The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Sooperstar]

.

[Dallas Green]

.

[Sooperstar]

I see that Rangers are due to enter administration for the 978th time. They just can't catch a break.

[Jamboelite]

wow, just wow. Hope this guy has a good lawyer

Indeed I think we have seen before big Mike is happy to set his lawyers on anyone big or small while he says he isnt scared of Mikes lawyers he will be the minute a letter drops through the door.

[Footballfirst]

This alleged letter is doing the rounds on social media.  Unsure if it is genuine or not.

 

[I P Knightley]

Indeed I think we have seen before big Mike is happy to set his lawyers on anyone big or small while he says he isnt scared of Mikes lawyers he will be the minute a letter drops through the door.

I don't see a tremendous amount that is actionable against the author of that rant.

 

If, however, it's true that SD have got the option over the shirt sponsorship as is described, then surely there's been a breach of the injunction which SD took out, prohibiting the Rangers directors from spilling the beans on commercial arrangements between SD/MASH and Rangers? If that were the case, then Ashley would set the courts after the Rangers directors rather than SoS, wouldn't he?

 

Either that or the stuff about the shirt sponsorship is just hysterical fantasy.

[Sooperstar]

This alleged letter is doing the rounds on social media. Unsure if it is genuine or not.

 

Surely such a letter would be on headed paper?

[Footballfirst]

Surely such a letter would be on headed paper?

 

That's part of the reason I am unsure of its provenance.

[marshallschunkychicken]

That's part of the reason I am unsure of its provenance.

Also, there's a faint line above the signature that suggests it's been pasted in there. Surely a document like that would have a wet signature?

[Footballfirst]

I don't see a tremendous amount that is actionable against the author of that rant.

 

If, however, it's true that SD have got the option over the shirt sponsorship as is described, then surely there's been a breach of the injunction which SD took out, prohibiting the Rangers directors from spilling the beans on commercial arrangements between SD/MASH and Rangers? If that were the case, then Ashley would set the courts after the Rangers directors rather than SoS, wouldn't he?

 

Either that or the stuff about the shirt sponsorship is just hysterical fantasy.

 

The shirt sponsorship arrangement was part of the Sports Direct loan agreement from January this year, but it is not as black blue and white as Houston makes out.

 

http://www.investegate.co.uk/rangers-int-f-c--plc--rfc-/rns/-10m-credit-facility---associated-26--rrl-transfer/201501270701132133D/

 

 

"The Company has also agreed that from the 2017/8 season, for the duration of the Facility, any future shirt sponsorship proceeds will be for the benefit of RRL".

 

 

My reading of that part of the loan agreement is:

1) there will be no impact on shirt sponsorship if the loan is paid back before the 2017/18 season

2) if the loan is not paid back, then the proceeds of any shirt deal will go to Rangers Retail.

3) Rangers will still benefit from their share of the Rangers Retail deal, although that is currently down at 25%.

4) the condition is an encouragement to the club to pay back the loan

[Footballfirst]

The case reference in the alleged letter is a valid one and involves Dave King's companies Ben Nevis (involved in the SARS investigation) and Metlika Trading (which held King's 5% of Oldco Rangers)

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/578.html

[Footballfirst]

Another vote for "Fake"

 

PeitroPyotrPedro ?@petethefoot 4m4 minutes ago

@jamesdoleman complete fake - lifted signature from earlier Mash letter to Rangers. pic.twitter.com/3HTKw0sgaD

[GarryJ-o-s]

That's part of the reason I am unsure of its provenance.

It does look fake, although the one in this article from May does not appear to be on headed paper?

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mike-ashley-goes-war-rangers-5687137

[GarryJ-o-s]

 

Another vote for "Fake"

 

PeitroPyotrPedro ?@petethefoot 4m4 minutes ago

@jamesdoleman complete fake - lifted signature from earlier Mash letter to Rangers. pic.twitter.com/3HTKw0sgaD

 

 

 

 

 

After further comparison, the number of shares held by MASH is written differently in this newer letter. Note the spaces in "7, 265, 000". It's a fake, for me.

[Phage]

100% Fake

[...a bit disco]

100% Fake

 

What is?

 

Rangers or the letter?

[Unknown user]

After further comparison, the number of shares held by MASH is written differently in this newer letter. Note the spaces in "7, 265, 000". It's a fake, for me.

The figures in this number aren't aligned with the rest of the line either if you zoom in, they're a little higher - inexpertly pasted from the looks of it.

 

Numbers aren't always aligned, but further down the letter there are a few examples of numbers that are aligned with the letters on the rest of their respective lines.

 

Fake

[ToadKiller Dog]

So looks fake , then the question would be who would bother going to such an effort , mischief making Celtic fan ? ,a crap attempt at dirty tricks from an Orc .

[Footballfirst]

HMRC appeal judgement tomorrow

 

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/25/1513/Advocate-General-for-Scotland-v-Murray-Group-Holdings-and-others

[Mysterion]

HMRC appeal judgement tomorrow

 

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/25/1513/Advocate-General-for-Scotland-v-Murray-Group-Holdings-and-others

In amongst the clamouring for Rangers to be in trouble it's worth noting that tomorrow there could well be a ruling which allows Rangers fans to claim their club was wrongly prosecuted and suffered terminally because of the Tax Case.

[Footballfirst]

In amongst the clamouring for Rangers to be in trouble it's worth noting that tomorrow there could well be a ruling which allows Rangers fans to claim their club was wrongly prosecuted and suffered terminally because of the Tax Case.

 

We are also waiting for another FTTT to confirm assessments for the 5 EBTs that were admitted as liable to tax and the 35 cases involving termination payments that were referred back to the FTTT by the UTTT some time ago.

[JamboCampbell]

Admin

[Jamboelite]

Admin

Straight to the point i like it.

[Paolo]

Straight to the point i like it.

I will like it better of, and when it happens.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I will like it better of, and when it happens.

Not sure how the "when" is coming about.

[LeftBack]

Im not going to try and debate this or even say I understand it. But im willingly to bet a crisp five pound note that if this saga ever concludes Mike Ashley will not be described as having lost.

[jambogemz]

Quite a lot going on the last week or so then and yet no mention at all on the daily sportsound hour. It would seem that the BBC have bent over to Rangers when sorting out the dispute with one of the bbc reporter's (Chris someone) and now point blank refuse to report any negative news from Ibrox.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Quite a lot going on the last week or so then and yet no mention at all on the daily sportsound hour. It would seem that the BBC have bent over to Rangers when sorting out the dispute with one of the bbc reporter's (Chris someone) and now point blank refuse to report any negative news from Ibrox.

I'm not sure what's that "newsworthy" about it to be honest. The anger of a welt like Craig Houston isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. The rest is speculation, save for King saying Mike Ashley is a bad guy.

[GarryJ-o-s]

We are also waiting for another FTTT to confirm assessments for the 5 EBTs that were admitted as liable to tax and the 35 cases involving termination payments that were referred back to the FTTT by the UTTT some time ago.

Would you mind discussing the implications of these FF? Are these cases in the 'big tax case' where the courts ruled Rangers were guilty? Or were all counts put forth by HMRC dismissed? Thanks in advance.

[Boris]

I'm not sure what's that "newsworthy" about it to be honest. The anger of a welt like Craig Houston isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. The rest is speculation, save for King saying Mike Ashley is a bad guy.

I agree, although were it any other club I can't help but feel that the media spotlight would be somewhat brighter!

 

And while that is annoying, the head in the sand approach surely makes it worse for the Rangers should it all go tits up?

 

Sort of sleepwalking to their own demise?

Edited November 3, 2015 by Boris

[LeftBack]

I'm not sure what's that "newsworthy" about it to be honest. The anger of a welt like Craig Houston isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. The rest is speculation, save for King saying Mike Ashley is a bad guy.

I agree about questioning the newsworthy value. But the fact is that Scotland's biggest selling tabloid had a big front page story with allegations that one of Britain's richest men wants the chairman of one of Scotlands most infamous clubs jailed. Is it not strange therefore the national broadcaster makes no reference during its hour long show especially given the time they have devoted to King et al in the past. Therefore the conclusion could be reached that the BBC is again shamefully shying away from a story for fear of upsetting someone. The Scottish media and journalism in general has been complicit in allowing some of the corrupt activities go unchallenged. Imo

[Malinga the Swinga]

Imagine if these headlines had of occurred when Vlad was in charge of Hearts. We would have had Chic outside Tynecastle telling us that Hearts were finished, we would have had any one of the pundits foretelling don't of, disaster and shame, yet when it comes from Ibrox and the great saviours King is involved, not a peep.

 

We must be due Houston, a belt supported by Richard Wilson, coming on to tell the world that everyone was cheating Rangers and they are innocent of everything.

[ollie2004]

I agree about questioning the newsworthy value. But the fact is that Scotland's biggest selling tabloid had a big front page story with allegations that one of Britain's richest men wants the chairman of one of Scotlands most infamous clubs jailed. Is it not strange therefore the national broadcaster makes no reference during its hour long show especially given the time they have devoted to King et al in the past. Therefore the conclusion could be reached that the BBC is again shamefully shying away from a story for fear of upsetting someone. The Scottish media and journalism in general has been complicit in allowing some of the corrupt activities go unchallenged. Imo

Not just the media but more seriously the Scottish football authorities and even the Scottish judiciary!

Edited November 3, 2015 by ollie2004

[Malinga the Swinga]

Would you mind discussing the implications of these FF? Are these cases in the 'big tax case' where the courts ruled Rangers were guilty? Or were all counts put forth by HMRC dismissed? Thanks in advance.

I'm am sure FF can put the detail more eloquently than me, but in short, the thieving bigots were found guilty of some of the charges, but that fact is not allowed to appear in media in Scotland and must be hidden from view.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I agree, although were it any other club I can't help but feel that the media spotlight would be somewhat brighter!

 

And while that is annoying, the head in the sand approach surely makes it worse for the Rangers should it all go tits up?

 

Sort of sleepwalking to their own demise?

Perhaps but then the brickbats would be thrown at the BBC for spending too much time talking about Scotland's newest club. I'm no lover of the Scottish media as my posts can attest but they can't win in this situation. Furthermore, I'm not sure what can be defined as "heads in sand" here. They've been told they need directorial support to stay solvent and they know Mike Ashley has the rights to the badge and trademarks. What else isn't obvious?

[rudi]

Imagine if these headlines had of occurred when Vlad was in charge of Hearts. We would have had Chic outside Tynecastle telling us that Hearts were finished, we would have had any one of the pundits foretelling don't of, disaster and shame, yet when it comes from Ibrox and the great saviours King is involved, not a peep.

 

We must be due Houston, a belt supported by Richard Wilson, coming on to tell the world that everyone was cheating Rangers and they are innocent of everything.

Get a grip man, the hun have hogged the front and back pages of the papers for the past three years if the BBC or STV were to cover EVERY story about them we would have no room left for serious news, TBH I'm pig sick of the whole affair and so it seems are the TV companies.

[GarryJ-o-s]

I'm am sure FF can put the detail more eloquently than me, but in short, the thieving bigots were found guilty of some of the charges, but that fact is not allowed to appear in media in Scotland and must be hidden from view.

Answers the key details I was looking for. Perhaps FF can shed light on the approximate bill for these (which I assume gets added to the pot from liquidation).

 

Regardless, Rangers didn't have sufficient funds to cover their debts excluding the 'Big Tax Case', did they?

[janjo1874]

.

[Deevers]

Perhaps but then the brickbats would be thrown at the BBC for spending too much time talking about Scotland's newest club. I'm no lover of the Scottish media as my posts can attest but they can't win in this situation. Furthermore, I'm not sure what can be defined as "heads in sand" here. They've been told they need directorial support to stay solvent and they know Mike Ashley has the rights to the badge and trademarks. What else isn't obvious?

 

There's obviously something going on. The BBC have obviously been badly frightened by Traynor and Co though and now will not comment on anything that even smells of bad news for Sevco.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Get a grip man, the hun have hogged the front and back pages of the papers for the past three years if the BBC or STV were to cover EVERY story about them we would have no room left for serious news, TBH I'm pig sick of the whole affair and so it seems are the TV companies.

"We"? Are you a journo?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

There's obviously something going on. The BBC have obviously been badly frightened by Traynor and Co though and now will not comment on anything that even smells of bad news for Sevco.

If that is true then it says more about the BBC than it does about them. The BBC is a public service broadcaster. Its income isn't threatened by any collection of mouthbreathers no matter how fat or spittle flecked they are.

[rudi]

"We"? Are you a journo?

"We" the general public who actually know that there is more news happening other than two ego's slinging sh1t3 at each other, rather boring now.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

"We" the general public who actually know that there is more news happening other than two ego's slinging sh1t3 at each other, rather boring now.

Ah, okay.

[Deevers]

If that is true then it says more about the BBC than it does about them. The BBC is a public service broadcaster. Its income isn't threatened by any collection of mouthbreathers no matter how fat or spittle flecked they are.

 

Exactly - though none of that behaviour is particularly new. Glasgow based and obviously subject to all the limitations that brings to any sort of honest sports journalism that questions anything that's going on inside either side of the Old Firm.

[RobNox]

What seems clear to me is that the Rangers PR 'machine' is making serious attempts at painting SD / Ashley as the bogey men.  King's statement last week, the DR article today and Sons of Struth digging up a story from August.  Classic deflection tactics, in preparation for more bad news - publication of the accounts possibly, or something more serious?

[GarryJ-o-s]

HMRC appeal judgement tomorrow

 

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/25/1513/Advocate-General-for-Scotland-v-Murray-Group-Holdings-and-others

I've seen it claimed ('Tomo' on Twitter) that even if the ruling sides with HMRC, they still don't get extra money from Rangers. Can someone more knowledgable in this department explain why this is the case? I would've thought that it meant they had a claim for a bigger proportion of the cash from the liquidating of Rangers?

[Jamboelite]

I've seen it claimed ('Tomo' on Twitter) that even if the ruling sides with HMRC, they still don't get extra money from Rangers. Can someone more knowledgable in this department explain why this is the case? I would've thought that it meant they had a claim for a bigger proportion of the cash from the liquidating of Rangers?

Not sure about that but HMRC want this to set a precedent / landmark case for future cases thats why they are going so hard at it as there is a lot more money to be had.

[Footballfirst]

Would you mind discussing the implications of these FF? Are these cases in the 'big tax case' where the courts ruled Rangers were guilty? Or were all counts put forth by HMRC dismissed? Thanks in advance.

 

The sequence of events was that HMRC made an assessment of liability on all the EBT cases and sent the bill to the Murray Group companies including Rangers.

 

Murray Group appealed against the assessment, meaning that the cases were heard by a FTTT.

 

The FTTT heard evidence where the five cases were admitted:

"Mr Thornhill noted five cases where peculiarly trust payments were made in respect of guaranteed bonuses. These relate to Messrs Selby, Inverness, Doncaster, Barrow, and Furness, as confirmed by his instructing solicitor?s letter of 29 September 2011. The Appellants concede that in these cases there is a sufficient nexus with a contractual right to create a tax liability"

 

The FTTT also noted the 35 EBTs with Termination payments:

"The Respondents? witnesses gave evidence regarding payments via the remuneration trust on the occasion when employment was terminated, with some 35 sub-trusts being identified as having been used to make what would have appeared to be termination payments. Most of these payments concerned footballing employees, with three non-footballing employees"

 

"In the termination of employment of some 35 employees, it would appear that payment in lieu of notice, transfer fee entitlement, inducement payment were paid through the trust mechanism. What would appear to be s403 payments were also settled via the trust with the ?30,000 exemption being utilised through payroll.

 

HMRC then appealed to the UTTT which reported the following re the termination payments

"The majority had failed to determine how each of the 35 termination payments made through the remuneration trust fell to be treated. They had merely identified (para 209) some considerations which might be applicable in the case of the termination payments to footballers. The onus had been on the respondents to satisfy the FTT that the assessments

in relation to these payments were erroneous. They had failed to do so. The FTT ought simply to have upheld the assessments."

 

The UTTT then referred the following back to the FTTT

Case remitted to the FTT (i) with a direction to allow the taxpayers? appeals against the assessments relating to the payments to the sub-trusts of Sir David Murray, his sons, Mr

McClelland, and Mr MacMillan; (ii) to proceed as accords in relation to the termination payments, the payments in respect of guaranteed bonuses, and any related questions of grossing up.

 

I don't know the quantum of the tax liability for these 5 and 35 EBTs.  However, one of the five, "Mr Inverness" is better known as Nacho Novo.  His EBT was worth ?1.2M.  Take 40% higher rate tax and 13.8%  NIC off that and you are looking at a liability in excess of ?600,000 for his EBT alone, and that is before any penalties and interest are added.

[GarryJ-o-s]

Not sure about that but HMRC want this to set a precedent / landmark case for future cases thats why they are going so hard at it as there is a lot more money to be had.

Yeh, I knew that part. This could be worth billions (by my amateur estimations) surely with other potential cases? Here's the tweet I inferred it from:

 

"@davieb82: @alextomo if it goes against then HMRC get nowt & if goes for them HMRC get nowt .At what point does it become about saving money?

 

@alextomo: @davieb82 if HMRC lose this is a point I shall put to them on your behalf"

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Quite a lot going on the last week or so then and yet no mention at all on the daily sportsound hour. It would seem that the BBC have bent over to Rangers when sorting out the dispute with one of the bbc reporter's (Chris someone) and now point blank refuse to report any negative news from Ibrox.

They are worse than Pravda