame for the lack of players at previous regimes.

[The Don]

I think the legal battle over that would take too long and cost too much. 

 

When they reformed as Rangers it wasn't as a phoenix - they were a new company with a different name and different people running the club. After setting up the business they were given permission to change their name - i think by BDO?

 

I think it might be viewed legally as enough of a separation of the business despite the Sports side of things being viewed as a continuation by the football authorities.

 

 

A lot will depend on how much evidence is found of White/Green being involved with each other and other current board members having links to them. 

 

If it is found that White and his cohorts were involved with Greene all along in some way and/or King or his cohorts were involved with White or Green in any way with business linked to Rangers and Oldco then they will pursue as a Phoenix. However as your first sentence states the cost and time involved may put a stop to them ever pursuing.

[Doc Rob]

A lot will depend on how much evidence is found of White/Green being involved with each other and other current board members having links to them. 

 

If it is found that White and his cohorts were involved with Greene all along in some way and/or King or his cohorts were involved with White or Green in any way with business linked to Rangers and Oldco then they will pursue as a Phoenix. However as your first sentence states the cost and time involved may put a stop to them ever pursuing.

Can totally see this happening. So they formed a NewCo, kept the same name, the same badge, the same colours, the same stadium, some of the players and some of the board. Then they trumpeted that they were a continuation of the same club and laid claim to all the history of the Old Rangers. You couldn't really get any more blatant. It really does beg the question - if HMRC won't go after SevCo as a phoenix company, who will they go after? I suspect the answer is 'smaller and less high profile targets with fewer lawyers'.

[The Don]

Can totally see this happening. So they formed a NewCo, kept the same name, the same badge, the same colours, the same stadium, some of the players and some of the board. Then they trumpeted that they were a continuation of the same club and laid claim to all the history of the Old Rangers. You couldn't really get any more blatant. It really does beg the question - if HMRC won't go after SevCo as a phoenix company, who will they go after? I suspect the answer is 'smaller and less high profile targets with fewer lawyers'.

It's not quite as blatant as you put it. To prove they are a Phoenix it is the business that owns the club that has to be proven to be the Phoenix not the football club. There has to be evidence that the present board members or those since newcomer was formed were also part of the oldco as board members etc.

 

Businesses liquidate all the time and can start again as the same business doing the same with the same employees but a completely different owner/s or registered company.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Does David Murray get away with everything he was involved in?

[OmiyaHearts]

A lot will depend on how much evidence is found of White/Green being involved with each other and other current board members having links to them. 

 

If it is found that White and his cohorts were involved with Greene all along in some way and/or King or his cohorts were involved with White or Green in any way with business linked to Rangers and Oldco then they will pursue as a Phoenix. However as your first sentence states the cost and time involved may put a stop to them ever pursuing.

I'd be surprised if they pursued as a phoenix club. It's unbelievably difficult.

 

In my time at PKF we had a few instances that were so clear cut cases you wouldn't believe it. Never won a single case.

 

One case was the same director, same company name, same employees, same trading address etc - exact same business. Still weren't able to convince the courts it was a phoenix - and that was with our very own Bryan Jackson.

 

So even with evidence of Green and Whyte in cahoots there's virtually no chance it would be proven as phoenix.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Does David Murray get away with everything he was involved in?

 

Yes

[Feeno]

Does David Murray get away with everything he was involved in?

 

Tbf the guy has Liuetenant Dan legs, so naw

[King Of The Cat Cafe]

Anyone know who is paying the fees of the legal team appearing for Rangers?

[Tasavallan]

Anyone know who is paying the fees of the legal team appearing for Rangers?

DumbassLawyers4U   

[Footballfirst]

I went along to the CoS today to listen to the arguments myself.

 

The morning started with a adjournment to fix an IT problem, but we were soon underway with (the almost inaudible) Mr Ghosh for HMRC following on from where he finished last night.

 

He reaffirmed his belief that the FTTT and UTTT had failed to consider remuneration and entitlement adequately and thus failed on a critical finding in Law.

 

He focussed on the transfer of money from the employer to the main trust as being taxable at that point.

 

He asked to Lords if they would consider some transcripts from the FTTT. After a 30 second discussion, the Lords decided not to, but would rely on the ?Decisions? of the FTTT and UTTT.

 

He then moved onto the jurisdiction of the CoS re English Trusts vis a vis tax law which is UK wide. I wasn?t clear on what point he was trying to make but he didn?t get any dissention from the Lords.

 

His final arguments were about the roles, responsibilities and actions of the trusts? Protectors, Trustees and beneficiaries. The main thrust of the argument was that both SDM and ultimately the employees could do what they wanted. The powers of SDM in particular were questioned and deemed to be in excess of what he should be allowed.

----------------------------------------------------- 

Mr Dunlop (for Rangers) opened with a little nugget saying that he was only acting on behalf of respondent 5 (I assume that to be Rangers). If I?ve understood what he said correctly, it could be that the other Murray group companies have abandoned the appeal now that they have been liquidated and dissolved.

 

Dunlop then outlined the four areas that he would address during his submission.
1. The Scope of the appeal
2. Arguments against HMRC?s belief that the FTTT and UTTT had judged the case on the wrong test (funds unreservedly available to the employee)
3. Redirected Payments
4. The role of Protectors (SDM?)

 

1) He argued that the court should not consider arguments from HMRC relating to matters that were not presented to the FTTT, e.g. the transfer on money from the employer to the main trust.

 

He also argued that the FTTT and UTTT couldn?t be held responsible for their failing to respond to evidence that wasn?t presented to them

 

He believed that the Lords should focus more on the UTTT decision than the FTTT.

 

The three Lords pulled him up about the scope saying that it was agreed by both parties at a pre hearing in May and that Mr Ghosh had only raised issues that had been agreed at that meeting.

 

2) Mr Dunlop then got himself into some difficulty when arguing when payments or entitlements became taxable and what constituted an entitlement.

 

There were some quizzical looks from the Law Lords and the HMRC representatives. Dunlop was questioned on various aspects of what he was claiming and I didn?t think he got his point across very well.

 

However, his performance improved a little towards the end of the day when he started quoting from previous case judgements that appeared to support his position.

 

Mr Dunlop expects to finish his submission around tomorrow lunchtime and it is possible we will get closing arguments completed by the end of the day.

 

The appeal will be starting at 10am tomorrow to try and get it completed a day early.

 

I?d give HMRC a win on points today, but I don?t know how positively the Lords will have taken Ghosh?s submission.

 

Ghosh came across better than Thomson had for HMRC at the UTTT, but I felt Dunlop was pretty poor compared to Thornhill.

[Dutchmul]

I wonder if HMRC win this case, is it out with the bounds of possibility that they might go after SEVCO as a "Phoenix Company" looking to recoup some of what they are owed. After all with some of the same directors, same name, and the Orcs baying that they are the same club, might this happen?

 

Very unlikely, HMRC have taken it this far to get a precendent, Rangers(IL) are a relatively small case for them, they just want a final judgement in their favour.

 

Anyone know who is paying the fees of the legal team appearing for Rangers?

 

It will be BDO from the money that the club has to distribute to creditors on the basis that a win means more cash to the creditors.

[SUTOL]

Anyone know who is paying the fees of the legal team appearing for Rangers?

 

I'd presume it would be the liquidators, BDO.

[Footballfirst]

It will be BDO from the money that the club has to distribute to creditors on the basis that a win means more cash to the creditors.

 

It won't increase the amount available to creditors, but would change the distribution a bit. i.e. HMRC (the largest creditor) would get less.

[i wish jj was my dad]

Does David Murray get away with everything he was involved in?

It certainly appears so and I can't quite understand why

[Unknown user]

Just over 2 weeks til their season starts and they've managed to get 3 whole players in.

 

I'm not saying they won't sign anyone else, but it's a big ask for any player to integrate in 2 weeks- surely their fans are openly worried by now

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Just over 2 weeks til their season starts and they've managed to get 3 whole players in.

 

I'm not saying they won't sign anyone else, but it's a big ask for any player to integrate in 2 weeks- surely their fans are openly worried by now

I'm sure they'll have something to put on the park by then, but at the moment it's all been a lot of words without much action to back it up.

[Jammy T]

Oooofftt

 

Early start for the court

 

10am??

 

Must be dead keen to get this out the way

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Just over 2 weeks til their season starts and they've managed to get 3 whole players in.

 

I'm not saying they won't sign anyone else, but it's a big ask for any player to integrate in 2 weeks- surely their fans are openly worried by now

 

 

I'm sure they'll have something to put on the park by then, but at the moment it's all been a lot of words without much action to back it up.

 

Davie Weir was moaning about the lack of any scouting network the other day.

 

What he didn't mention was the fact that when he played for them several years ago there wasn't any scouting network then either, so why moan about the lack of one now? 

It has been well reported in the press for long enough and Davie Weir would have known there was no network long before he took the job on.

Further more both him and Warburton have just come from a club with a scouting network, so both will be well aware of many, many players who could do a job.

 

I think he was trying to lay the blame for the lack of current signings on them having no scouting network from previous regimes and it was nothing to do with the new regime.

If they don't or can't come up with some decent signings in the next few weeks or so the native's may well start to get restless because the hordes don't want free transfers from the 3rd tier in England, no they want top signings from the English & Scottish Premiership, the Bundesliga, Serie A & La Liga, it is what the fans expect, nay deserve, it is their right after all.

 

And let's not forget about the over investment, which may or may not happen, well at this moment in time with them, if this is over investment, then I wonder what austerity looks like?  

[Biffa Bacon]

Davie Weir was moaning about the lack of any scouting network the other day.

 

What he didn't mention was the fact that when he played for them several years ago there wasn't any scouting network then either, so why moan about the lack of one now? 

It has been well reported in the press for long enough and Davie Weir would have known there was no network long before he took the job on.

Further more both him and Warburton have just come from a club with a scouting network, so both will be well aware of many, many players who could do a job.

 

I think he was trying to lay the blame for the lack of current signings on them having no scouting network from previous regimes and it was nothing to do with the new regime.

If they don't or can't come up with some decent signings in the next few weeks or so the native's may well start to get restless because the hordes don't want free transfers from the 3rd tier in England, no they want top signings from the English & Scottish Premiership, the Bundesliga, Serie A & La Liga, it is what the fans expect, nay deserve, it is their right after all.

 

And let's not forget about the over investment, which may or may not happen, well at this moment in time with them, if this is over investment, then I wonder what austerity looks like?  

You could argue that last seasons crop was "over investment" as they continually were making a loss...

[Jammy T]

Davie Weir in the record

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Davie Weir in the record

 

He was on BBC Reporting Scotland the other night moaning about the lack of a scouting network. 

[doctor jambo]

He was on BBC Reporting Scotland the other night moaning about the lack of a scouting network. 

Like in his last few jobs he has not seen literally hundreds of footballers in a professional capacity, let alone games on telly.

NO-one has ever commented to him either about players in other teams

Same for Warburton

If between those two old heads they cannot come up with 3-4 players that can win the 1st Div , then they area simply not even worth their pay packets

[DETTY29]

Like in his last few jobs he has not seen literally hundreds of footballers in a professional capacity, let alone games on telly.

NO-one has ever commented to him either about players in other teams

Same for Warburton

If between those two old heads they cannot come up with 3-4 players that can win the 1st Div , then they area simply not even worth their pay packets

If Rangers are still paying players 8k pw, thry must be inundated with agents offering players to them.

 

If Craig Levein hadn't taken our job and was offered the manager or a DOF role at Ibrox, he'd have a team in place by mid August able to walk the Championship first time of asking.

 

It appears Rangers have gone high profile again.

[tynietigers]

Was told by a family friend of Danny Wilson and he had no reason to lie that he will get 10 grand a week with it rising if they get promoted, if true it beggers belief that they are still offering silly wages like this.

[colinmaroon]

It's not quite as blatant as you put it. To prove they are a Phoenix it is the business that owns the club that has to be proven to be the Phoenix not the football club. There has to be evidence that the present board members or those since newcomer was formed were also part of the oldco as board members etc.

 

Businesses liquidate all the time and can start again as the same business doing the same with the same employees but a completely different owner/s or registered company.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Was Dave King on OldCo board?

[Footballfirst]

Was Dave King on OldCo board?

 

Yes, but he is the chairman of RIFC, and not TRFC which is the legal entity that is the club.

[hueyview]

Every time i hear the term Rangers" International", it reminds me off the fights between old firm football supporters i witnessed at this pub as a young lad.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

Great update, FF. Thanks. Interesting you say Murray's companies are no longer appealing because they've been liquidated and dissolved. At what stage will Rangers be considered liquidated and dissolved?

[Footballfirst]

Great update, FF. Thanks. Interesting you say Murray's companies are no longer appealing because they've been liquidated and dissolved. At what stage will Rangers be considered liquidated and dissolved?

 

They are already in a liquidation process.  Depending on the complexity, it could take several years for such processes to complete.  The big tax case appeals process is just one factor that will delay things as far as RFC is concerned. Only when BDO settle receive all monies due from asset sales or other parties and all the creditor claims are settled at Xp in the ? will the company be dissolved.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

They are already in a liquidation process.  Depending on the complexity, it could take several years for such processes to complete.  The big tax case appeals process is just one factor that will delay things as far as RFC is concerned. Only when BDO settle receive all monies due from asset sales or other parties and all the creditor claims are settled at Xp in the ? will the company be dissolved.

 

This is very true.

 

It is now over 5 years since BDO started the liquidation process of the company I used to work for and I am still awaiting settlement of my claim against said company, which BDO have informed me/creditors that they hope a first and final settlement will be made this year. 

 

So FF I agree the liquidation process can and often does take several years, this is something many folk don't realise.

[Andrew Gilbert Wauchope]

This is very true.

 

It is now over 5 years since BDO started the liquidation process of the company I used to work for and I am still awaiting settlement of my claim against said company, which BDO have informed me/creditors that they hope a first and final settlement will be made this year. 

 

So FF I agree the liquidation process can and often does take several years, this is something many folk don't realise.

 

I suspect very few on here realised this.  Looks like shares in popcorn could be a good long-term investment.

[Don Dan]

And did King not say he would pass any monies he got from the liquidation pot on the the New Rangers. I reckon he was hoping for an early settlement so he didn't have to part with anymore of his Rands and continue fooling the fooled.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Dannie Boy