The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Jammy T]

Lol at TriggersBroom

 

Tax avoidance = legal

 

Tax evasion = illegal aka sevco scum behaviour

[Diadora Van Basten]

So a week after it becomes clear that the only monies King has put into Rangers (?1.5million loan) was done by using borrowed money, Keith Jackson states he has invested ?8 million.

[Diadora Van Basten]

So a week after it becomes clear that the only monies King has put into Rangers (?1.5million loan) was done by using borrowed money, Keith Jackson states he has invested ?8 million.

[jack D and coke]

It's not just the failure to pay tax or incorrect registration, the key for me has always been those shredders.

 

Police arrived, side letters got shredded. Some survived, and those pieces of paper proved that Rangers as a club were at it, knew they were at it, tried to hide that they were at it and then turned on the rest of Scottish football for having the nerve to disapprove.

 

My rangers friends are adamant that they should get more help from Scottish football, but as I always say they got more help than anyone else would reasonably expect.

 

What they expect is that Scottish football help them back to the top because that's where they belong dammit, and our lack of subservience is typical of such hate filled, ungrateful oiks.

 

Unlike all other clubs, they're not just entitled to exist, they're entitled to have their foot on our collective throat and we're meant to know our place.

 

"Scottish football needs a strong Rangers"

 

Why?

[jambovambo]

EBT ruling being appealed : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34964491

 

"the joint liquidators have filed an application seeking leave to appeal the Inner House of the Court of Session decision in respect of the EBT case" - which presumably means they may not get that go-ahead ?

Edited November 30, 2015 by jambovambo

[269miles]

EBT ruling being appealed : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34964491

 

"the joint liquidators have filed an application seeking leave to appeal the Inner House of the Court of Session decision in respect of the EBT case" - which presumably means they may not get that go-ahead ?

Can anyone explain what possible motive BDO have in pursuing this.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

There is also a clue in King's interview with Rangers TV, where he is asked if SD was aware that the club was willing to repay the loan.

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/rangers-tv/video-chairman-interview/

 

Start at 2'50" in.  King responds to the question with "I think they had a sense that we were looking at that in the Board meeting, it was something we were considering. I think they were alert to the fact that it was probably a likely scenario that we had reached the point that it was the best way forward for the club"

 

and at 3'30"

 

"It was a recent decision that developed over the last week, given the position for months had been not to repay it, so it happened quite quickly, but it was a build up of a number of things that we felt it was the right thing to do"

At no point in the interview does King even suggest Ashley has put in a further request for repayment of the loan, indeed, he is at great pains to get across the 'fact' that the board came to the decision completely independently as a business decision and for the sake of the supporters.

 

Ashley may have demanded repayment last week, but there may have been more to it than that. Or he may have threatened them with some legal action or administration. Or he may have done nothing. For some reason no details of 'why repay now?' were given at the AGM, but along with at least one blatant lie (King's ?8m), Jackson states, quite 'matter of factly', that Ashley demanded, last week, that the loan be repaid. I'd still suggest that that is something King, or Level5, wants out there without any 'official' accountability should it actually be untrue or inaccurate!

[kingdannyb]

"If the company successfully obtains leave to appeal, the appeal will be heard in the Supreme Court in London."

[Mikey1874]

Can anyone explain what possible motive BDO have in pursuing this.

I'd think they have no choice as there is a duty to obtain best deal for creditors

 

they could have faced legal challenge if they did not appeal

[Mikey1874]

Paying back the loans allows matters to progress.

 

It moves things on always a positive step. Its still very messy re the 'onerous contracts' but this will help.

[Don Dan]

The show just keeps on rolling.

[davieholt]

Could HMRC have put BDO up to it? After all, they have many far bigger cases down south and it would help them if the Supreme Court ruled in their favour. It would leave these EBT merchants with nowhere to hide?

[The Gasman]

I'd think they have no choice as there is a duty to obtain best deal for creditors

 

they could have faced legal challenge if they did not appeal

HMRC, as a major creditor, may not see it this way....

[jambovambo]

Could HMRC have put BDO up to it? After all, they have many far bigger cases down south and it would help them if the Supreme Court ruled in their favour. It would leave these EBT merchants with nowhere to hide?

I like your thinking.

 

Positively Machiavellian ...

[Maroon tinted glasses 2]

Could be a longshot but what would the chances have been that word got back to the SFA that part of MA's case against their FPP decision was based on the fact that he was passed to be on the board and instantly claimed he would not be paying the SD loan back.

 

This could have then resulted in King getting called in last week and told to sort this part out as its just giving MA a much stronger case and if he wins then it would be disastrous for SFA and King. Surely wouldn't be unheard of for the pair of them to be in cahoots for the benefit of each other due to the dirty washing that would get dragged into the public view otherwise.

[jambovambo]

@jamesdoleman: Of 49 Scottish submissions to appeal to the Supreme Court in last 6 years, 3 were accepted. https://t.co/gbKrY030B0

 

Could be BDO doing a "oh well, we did ask" ?

[Footballfirst]

At no point in the interview does King even suggest Ashley has put in a further request for repayment of the loan, indeed, he is at great pains to get across the 'fact' that the board came to the decision completely independently as a business decision and for the sake of the supporters.

 

Ashley may have demanded repayment last week, but there may have been more to it than that. Or he may have threatened them with some legal action or administration. Or he may have done nothing. For some reason no details of 'why repay now?' were given at the AGM, but along with at least one blatant lie (King's ?8m), Jackson states, quite 'matter of factly', that Ashley demanded, last week, that the loan be repaid. I'd still suggest that that is something King, or Level5, wants out there without any 'official' accountability should it actually be untrue or inaccurate!

 

Note that he was asked if SD was aware of a willingness to repay the loan.

 

The two short transcripts I posted earlier, confirm 1) that SD were anticipating the Board?s decision, and 2) the decision to pay only evolved over the previous week. 

 

Now if the Board did come to this decision at their own volition, then why would SD be anticipating anything, and why would such a volte face decision be formulated over the week prior to the AGM and confirmed with a round of phone calls on the morning of the AGM itself.

 

I think that the only reasonable interpretation you can place on SD?s knowledge, expectation and the timing of the decision, is that SD knew about it because they had formally asked for the money back a week or so before the AGM

[Paolo]

I'd think they have no choice as there is a duty to obtain best deal for creditors

 

they could have faced legal challenge if they did not appeal

The men in suits will be happy. It means they don't need to make a decison on title stripping just yet.

[davieholt]

The men in suits will be happy. It means they don't need to make a decison on title stripping just yet.

 

Don't see why it should matter since the use of EBTs was never really the issue. It was withholding relevant registration info from the SFA which made the players ineligible. That and the lying, shredding and obfuscation lengths they went to cover up the cheating.  

[Mikey1874]

Don't see why it should matter since the use of EBTs was never really the issue. It was withholding relevant registration info from the SFA which made the players ineligible. That and the lying, shredding and obfuscation lengths they went to cover up the cheating.

which is why the decision has already been made to take no action

 

SPFL could say that now

[Shanks said no]

@jamesdoleman: Of 49 Scottish submissions to appeal to the Supreme Court in last 6 years, 3 were accepted. https://t.co/gbKrY030B0

 

Could be BDO doing a "oh well, we did ask" ?

Pardon my ignorance but does this mean that of 49 Scottish submissions only 3 went to the Supreme Court or does it mean that only 3 were successfully appealed at the Supreme Court? Just trying to get a flavour for their likely success!

[Boof]

*coughs politely*

 

Excuse me Scottish mainstream media. Have any of you given consideration to the following...?

 

Don't see why it should matter since the use of EBTs was never really the issue. It was withholding relevant registration info from the SFA which made the players ineligible. That and the lying, shredding and obfuscation lengths they went to cover up the cheating.  

 

If not, could I respectfully suggest your get yer ****in fingers out and make a ****ing start on it?

[Paolo]

Don't see why it should matter since the use of EBTs was never really the issue. It was withholding relevant registration info from the SFA which made the players ineligible. That and the lying, shredding and obfuscation lengths they went to cover up the cheating.

And that has already been considered, and the bizarre decision made.

 

However lidicrous it was, an appeal gives them the perfect excuse not to reconsider just yet.

[Diadora Van Basten]

EBT ruling being appealed : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34964491

 

"the joint liquidators have filed an application seeking leave to appeal the Inner House of the Court of Session decision in respect of the EBT case" - which presumably means they may not get that go-ahead ?

It was the last line that was the most depressing:

 

"It has no impact on the current owners at Ibrox."

 

This is true as the current owners of Ibrox are a different company from the previous company that is now in liquidation.

 

Why are the BBC scared to state this fact? 

[davieholt]

Warburton at his presser today,

 

"I will know my job is done at Rangers when they are in Champions League final".

 

Top marks for delusional thinking. [emoji23].

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

In fairness he is probably angling for a job for life ...

[tweegy]

Don't see why it should matter since the use of EBTs was never really the issue. It was withholding relevant registration info from the SFA which made the players ineligible. That and the lying, shredding and obfuscation lengths they went to cover up the cheating.

It matters because the use of the ebts have been found to be part of the players remuneration and therefore liable to tax. It's at this point that the registrations become invalid due to all contractual payments being submitted to sfa/spfl.

[jambovambo]

It matters because the use of the ebts have been found to be part of the players remuneration and therefore liable to tax. It's at this point that the registrations become invalid due to all contractual payments being submitted to sfa/spfl.

You missed "not" in the last phrase?

[RobNox]

Pardon my ignorance but does this mean that of 49 Scottish submissions only 3 went to the Supreme Court or does it mean that only 3 were successfully appealed at the Supreme Court? Just trying to get a flavour for their likely success!

It means only 3 made it to the Supreme Court.  Which suggests a very low probability of the appeal even making it to court, let alone being upheld.

[BRAVEHEART1874]

I hope the Supreme Court will use their common sense and throw the submission to appeal right in the bin

Didn't BDO say they were contacting David Murray and it would depend on him / his liquidated companies and other creditors if they were intending to appeal and obviously about any cost. A lot of the creditors like the face painter are probably sevco fans so it's no surprise they are wanting BDO to try and appeal.

End if the day it was wages not loans and no amount of triggers broom heads or handles can change this for me

[tweegy]

You missed "not" in the last phrase?

Yep.

[davieholt]

It matters because the use of the ebts have been found to be part of the players remuneration and therefore liable to tax. It's at this point that the registrations become invalid due to all contractual payments being submitted to sfa/spfl.

 

I disagree. Whether the money paid to players through EBTs was taxable or not is a matter for HMRC not the SFA.

There is no longer any doubt that the EBTs were part of the players remuneration because the side letters said so. This information was withheld from the SFA so the players in question are ineligible. This is all the SFA/SPFL need to consider.

[Francis Albert]

It matters because the use of the ebts have been found to be part of the players remuneration and therefore liable to tax. It's at this point that the registrations become invalid due to all contractual payments being submitted to sfa/spfl.

Not sure I understand this with or without the missing "not". The EBT payments were part of the players remuneration, and the registrations became invalid when Rangers failed to disclose that element of the players remuneration. Whether or not the payments were liable to tax is irrelevant as far as player registrations are concerned.

[CJGJ]

Not sure I understand this with or without the missing "not". The EBT payments were part of the players remuneration, and the registrations became invalid when Rangers failed to disclose that element of the players remuneration. Whether or not the payments were liable to tax is irrelevant as far as player registrations are concerned.

The players were registered and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

[jambovambo]

The players were registered and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

Hah. Nice try.

 

Here's the Rangers Tax Case blog : https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/the-never-ending-story/

 

"On 22nd May 2005, Rangers defeated Hibs at Easter Road to win the SPL by a solitary point with Nacho Novo scoring the only goal of the game. Every single Rangers player who participated in the game received payment through an EBT. Three transfer windows had closed since HMRC?s initial enquiries about the workings of the scheme. It is just blind denial to suggest that the same team would have been on that pitch that day had Rangers provided honest/complete (delete etc.) answers to the initial information requests. Game after game. Season after season. The results were driven by the players on the pitch who in turn were induced to be there, despite some hollow claims to the contrary today, by the their total net earnings."

Edited November 30, 2015 by jambovambo

[Francis Albert]

The players were registered and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

Of course they were registered. Just not in accordance with the SFA's own rules!

[Boris]

The players were registered and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

Perhaps, like the tax case, it can be appealed?

[tweegy]

Not sure I understand this with or without the missing "not". The EBT payments were part of the players remuneration, and the registrations became invalid when Rangers failed to disclose that element of the players remuneration. Whether or not the payments were liable to tax is irrelevant as far as player registrations are concerned.

Sorry on my phone so maybe not getting my point across correctly.

 

If the ebts were not guaranteed and therefore not subject to income tax it can be argued they wouldn't have to declare them in the registrations (side letters notwithstanding). The tribunal ruled that they were part of the remuneration therefore should have been declared making the players incorrectly registered. (Which is my belief).

 

It is that point that means the sfa/spfl are actually correct to await the outcome of any appeal as it will have a material effect on any decision.

[Francis Albert]

Sorry on my phone so maybe not getting my point across correctly.

 

If the ebts were not guaranteed and therefore not subject to income tax it can be argued they wouldn't have to declare them in the registrations (side letters notwithstanding). The tribunal ruled that they were part of the remuneration therefore should have been declared making the players incorrectly registered. (Which is my belief).

 

It is that point that means the sfa/spfl are actually correct to await the outcome of any appeal as it will have a material effect on any decision.

The EBTs were part of the players' remuneration, so should have been declared as part of the registration process. Even if they were interest free loans (with no repayment obligation!)they would still be part of the players' remuneration.

 

I am not in the title stripping camp. What irks me is that while the SFA and SPL were turning a blind eye to Rangers invalid registrations they were making up rules which did not exist about late payments to players, issuing orders, calling emergency board meetings at a few hours notice, and imposing transfer embargoes, despite there being no rule about timely payments to players.

[Dutchmul]

The players were registered and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

 

They were ineligible to play if they had a side letter in their contract regarding payment from an ebt which was not disclosed to the sfa when details of their contract were sent to the sfa.

[davieholt]

In a nutshell yes,

they had duel contracts where only part of their pay was given to the Sfa. The Ebt part of their wages was withheld meaning in essence oldco Rfc never submitted all the players remuneration contracts to them, invalidating their registrations under Sfa rules.

 

Eloquently and comprehensively explained by Rangers Tax Case

 

https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/the-never-ending-story/

[Dutchmul]

With regard to the appeal, before it goes to the supreme court, the case is reviewed by qc's and only if they believe there is a case(such as an error in law) will the case then proceed to a hearing at the supreme court where 3 judges would hear the case.

 

Bear in mind that the last decision was a unanimous decision by the 3 judges and most cases that go to the supreme court are majority decision cases.

 

The only people who win from the appeal are lawyers, kerching.

[Paolo]

Of course they were registered. Just not in accordance with the SFA's own rules!

Correct. All these teams who have been kicked out tournaments, or been ordered to replay games, or given defeats, due to incorrectly playing players, still saw them registered, just not correctly. The authorities were stuck strictly to the rules, hence the apparent harsh punishments.

 

Unfortunately the ludicrous decision already made, probably will not change.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Paolo

[tweegy]

The EBTs were part of the players' remuneration, so should have been declared as part of the registration process. Even if they were interest free loans (with no repayment obligation!)they would still be part of the players' remuneration.

 

I am not in the title stripping camp. What irks me is that while the SFA and SPL were turning a blind eye to Rangers invalid registrations they were making up rules which did not exist about late payments to players, issuing orders, calling emergency board meetings at a few hours notice, and imposing transfer embargoes, despite there being no rule about timely payments to players.

That's the point though, the case has been about whether they were remuneration or not.

[davieholt]

That's the point though, the case has been about whether they were remuneration or not.

 

The 'case' has little or nothing to do with it.

 

The side letters were used to commit to paying money to players while they were employed at Ibrox and formed part of their contract. This was not disclosed to the SFA and so they were ineligible to play for Rangers. It's not really that hard.

[Francis Albert]

That's the point though, the case has been about whether they were remuneration or not.

No. The case has been about whether the remuneration was taxable or not.

[tweegy]

The 'case' has little or nothing to do with it.

 

The side letters were used to commit to paying money to players while they were employed at Ibrox and formed part of their contract. This was not disclosed to the SFA and so they were ineligible to play for Rangers. It's not really that hard.

I completely agree.

 

But at the same time there is an argument that I've laid out above about why the sfa won't act now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much playing devil's advocate here. I actually think those titles should be voided.

[davieholt]

I completely agree.

 

But at the same time there is an argument that I've laid out above about why the sfa won't act now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much playing devil's advocate here. I actually think those titles should be voided.

I do agree with that. The SFA / SPFL will do anything possible to avoid opening that can of worms. They will undoubtedly try to hide behind the Nimmo Smith findings and claim that the derisory fine drew a line under the whole sworded matter. Snag is that the penalties for fielding ineligible players are non negotiable and binding (as Legia Warsaw and Spartans discovered) and there is no need to invoke 'sporting advantage' in the discussions. It's either black or white. In Rangers case it is black.

[tweegy]

I do agree with that. The SFA / SPFL will do anything possible to avoid opening that can of worms. They will undoubtedly try to hide behind the Nimmo Smith findings and claim that the derisory fine drew a line under the whole sworded matter. Snag is that the penalties for fielding ineligible players are non negotiable and binding (as Legia Warsaw and Spartans discovered) and there is no need to invoke 'sporting advantage' in the discussions. It's either black or white. In Rangers case it is black.

I don't completely agree. I think there is an argument to be made (not at this pint commenting on merit of said argument). If the supreme Court, subject to being granted leave, finds that the payments are not subject to income tax then there is an argument to be made that the payments were not emoluments and therefore did not need to be disclosed. For the avoidance of doubt, I disagree with this argument due to the existence of the side letters.

[jambovambo]

I do agree with that. The SFA / SPFL will do anything possible to avoid opening that can of worms. They will undoubtedly try to hide behind the Nimmo Smith findings and claim that the derisory fine drew a line under the whole sworded matter. Snag is that the penalties for fielding ineligible players are non negotiable and binding (as Legia Warsaw and Spartans discovered) and there is no need to invoke 'sporting advantage' in the discussions. It's either black or white. In Rangers case it is black.

"Sworded"?

 

Ah, I get it now.

[tweegy]

"Sworded"?

 

Ah, I get it now.

I actually lol'd at that! Sorry!