Unknown user Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 My understanding from what I was told, was that following the original suggestion by the porn star, a firm of accountants were appointed to administer the scheme on Rangers behalf, it was not the Club themselves doing that. If any changes in tax rules / tax legislation had resulted in Rangers (as the employer) becoming liable then I agree that would just have been tough luck, as you suggest. As this current situation is (apparently) based on incorrect advice and actions taken by the firm of accountants acting for Rangers, not on changes to tax rules (again, just my understanding of what I was told) the company are very likely to find themselves legally or professionally liable under any challenge. It doesn't sound like it was incorrect advice though, from everything that's come out it sounds like everyone involved knew it was at least sailing close to the wind and that they may get chased for it eventually. To me it seems clear that SDM made a conscious decision to take the risk having been educated of the facts. It was rangers who issued the side letters and this is what really proves the earnings/benefits argument imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the North Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Craig Houston's co-founder of the Sons of Struth is a certain notorious figure called Sandy Chugg. Found some interesting info on him, A former leader of Rangers casuals Inter City Firm he was jailed for three years in 1990 for drug dealing LSD and Temazepam. Rangers also handed the convicted drug dealer three lifetime bans over his hooliganism. A member of the BNP. He nominated BNP candidate Robert Currie, who stood for MP for Shettleson in 1997? with his name appearing on the official nomination form forwarded to Glasgow?s returning officer. So a prominent Rangers fan is a violent, racist, right wing member of a criminal underclass? Ah well, at least you cannot argue that the sons of strewth are not representative of the wider support... Edited November 8, 2015 by King of the North Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEHEART1874 Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Words fail me....SoS demo. How thick are these tw@ts? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CErPTLxuNSU Sos quote 5p in the pound ? others quote ?2.60 for each ?10 I know who I would believe and it ain't king or that mob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 For FF or somebody else that may know. I asked a question last night about any appeal to the tax case Rangers Oldco/BDO may have. Question is - Would BDO have to seek the permission of the creditors before they could launch an appeal? I remember when I was dealing with BDO that the creditors voted whether to pursue a case through the High Court in London for moneys due from someone, however BDO advised against it as there was no guarantee of success and it could cost a substantial amount of money which would have come out of the creditors pot. If that is the case then HMRC are not going to vote against their own victory nor would I think most of the normal small creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Spencey in the Courier : http://www.thecourier.co.uk/sport/football/spence-on-saturday-rangers-tax-ruling-another-low-for-a-scottish-game-already-in-turmoil-1.909236 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) eTims reporting that at least 4 'big' clubs demanding all trophies removed from the records. Not something Im comfortable with, if true. Due process would have to be followed with an 'open' terms of reference to not just investigate Rangers but the whole of the SFA / SPFL / SFL / SPL and the key individuals including every committee member. We probably couldn't afford it and how contradictory would it be if the some looking for awards removed, approved King as FPP. Edited November 8, 2015 by DETTY29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sub4TiddlerMurray Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Spencey in the Courier : http://www.thecourier.co.uk/sport/football/spence-on-saturday-rangers-tax-ruling-another-low-for-a-scottish-game-already-in-turmoil-1.909236 Concise and bang on the money. Brave too. One of the very few Scottish journalists with integrity on the Rangers scandal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamboelite Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Spencey in the Courier : http://www.thecourier.co.uk/sport/football/spence-on-saturday-rangers-tax-ruling-another-low-for-a-scottish-game-already-in-turmoil-1.909236 I like Spence he is bang on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Spence is one of our few decent journalists. He was too good for BBC Scotland, and I do not blame him for going freelance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) A firm of accountants suggested this use of EBT's to SDM and/or Rangers - they didn't just dream it up themselves. The company at the heart of this (the firm has since been taken over by another financial company) apparently as part of their contract - may find themselves liable for the problems caused by following their advice. There are 28 days for any appeal against this latest ruling to be lodged, and assuming it's not, then BDO (on behalf of the OldCo creditors) and those handling the Murray Group businesses affected by this, may well choose to go after the firm of accountants in a multi million pound lawsuit. While this might have no direct impact on Der Hun, I've been led to believe it would most likely bankrupt the new owners of the financial business and so will be rigorously defended - which in turn may result in much dirty football laundry being washed in a very public courtroom. This is seemingly making a lot of people very very nervous. My understanding from what I was told, was that following the original suggestion by the porn star, a firm of accountants were appointed to administer the scheme on Rangers behalf, it was not the Club themselves doing that. If any changes in tax rules / tax legislation had resulted in Rangers (as the employer) becoming liable then I agree that would just have been tough luck, as you suggest. As this current situation is (apparently) based on incorrect advice and actions taken by the firm of accountants acting for Rangers, not on changes to tax rules (again, just my understanding of what I was told) the company are very likely to find themselves legally or professionally liable under any challenge. Im not getting this story, who appointed the firm of accountants to administer the EBT's if David Murray needed advising of EBT schemes by a firm of accountants in the first place ? Are there two accountancy firms involved? one to advise or suggest and the other to administer ? I still maintain that no accountancy firm will be anywhere near prosecution or guilt in any of this. EBT's are not illegal. How Rangers used them is that is not the firms fault, unless you or whoever passed this info on to you were part of the meeting that took place between Murray and the firm and heard them specifically advise to use EBT's in a way that would be deemed illegal or improper. Edited November 8, 2015 by Rudi-Mental Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rods Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I like Spence he is bang on. Fanrastic stuff from spence basically saying what we all think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 For FF or somebody else that may know. I asked a question last night about any appeal to the tax case Rangers Oldco/BDO may have. Question is - Would BDO have to seek the permission of the creditors before they could launch an appeal? I remember when I was dealing with BDO that the creditors voted whether to pursue a case through the High Court in London for moneys due from someone, however BDO advised against it as there was no guarantee of success and it could cost a substantial amount of money which would have come out of the creditors pot. If that is the case then HMRC are not going to vote against their own victory nor would I think most of the normal small creditors. Creditors have to be asked and a vote taken. Im not sure on what percentage have to agree to an appeal for it to be launched whether it be just a majority ie. 51% Either way as I think you and others have asked why would HMRC who are the biggest creditors vote against their own appeal they have won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Spencey in the Courier : http://www.thecourier.co.uk/sport/football/spence-on-saturday-rangers-tax-ruling-another-low-for-a-scottish-game-already-in-turmoil-1.909236 Very good piece by Spence can't disagree with a single word of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armageddon Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 6:20 shouting scab at their own supporters who have bought something out of the store. The penny still hasn't dropped that Mike Ashley still gets paid if they buy the merchandise or not. Jeezo ... turning on their own, it's like a real life JKB!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armageddon Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 is it true that LNS was David Murray 's next door neighbour? Not saying he is corrupt but surely he should've excused himself? That's not true. David Murray lives in the Murrayfield area and LNS in Comely Bank. (mods - I might be breaking a rule there - please delete if appropriate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 BOOM.?? The clubs who were cheated. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dhAk4K4f1aaWIZScFH9QpCXx1W8a-802o60kS3BEOwI/htmlview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 eTims reporting that at least 4 'big' clubs demanding all trophies removed from the records. Not something Im comfortable with, if true. Due process would have to be followed with an 'open' terms of reference to not just investigate Rangers but the whole of the SFA / SPFL / SFL / SPL and the key individuals including every committee member. We probably couldn't afford it and how contradictory would it be if the some looking for awards removed, approved King as FPP. ETIMS is a load of pish,daft wee kids posting even dafter rumours,the word I heard last night was Hearts,Hibs,Celtic and Dunfermline were the clubs involved,why The Pars though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaths17 Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 spence forgot to mention that it's the clubs who employ the morons to run the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Here's one Rangers fan who's contrite: @CarltonBartins: #BartysMiniBlog | GUEST BLOG- A RANGERS FAN SPEAKS OUT ON EBT'S https://t.co/D2yiUO4rE4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i wish jj was my dad Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Spencey is spot on as usual. I wonder why the BBC no longer employ him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Im not getting this story, who appointed the firm of accountants to administer the EBT's if David Murray needed advising of EBT schemes by a firm of accountants in the first place ? Are there two accountancy firms involved? one to advise or suggest and the other to administer ? I still maintain that no accountancy firm will be anywhere near prosecution or guilt in any of this. EBT's are not illegal. How Rangers used them is that is not the firms fault, unless you or whoever passed this info on to you were part of the meeting that took place between Murray and the firm and heard them specifically advise to use EBT's in a way that would be deemed illegal or improper. The porn star was the brains behind the scheme. Murrays company paid the money for the "loans" into a series of trusts that were set up individually for each recipient (I think). The trusts were administered by trustees controlled by Murray. They did what he told them. And when they got awkward and starting raising concerns he appointed new trustees who were in his pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 ETIMS is a load of pish,daft wee kids posting even dafter rumours,the word I heard last night was Hearts,Hibs,Celtic and Dunfermline were the clubs involved,why The Pars though?Ok. First time I'd clicked on a link to them. Probably last too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Sos quote 5p in the pound ? others quote ?2.60 for each ?10 I know who I would believe and it ain't king or that mob Truly awesome display of fans power from Sons of Strewth. The bloke with the UJ hat on underneath their banner - reminds me of Ken Dodd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 The porn star was the brains behind the scheme. Murrays company paid the money for the "loans" into a series of trusts that were set up individually for each recipient (I think). The trusts were administered by trustees controlled by Murray. They did what he told them. And when they got awkward and starting raising concerns he appointed new trustees who were in his pocket. All hearsay and wouldn't reach a courtroom. The fact remains the use of EBT's are not illegal it was only how they were used that made them illegal. The "Oh he told me to do it" line is not a defense neither is ignorance. A court of 3 lords have ruled that it is the employer that is liable that employer was Rangers who were owned by David Murray. BDO will not use up creditors funds chasing after a whodunnit or who advised who. It's simple David Murray/Oldco liable. Case closed Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 All hearsay and wouldn't reach a courtroom. The fact remains the use of EBT's are not illegal it was only how they were used that made them illegal. The "Oh he told me to do it" line is not a defense neither is ignorance. A court of 3 lords have ruled that it is the employer that is liable that employer was Rangers who were owned by David Murray. BDO will not use up creditors funds chasing after a whodunnit or who advised who. It's simple David Murray/Oldco liable. Case closed Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I never said anything about EBTs. I don't know if you're referring to my post as being "hearsay" but it's not. The porn star did advise Rangers and it came out at the FTT that Murray appointed Jersey based trustees when the first lot were asking awkward questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I never said anything about EBTs. I don't know if you're referring to my post as being "hearsay" but it's not. The porn star did advise Rangers and it came out at the FTT that Murray appointed Jersey based trustees when the first lot were asking awkward questions. It is hearsay as to who has said what in reference to using EBT's You replied to a post of mine in which I had replied and quoted someone else with regards to the subject of EBT's Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I never said anything about EBTs. I don't know if you're referring to my post as being "hearsay" but it's not. The porn star did advise Rangers and it came out at the FTT that Murray appointed Jersey based trustees when the first lot were asking awkward questions. What trusts were you talking about if you weren't talking about the EBTs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 BOOM.?? The clubs who were cheated. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dhAk4K4f1aaWIZScFH9QpCXx1W8a-802o60kS3BEOwI/htmlview much as that's an interesting read I don't think it's quite as simple as that - even without EBT's they would still have been operating with a budget far in excess of our own and therefore in all probability would still have outperformed those clubs in that period.. It's still a decking disgrace, I'm not sure whether removing titles would help or not - I don't think it'd make much difference to me personally. It won't change the money pissed up against the wall following a bent league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 much as that's an interesting read I don't think it's quite as simple as that - even without EBT's they would still have been operating with a budget far in excess of our own and therefore in all probability would still have outperformed those clubs in that period.. It's still a decking disgrace, I'm not sure whether removing titles would help or not - I don't think it'd make much difference to me personally. It won't change the money pissed up against the wall following a bent league That's the big thing it's probable but certainly not definative that they would have which is why they must be punished for cheating, because they may have cheated us and other clubs out of a lot of money. It is something we will never know but we can say for certainty that they did cheat and must be punished in the same way any other cheat is punished in sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Slim Stylee Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Sos quote 5p in the pound ? others quote ?2.60 for each ?10 I know who I would believe and it ain't king or that mob As I see it, you can't argue with audited figures. The problem is the relationship between RRL and RIFC. Yes RRL can declare a profit but releasing the financial dividend is totally within the power of that board - which is heavily weighted in SD favour. So long as King refuses to pay back the loan, he is costing the club money. Lots of money. It's an entirely toxic relationship that benefits only one winner in this struggle - Mike Ashley. King is an idiot to have painted him as the evil one for little more than a PR spin. This will not end well for him. Edited November 8, 2015 by Big Slim Stylee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) All hearsay and wouldn't reach a courtroom. The fact remains the use of EBT's are not illegal it was only how they were used that made them illegal. The "Oh he told me to do it" line is not a defense neither is ignorance. A court of 3 lords have ruled that it is the employer that is liable that employer was Rangers who were owned by David Murray. BDO will not use up creditors funds chasing after a whodunnit or who advised who. It's simple David Murray/Oldco liable. Case closed Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Sorry, I'm not explaining this very well.... This latest ruling makes OldCo liable for the debt to HMRC - no argument there. All that was said to me was that the firm of accountants retained by Der Hun to administer the scheme suggested by the porn star, are vulnerable to being challenged by OldCo (it would presumably be by BDO now) to try to recoup some of the monies now due to HMRC. The suggestion was that the accountants may have been negligent in their actions / inactions over aspects of this, leaving them open to a multi million pound lawsuit - whether BDO would consider it worthwhile, I've no idea, but if negligence or professional misconduct could be proven, maybe an out of court settlement could be reached to boost the size of the pot for the Creditors..? Edited November 8, 2015 by The Gasman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboy1982 Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I used to think the Huns had cheated their way to all these trophies but having read this explanation from one of the people I've had my opinion changes http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=289133&do=findComment&comment=1062972729 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I used to think the Huns had cheated their way to all these trophies but having read this explanation from one of the people I've had my opinion changes http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=289133&do=findComment&comment=1062972729 Right enough, that's a game-changer of an argument that all's well, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I used to think the Huns had cheated their way to all these trophies but having read this explanation from one of the people I've had my opinion changes http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=289133&do=findComment&comment=1062972729 Wow..! Well, that's me convinced now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Slim Stylee Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) I used to think the Huns had cheated their way to all these trophies but having read this explanation from one of the people I've had my opinion changes http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=289133&do=findComment&comment=1062972729 All this "trophy" talk is ridiculous. Just another club that lived beyond their means, I think. Not a popular opinion but we've all done it, tbh. Edited November 8, 2015 by Big Slim Stylee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) As I see it, you can't argue with audited figures. The problem is the relationship between RRL and RIFC. Yes RRL can declare a profit but releasing the financial dividend is totally within the power of that board - which is heavily weighted in SD favour. So long as King refuses to pay back the loan, he is costing the club money. Lots of money. It's an entirely toxic relationship that benefits only one winner in this struggle - Mike Ashley. King is an idiot to have painted him as the evil one for little more than a PR spin. This will not end well for him. There are two dividends reported in the accounts, one of ?300K and another of ?87K reported in the accounts. I believe that these were pre and post the date of the SD Loan There was also a dividend of ?1.61M declared prior to 27 Jan 2015. Rangers share of that dividend would have been ?821K. However, Rangers were billed ?620K towards the costs of closing the unprofitable stores at the Airport and in Belfast. From the AIM notice about the SD Loan arrangement RRL will declare a dividend of a total of GBP 1,610,000 prior to the Transfer. The Club will use the proceeds of its share of this dividend, inter alia, to repay sums owing to SD in respect of the cessation of onerous leases on unprofitable stores entered into by a previous Rangers management team. My calculation would be that Rangers received total dividends of ?1.007M (?300K + ?620K + ?87K), but the net cash was only ?387K. Calculating an accurate return on each ?10 spent is not possible because Rangers and SD/RRL have different year end dates and we don't know the periods of revenue that relate to the dividend distribution.. The SoS figure of 50p came from the net benefit after the dividend and costs, while the ?2.60 came from RRL's declared profits (not dividends). Taking the figure of ?821K received as a dividend in January, that was based on Rangers having a 51% share of RRL. If that level of dividend was maintained as an annual one, but the current 25%, share was used, then Rangers would only receive ?403K. The difference of ?418K would effectively the be the cost of not repaying the ?5M loan. It is the equivalent to SD charging an 8.4% interest rate on the ?5M. Edited November 8, 2015 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmfcfanyul Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 All this "trophy" talk is ridiculous. Just another club that lived beyond their means, I think. Not a popular opinion but we've all done it, tbh.Theres a huge difference between "living beyond your means" and cheating/illegal behaviour. I might spend more at the bar friday night than i earned friday day. I was "living beyond my means" on Friday. But if I were reaching behind the bar to nick beer, that wouldn't be the same at all. For one I would have a personal consequence of having less cash Saturday morning (and a sore head). The other, if the barman or bouncer saw me, it'd be more than my head was sore. Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Sorry, I'm not explaining this very well.... This latest ruling makes OldCo liable for the debt to HMRC - no argument there. All that was said to me was that the firm of accountants retained by Der Hun to administer the scheme suggested by the porn star, are vulnerable to being challenged by OldCo (it would presumably be by BDO now) to try to recoup some of the monies now due to HMRC. The suggestion was that the accountants may have been negligent in their actions / inactions over aspects of this, leaving them open to a multi million pound lawsuit - whether BDO would consider it worthwhile, I've no idea, but if negligence or professional misconduct could be proven, maybe an out of court settlement could be reached to boost the size of the pot for the Creditors..? For the accountants to be negligent, that would have to mean they deliberately told Rangers/Murray exactly how to use the EBT's in the way that they did (and for someone to know this they would have to have been party to the conversation that took place), and for the accountants to have known they would be illegal, and that Rangers/Murray would be breaking any rules. I find that the biggest amount of straw clutching I've ever heard. Not disputing it's what someone has told you, I'll make the assumption it was a hun that passed you this information. Any get out by the accountants is simple, as mentioned earlier, all one of them had to do was mention that the use of EBT's could be liable to tax or HMRC might view them differently. Then thats it the accountants have not been negligent. Edited November 8, 2015 by Rudi-Mental Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Part 2 (of 3) of that tax expert's musings on the subject ... http://waitingfortax.com/2015/11/08/on-ebts-and-rangers-fc-part-2/ PS hunners of tweet replies to his announcement of it : @JolyonMaugham: On EBTs and Rangers FC ? Part 2 https://t.co/sap0EswJkr https://t.co/9izMuY4QVK He sounds like a legal person who advises companies on how to avoid tax. He says: "Now everyone involved kind of knew the money would just flow straight through from employer to trust to sub-trust to employee. And the loans don?t look the same as a loan you might take from a bank ? no-one?s been demanding that the loans should be repaid. So you might feel that what the courts have held doesn?t have much reality to it. But as I said on Good Morning Scotland, the law isn?t always about common-sense. So he acknowledges that "everyone kind of knew". That is exactly the common sense view that underpins the "Ramsay" argument of "if it looks like a duck, .......etc". He goes on to state: You can satisfy the ?getting? bit of the test for a liability for income tax in two ways. You can satisfy it if you get the money yourself. Or you can satisfy it if you agree that it should be paid to someone else. There?s definitely something to this argument as a matter of principle. And what the Court of Session said had happened here was, in effect, that the employees had agreed that they should be paid into the EBT (at 1) rather than to them. And by agreeing, they had satisfied the requirement that they ?get? the income. But, although that might be right in principle I have some problems with the practice. So he thinks that "There's something to this argument" and "that might be right in principle".......... well yes! That's what the the Lords came up with. As a legal person he has "some problems" with something that is "right in principle" .......... and I suspect he wonders why so many people have such a dim view of lawyers. He also seems fixated on the bit about "getting" the money, while the Lords focused on "earning" the money and that the employees choice of how they would "get" the money. This blog also questions the Maugham view. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/11/08/rangers-ebt-why-the-court-of-session-got-it-right/ Edited November 8, 2015 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 He sounds like a legal person who advises companies on how to avoid tax. http://www.devereuxchambers.co.uk/barrister/55/jolyon_maugham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 http://www.devereuxchambers.co.uk/barrister/55/jolyon_maugham I note that he includes "Eclipse Film Partners" among his case load. That is the company that involved investments from football managers/players. They lost their appeal http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/eclipse-35-loses-film-partnership-tribunal/526749 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skabala Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) The poor teddy bears are having a bit of a tough time just now. Christmas approaching and thought they could do with a cheer up. Thought a wee voucher may go some way to show them that we care. http://www.sportsdirect.com/giftcard-voucher-976516 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited November 8, 2015 by skabala Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/null-and-void Plenty Hearts content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beavers Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Very surprised not much has been said in the press this weekend about Greens legal fees case due to be heard this week. 2 Big If?s..... He wins and that his fees are ring fenced surely this will tip the Huns into the abyss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/null-and-void Plenty Hearts content. He's correct in the fact that if it were any other club there would be a concerted campaign in the media for sporting integrity and sporting fairness resulting in the stripping of titles & trophies won during the cheating years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Creditors have to be asked and a vote taken. Im not sure on what percentage have to agree to an appeal for it to be launched whether it be just a majority ie. 51% Either way as I think you and others have asked why would HMRC who are the biggest creditors vote against their own appeal they have won. That's what I thought, so why have the media not highlighted this little detail, as per usual half truths and incomplete information from our esteemed media outlets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokHearts Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 That's the big thing it's probable but certainly not definative that they would have which is why they must be punished for cheating, because they may have cheated us and other clubs out of a lot of money. It is something we will never know but we can say for certainty that they did cheat and must be punished in the same way any other cheat is punished in sports. Exactly it is like saying Lance would have won all those TDF titles anyway because he's such a good cyclist. The point is moot, the cheating occurred and the titles have to be stripped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i wish jj was my dad Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 He's correct in the fact that if it were any other club there would be a concerted campaign in the media for sporting integrity and sporting fairness resulting in the stripping of titles & trophies won during the cheating years. While any credible sporting association would now be preparing to strip the culprits of any honours during the period of cheating the GFA and MSM will just brush it under the carpet as usual. Without wishing to give Richard Wilson, Chic and Speirs any comfort I'm kind of resigned to that but I'd much rather a light was shone on the reptiles at the GFA like Taylor, Smith and Ogilvie who colluded with Murray and his assorted lamb munchers. And Regan is equally guilty by taking no retrospective action after it all came to light. Time for the torches and pitchforks. Torches and pitchforks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 For the accountants to be negligent, that would have to mean they deliberately told Rangers/Murray exactly how to use the EBT's in the way that they did (and for someone to know this they would have to have been party to the conversation that took place), and for the accountants to have known they would be illegal, and that Rangers/Murray would be breaking any rules. I find that the biggest amount of straw clutching I've ever heard. Not disputing it's what someone has told you, I'll make the assumption it was a hun that passed you this information. Re the first part of your post; Being negligent is not the same as deliberately and knowingly breaking the law. You can be guilty of negligence just by not doing your work to an acceptable standard, resulting in your client losing out. People who were party to the details can talk to other people, it happens all the time. ....and Re the second part of your post; I'm not sure who you think is clutching at what straws, as regardless, OldCo are still liable as per the past week's ruling - this would have no impact on that at all. Your assumption was well wide of the mark, the friend is an accountant himself, and been a Hearts share holder and season ticket holder for many years..! Anyway, I was just passing on information I felt was pertinent to the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 All football fans in Scotland - yes, even Rangers fans - should write or email the SFA, with a copy to their own club, with what they think should be done. The massive post bag - electronic or snail mail - would a ) show the strength of feeling and b ) give a sizeable poll of views. Let's do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts