jambovambo Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Looking forward to hearing from Brice and triggers broom.... (sssshhhh, man - what are you playing at ??) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Paulo Sergio Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 RM will they go after the new reincarnation of Rangers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 So does that include the losses they made over last few years aswell?. I've saw quotes at over ?20mill. The previous losses were mainly covered by the IPO which raised ?22M (although only a net ?16M after "expenses") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 "Furthermore, so far as the footballers are concerned, at least, it seems to us that if bonuses had not been paid they might well have taken their services elsewhere" Pretty damning stuff - i'm not sure there can be much comeback from that. SPL 02/03 SPL 04/05 SPL 08/09 SPL 09/10 SPL 10/11 Scot Cup 02/03 Scot Cup 07/08 Scot Cup 08/09 League Cup 02/03 League Cup 07/08 League Cup 08/09 League Cup 01/02 League Cup 02/03 League Cup 04/05 League Cup 07/08 League Cup 09/10 League Cup 10/11 That's the list my mate just passed me - ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Re the tax letters, now that the EBT money has been established as earnings and therefore taxable, surely the employees have to be asked to pay tax now. Income tax, whether deducted by the employer or not, is a percentage of the employee's earnings. Money was paid but tax was not deducted from it - they should be pursued imo The indemnity letters might have been fine if the company still existed but even then if the company met an employee's tax liability, HMRC would have grossed up their salary for tax purposes. eg if someone earned ?100k and the employer paid the tax due of (say) ?35k, HMRC would view that as the company paying the employee ?135k and assess accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) Very interesting statement in the second paragraph lifted from the Hootsmon. Her Majesty?s Revenue and Customs has won its second appeal over the so-called ?big tax case? involving payments to former Rangers employees. Judges in the Inner House of the Court of Session allowed an appeal by the Advocate General for Scotland, acting on behalf of HMRC, over the use of the now-outlawed employee benefit trusts during the first decade of the century by companies run by Sir David Murray, including the now-liquidated football club Rangers. Sir David Murray sold Rangers in 2011 Sir David Murray sold Rangers in 2011 The court ruling, summarised on the Judiciary of Scotland website, agreed with HMRC?s contention the scheme amounted to ?a mere redirection of earnings which did not remove the liability of employees to income tax?. Edited November 4, 2015 by Dannie Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heisenberg86 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The Lance Armstrong of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 RM will they go after the new reincarnation of Rangers?I believe that has always been HMRC's goal. I don't think today's verdict will change anything though in that it makes it any easier. I think we have to await the outcomes of the personal legal cases and what information/evidence comes out in the courts. It's then I believe we will know what way HMRC will take things. Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Paulo Sergio Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Let's hope they do, the implications would be hmm, let's say 'off the radar' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Bishop Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) Rangers Tax-Case ?@rangerstaxcase 7 secs7 seconds ago Vindication. Edited November 4, 2015 by Walter Bishop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 "Furthermore, so far as the footballers are concerned, at least, it seems to us that if bonuses had not been paid they might well have taken their services elsewhere" Pretty damning stuff - i'm not sure there can be much comeback from that. SPL 02/03 SPL 04/05 SPL 08/09 SPL 09/10 SPL 10/11 Scot Cup 02/03 Scot Cup 07/08 Scot Cup 08/09 League Cup 02/03 League Cup 07/08 League Cup 08/09 League Cup 01/02 League Cup 02/03 League Cup 04/05 League Cup 07/08 League Cup 09/10 League Cup 10/11 That's the list my mate just passed me - ouch. That is only going as far back as this verdict can go because HMRC were only able to go back so far. As stated though in a summary David Murray was using EBTs as far back as the very early 90's there us also a suggestion Souness was paid by EBT from day one. So really if any sanctions and loss of trophies are taking place then everything from the first known use of an EBT would have to be taken into consideration. Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-winning-titles-cheating-taxman/10032 An issue Newcomer should be worried about is if fraud is proved in a court of law regarding the sale of Oldco assets these will be returned to the liquidator (BDO) factor in you have a creditor with clout (HMRC) looking for maximum return. Is King willing or able to match land and scrap value to buy these assets which will no longer be theirs. Edited November 4, 2015 by Dannie Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rods Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 That is only going as far back as this verdict can go because HMRC were only able to go back so far. As stated though in a summary David Murray was using EBTs as far back as the very early 90's there us also a suggestion Souness was paid by EBT from day one. So really if any sanctions and loss of trophies are taking place then everything from the first known use of an EBT would have to be taken into consideration. Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk Championeees lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Championeees lolAlex Thompson ". Further ? the non payment of tax allowed the club to buy and pay players it could not otherwise have afforded. A previous legal judgement ruled that the club gained no advantage. Today?s successful appeal by the HMRC would seem to bring that ruling into question. There is no getting away from it ? the upheld appeal means Rangers were systematically cheating the taxman whilst winning titles on the pitch." [emoji14]leasing: Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Bishop Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Squeaky bum time for Lord Nimmo Smith??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon tinted glasses 2 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Does anyone know what wider impact (if any) todays ruling would then have should it be proven that oldco were sold to newco under fraudulant circumstances? Also iirc king claims to be owed ?20 million as a result of a loan he threw into oldco, and assuming he would be due something back from the liquidation/sale would todays ruling then dilute his claimed amout even further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I have been keeping my powder dry for some time, but some points here: The statement that they were going to delay applying to the ISDX due to the impending case against Chuck et al, the accounts show that as of July they had just over ?1m in the bank, to get onto the stock exchange they need 12 month of revenue. Just a wee bit of a shortfall there then The accounts published on a good day to hide bad news? hmmmm the WIN by Hector demonstrates that the Oldco are once and for all cheats, will there now be an uprising for change? with there just be apathy now? Will their titles be torn from the history books? Is there enough anger from the clubs to care? My question is: IS the SFA now fit for purpose as the five-way agreement is a sham. But another question now arises: If Chuck fails to win, then will the tax man treat Sevco as a pheonix company and Fraudco will be liable once again for all the money from the EBT's? Who said this thread was dying? the gas has jsut been turned back on to the pot again. I am so glad I bough shares in popcorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son Of Anarchy Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Just as an aside did anyone see the william hills site last night or night before? It had two development games, one was rangers youth v Hamilton youth and the other was the Glasgow rangers (something else) 2012 fc v Hamilton youth. Both same odds same time. Was this a pisstake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) John James is suggesting that King was duped into his recent visit to these shores. King was invited by Ashley to attend a meeting at the latter?s HQ. The duped King takes the red eye from Johannesburg, flies to Glasgow to engage in a pre-meeting briefing, then makes his way by train for a mock meeting. On his return to Scotland he is met by bailiffs and he is duly served with his contempt of court indictment. There are informed reports, currently unconfirmed, suggesting that Paul Murray has also been served. King was played by a master and has nothing but egg on his face. Edited November 4, 2015 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I like the DR's take on the accounts on social media "Rangers reduce debit" haha they do try! Hence the reason it's better known as The Daily Ranger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearts151 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The fact they try to keep oldcos history and at same time say they shouldn't have titles taken off them for cheating is a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The indemnity letters might have been fine if the company still existed but even then if the company met an employee's tax liability, HMRC would have grossed up their salary for tax purposes. eg if someone earned ?100k and the employer paid the tax due of (say) ?35k, HMRC would view that as the company paying the employee ?135k and assess accordingly. Gotcha, so 600k paid to an employee would be deemed to be 1 million minus 400,000 tax, which rangers withheld (rough numbers for illustration) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarryJ-o-s Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Does anyone know what wider impact (if any) todays ruling would then have should it be proven that oldco were sold to newco under fraudulant circumstances? Also iirc king claims to be owed ?20 million as a result of a loan he threw into oldco, and assuming he would be due something back from the liquidation/sale would todays ruling then dilute his claimed amout even further? I think his claim to any share of the Oldco pot was rejected, in which case this would have no effect on his payout (?0 either way, I believe). Would need confirmation from someone else but I'm pretty sure this is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Just a few snippets from the ruling The judgement ends: "We accordingly conclude that the primary argument presented for HMRC is correct: the payments made by the respondents to the Trustee of the Principal Trust in respect of employees were emoluments or earnings and are accordingly subject to income tax. "Furthermore, those payments were made at the time of payment to the trustee of the Principal Trust, with the result that the obligation to deduct tax under the PAYE system fell on the employer who made such a payment." Looks like this is exonerating the players, and laying the full blame on David Murray and the club. Today's court ruling will have no financial impact on Rangers, but questions will be asked about the possibility that the club gained an unfair sporting advantage during the years in question. Lord Drummond Young himself said in his ruling that if the club hadn't operated the EBT scheme, some players "might well have taken their services elsewhere". Through liquidation, the "newco" washed its hands of the debt, but it was adamant that the footballing history would remain. Rangers won a total five league titles between 2001 and 2010. We now have the strange situation whereby some of that history may well have benefited from the sins of the "oldco". Basically saying they cheated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Grant Russell ?@STVGrant 1m1 minute ago There will be no attempt to reopen the LNS commission. It focused on non-disclosure of side letters. Not on the legality of the scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The 2004/05 RFC squad, everyone with a red dot had an EBT.. Hahaha. Belter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The 2004/05 RFC squad, everyone with a red dot had an EBT.. Would actually be pretty good if someone had the time to do this with ALL the squad pictures across the years- I think its a pretty good way to visualise the extent of their cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The 2004/05 RFC squad, everyone with a red dot had an EBT.. You have to feel sorry for those without a red dot. I'd be seething seeing that photo and realising I wasn't valued in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Gotcha, so 600k paid to an employee would be deemed to be 1 million minus 400,000 tax, which rangers withheld (rough numbers for illustration) It depends on code number etc but put simply with that is correct. In this case the Judgment makes clear that Rangers didn't actually withhold tax - they just dealt with the EBT amounts as though not taxable. In the example you give if ?600k was taxed as salary in the normal way, the ?400k EBT amount is now likely to be charged on the recipient at his highest rate for each relevant tax year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Grant Russell ?@STVGrant 1m1 minute ago There will be no attempt to reopen the LNS commission. It focused on non-disclosure of side letters. Not on the legality of the scheme. Was it not LNS that said no sporting advantage gained or was it somebody else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Grant Russell ?@STVGrant 1m1 minute ago There will be no attempt to reopen the LNS commission. It focused on non-disclosure of side letters. Not on the legality of the scheme. Ha who would have thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) Mark Daly on the subject : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34723209 "Sir David Murray's empire lies in tatters. His company which owned Rangers is in liquidation. HMRC may now enter the scrap for the cash liquidators have managed to salvage, along with the dozens of small businesses which were left out of pocket by the collapse of Rangers. Today's decision may be appealed against by the liquidators, and the saga could continue. But ultimately, who has paid for this disaster? The fans, of course." Edited November 4, 2015 by jambovambo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertDawg Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Here we go again....... http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?s=e1c75ac1d34b6cac6cb7bf8d8afe8c92&showtopic=288994 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 No way am I reading back through this, can someone kindly just give me a brief update of their current status? I'm hoping that they have stopped existing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 They won't be ahead of any other creditor. It's just that they will take a bigger share of the pot. That assumes that the Oldco doesn't appeal to the Supreme Court. Are you sure on this FF? I thought that the laws of insolvency gave "unpaid tax" a higher priority than secured creditors. (Might be thinking of unpaid wages). 2: MA is no fool, but investing 5 million in shares of any AIM company seems foolish. AIM is a cowboy exchange as I have experienced. I doubt he will see his money again. I'm certain that MA knew what he was getting into. A few months with Llambias as his placeman, setting up onerous contracts in favour of Sports Direct. I've not doubt his investment in those shares has been repaid handsomely. "Furthermore, so far as the footballers are concerned, at least, it seems to us that if bonuses had not been paid they might well have taken their services elsewhere" Pretty damning stuff - i'm not sure there can be much comeback from that. SPL 02/03 SPL 04/05 SPL 08/09 SPL 09/10 SPL 10/11 Scot Cup 02/03 Scot Cup 07/08 Scot Cup 08/09 League Cup 02/03 League Cup 07/08 League Cup 08/09 League Cup 01/02 League Cup 02/03 League Cup 04/05 League Cup 07/08 League Cup 09/10 League Cup 10/11 That's the list my mate just passed me - ouch. Is there any precedent where "fielding an ineligible player" has resulted in imposition of a 3-0 defeat? It would seem the only right thing to do in the circumstances and re-draw the league tables accordingly - just for historical accuracy. As another thread seems to ask, it wouldn't recitfy the wrongs that those cheating hun barstewards took prize money & Champs league/UEFA cup places on the back of their wrongdoings. Cups are gone. They should have their name scratched from the trophies. Basically saying they cheated. Not disputing your conclusion but I think the quote you relied on (about 5 titles) was from the reporter rather than the ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) Was it not LNS that said no sporting advantage gained or was it somebody else? Didn't the LNS give as one of the reasons that no advantage was gained because other clubs could have used the same way to fund players , does not today's opinion make a mockery of that decision ? Edited November 4, 2015 by ToadKiller Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) The 2004/05 RFC squad, everyone with a red dot had an EBT.. Reading this on a phone from the other side of the world, so can't quite make out who the reserve keepers and the baldies are. Coaches of some sort? Edited November 4, 2015 by Maroonaldinho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 No way am I reading back through this, can someone kindly just give me a brief update of their current status? I'm hoping that they have stopped existing. No such luck, I8. The Oldco's properly fecked, though, having just landed an "unexpected" ?75m liability to Hector. The Newco's held together by sticky tape and that sticky tapes been drying out in the sun. (That's an expert interpretation of the audit report on their recent financial statements) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Here we go again....... http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?s=e1c75ac1d34b6cac6cb7bf8d8afe8c92&showtopic=288994 ? Some poor lassie is going to have a balding Hun try to buy a surf board for ?1 again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Sportsmail?@ScotMailSport HMRC have won the right to appeal the 'Rangers tax case'... https://twitter.com/JudgesScotland/status/661854019493720064 ? Sportsmail added, Judges Scotland @JudgesScotland Summary of the judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v Murray Group Holdings and others (?Rangers tax case?) http://bit.ly/1QbmUPK I'm seeing this written - that HMRC has only "won the right to appeal" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And he's not praying Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 So they have a guarantee of funding which will allow them to see out the season? Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Sportsmail?@ScotMailSport HMRC have won the right to appeal the 'Rangers tax case'... https://twitter.com/JudgesScotland/status/661854019493720064 ? Sportsmail added, Judges Scotland @JudgesScotland Summary of the judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v Murray Group Holdings and others (?Rangers tax case?) http://bit.ly/1QbmUPK I'm seeing this written - that HMRC has only "won the right to appeal" ? No. It was a scam , it was a tax dodge and HMRC won their case. Unless I'm missing something. FTT over ruled. The First-tier Tribunal held that the trustee of the Principal Trust had a ?genuine discretion? as to how to apply the funds advanced to it, thus the benefit enjoyed by the employee and his family once the funds were resettled into the sub-trust resulted from the exercise of a ?discretionary power? by the trustee of the sub-trust. Such a payment was not a payment of emoluments or earnings, and was therefore not subject to income tax, the First-tier Tribunal ruled. However, HMRC contended that the cash payment made by the employing company to the trustee of the Principal Trust was in consideration of services by the employee, and thus had been ?earned? by the employee. Therefore, the scheme amounted to ?a mere redirection of earnings which did not remove the liability of employees to income tax?, it was argued. The court concluded that the argument by HMRC was correct, and accordingly allowed the appeal on that ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 IPK - Your second thought was the correct one. Employees are preferred creditors ahead of the main body of unsecured creditors, of which HMRC is the biggest, along with Ticketus and the debenture holders who will share the final creditors pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Sportsmail?@ScotMailSport HMRC have won the right to appeal the 'Rangers tax case'... https://twitter.com/JudgesScotland/status/661854019493720064 ? Sportsmail added, Judges Scotland @JudgesScotland Summary of the judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v Murray Group Holdings and others (?Rangers tax case?) http://bit.ly/1QbmUPK I'm seeing this written - that HMRC has only "won the right to appeal" ? I think it is the terminology that has caught them out. When a decision of "appeal is allowed" is made, it means that the appeal is successful, not that the appellants have won the right to appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Mark Daly on the subject : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34723209 "Sir David Murray's empire lies in tatters. His company which owned Rangers is in liquidation. HMRC may now enter the scrap for the cash liquidators have managed to salvage, along with the dozens of small businesses which were left out of pocket by the collapse of Rangers. Today's decision may be appealed against by the liquidators, and the saga could continue. But ultimately, who has paid for this disaster? The fans, of course." Fans haven't paid anything. Quite the opposite. They watched their team hoover up honours via a team that Rangers RIP could not have otherwise attracted/afforded. It's Celtic fans who have largely paid a price , if anyone has, in forking out for season tickets in a competiton skewed in favour of deidco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Fans haven't paid anything. Quite the opposite. They watched their team hoover up honours via a team that Rangers RIP could not have otherwise attracted/afforded. It's Celtic fans who have largely paid a price , if anyone has, in forking out for season tickets in a competiton skewed in favour of deidco. It could be argued that it's in fact every fan outwith of Rangers who has paid the price by buying season tickets/tickets for games that were overwhelmingly skewed in Rangers' favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) So today we have the big tax case judgement and by coincidence der hun release their financial results as well. Mr. Houston stated the other day that by the end of the week everybody would know what a rat Mike Ashley was, so unless I'm mistaken that means there is even more bad news coming in the next day or so or is it the accounts he was referring to? I can hardly wait. Edited November 4, 2015 by Jambo-Jimbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the North Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Exactly this. Since the arrival of Souness and the big spending of the mid 80s, the huns have been living out with their means and have cheated their way to one financially doped title after another. The rest of Scottish fitba very nearly went bust tying to keep up with this illegally funded monster. The Orc hordes enjoyed many seasons of success until the bubble burst, they are the beneficiaries of the scheme as much as any player. To paint them as victims is laughable. Hopefully today's verdict reopens the question of all of their trophies won while evading taxes. And also, should the sale out of liquidation come into question, as it appears it might, today's verdict might lead to justice for the creditors in the shape of a proper asset sale. Ibrox sold to property developers, the five way agreement deemed illegal, the Huns gone for good. Now - that would be justice, which along with truth and sporting integrity is all that decent football fans have wanted from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 It could be argued that it's in fact every fan outwith of Rangers who has paid the price by buying season tickets/tickets for games that were overwhelmingly skewed in Rangers' favour. Those are the facts. Every title won while cheating should be stripped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Exactly this. Since the arrival of Souness and the big spending of the mid 80s, the huns have been living out with their means and have cheated their way to one financially doped title after another. The rest of Scottish fitba very nearly went bust tying to keep up with this illegally funded monster. The Orc hordes enjoyed many seasons of success until the bubble burst, they are the beneficiaries of the scheme as much as any player. To paint them as victims is laughable. Hopefully today's verdict reopens the question of all of their trophies won while evading taxes. And also, should the sale out of liquidation come into question, as it appears it might, today's verdict might lead to justice for the creditors in the shape of a proper asset sale. Ibrox sold to property developers, the five way agreement deemed illegal, the Huns gone for good. Now - that would be justice, which along with truth and sporting integrity is all that decent football fans have wanted from the beginning. But but but haven't they suffered enough those poor little orclings. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts