AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 I have a simple solution. All all employer funded savings / shares / loan / trust / pensions / investment schemes etc. will be considered as taxable benefits, unless they are pre-approved by HMRC. i.e. if you don't ask HMRC, then you will be left in no doubt whether or not the scheme is taxable. Similarly any scheme where individuals seek to claim tax reliefs should again be cleared by HMRC. 100% agree with you, and have written something similar before (Paul McConville's blog I think it was). It makes absolutely no sense for the government (regardless of party in power) to allow a situation where their own representatives, HMRC, have to do all the donkey work, at great expense, when it could be left to the fly-by-night tax advisors to do it all, before any scheme is put into operation. Overnight the country would be much richer! Somehow self-serving politicians come to mind! A very simple example of how it would work in practice is the ISA scheme, researched and agreed before ever being put into operation. Company Staff Profit Sharing Schemes also had to be researched and agreed by HMRC before their inception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 You lot can't help yourselves. You are willing to look as if you got the wrong end of the stick just to have a dig. Can you say this again but in English this time please. What is it that I have got the wrong end of the stick off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccarton3 Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Assuming they could act and would act, what is it that you would expect them to do. Why does it even matter now ? They lose a few titles and trophies at the absolute worst. So what ?? Title stripping let's future generations clearly see the period involved. Asterisks next to the years are the only suitable sporting outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbojambo Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 With regards to Whyte buying Sevco with their future revenue is that not what the Glazers did at ManU as unless I misunderstood the money they paid for the club is included in the club's overall debt so could be legal with a bit of creative accounting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 With regards to Whyte buying Sevco with their future revenue is that not what the Glazers did at ManU as unless I misunderstood the money they paid for the club is included in the club's overall debt so could be legal with a bit of creative accounting? My understanding is that it's a bit of both. The Glazers borrowed money from third party sources to buy the club, then having control and a majority shareholding were able to transfer the debt onto the club. It is legal but, in my opinion, little different from the alleged financial assistance charge that Whyte is facing. Had Whyte been able to raise cash to pay off Lloyds from some other source on a short term basis, he could have bought the club, then as the controlling majority shareholder, switched the debt to the club and, if he felt the need to do so, raise cash from Ticketus to pay off the original lender, leaving the club in a similar position, but all legal and above board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 With regards to Whyte buying Sevco with their future revenue is that not what the Glazers did at ManU as unless I misunderstood the money they paid for the club is included in the club's overall debt so could be legal with a bit of creative accounting? No its not what the Glazers did is within the law. If a Company/Business is stupid enough to be in profit (black) and they are ripe for a take over, you can make an offer for any amount of shares, but as the glazers went deliberately over the 30% threshold they had to make an offer for all the shares, which they did. But the clever bit is you can borrow the money from a bank (with security) buy all the shares, then dump the entire loan as debt onto the company you have just bought thus placing them ?million in debt but as the company with a huge turnover and was in profit that debt gets managed the fans pay of the loan, and the Glazers get the entire club for free and once the debt is paid off, can even take some of the profits, its their business. But the club was sold to the glazers at the shareholders got a price they were willing to impart their shares for King however with his Ain't half hot mum concert party went over the 30% and have failed to make an offer to the other shareholders? court case due What Whyte did was borrow money from Ticketus using 4 years of season ticket sales as security and the courts will decide if that's fraud or not, as well as his actions on of running Rangers as a going concern as to which did not appear as his first priority as stated in the pubic domain(disclaimer0, however Whyte could easily have taken out a loan from a bank, and secured that loan first of all against his properties(or something), then dumped the debt onto Rangers. paying back his loan and transfer the loan for the business to pay and releasing the security he had. Then run the company as a going concern. What Whyte actually did is being presented in court and as such it would not be wise to discuss it too much, until after the trial, but the how he did his business has raised enough concerns for COPFS to pursue this as one case of fraud and one case against the companies act to which Whyte denies any wrong doing, the case continues. Loads more popcorn on order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Anything happening today? Jury still got the Gary Glitters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzas right boot Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) Assuming they could act and would act, what is it that you would expect them to do. Why does it even matter now ? They lose a few titles and trophies at the absolute worst. So what ??It would mean they are a different club. That'll hurt the sevco fans. They would have to admit that. No tangible benifit, but funny for other fans, or should be. They go from the most successful club pish to, eh one Scottish championship title. Great ending to the story. Edited April 28, 2017 by Rudi'sleftfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzas right boot Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 With regards to Whyte buying Sevco with their future revenue is that not what the Glazers did at ManU as unless I misunderstood the money they paid for the club is included in the club's overall debt so could be legal with a bit of creative accounting? Did the glazers not say this openly tho? White lied, that not the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Anything happening today? Jury still got the Gary Glitters? Back on.... James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 55s56 seconds ago Findlay "when you handed over the club you had a plan" Murray "it was a static plan" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago Johnson email says Whyte is unaware of "the shambles of a playing squad he will inherit" "They had just won 3 doubles" Murray replies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Findlay "You were let down by people who didn't have a clue"? Murray: The facts are there for others to judge" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Findlay asks Murray about Dave King, witness confirms he was on the board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) King note "I was approached 10 years ago to make investment in the club" "After personal discussion with Mr Murray" agreed to ?5m Later raised investment to ?20m, "asked for assurances 1) Be on the board 2) Not dispose of shareholding without consultation. Edited April 28, 2017 by Jambo_in_Hamilton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 2m2 minutes ago King note says Murray "isolated me" Murray says King was in next door office "he chose to walk out the door without meeting me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 I hope this is the start of chucking each other under the bus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Do you think they will ask who Charlotte fakes was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Sifter Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Looking at James Dolemans twitter feed, it appears good auld Sir Dave is beginning to suffer from selective amnesia. Can't recall certain conversations, can't recall ever seeing certain emails. This is getting interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaths17 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago Johnson email says Whyte is unaware of "the shambles of a playing squad he will inherit" "They had just won 3 doubles" Murray replies winning a double in a league you have men running it at all levels using illegal schemes to gain an unfair advantage, isn't really much of an achievement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 will any of this have any impact on the Rangers newco though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 will any of this have any impact on the Rangers newco though? Probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Probably not. Doubt it. The most likely is whether they are indeed new or not. It may expose bent authorities though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 will any of this have any impact on the Rangers newco though? In a roundabout way, maybe... James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 41m41 minutes agoMore Findlay "Mr King was on the board that took the club to a shambles of a playing squad and all the rest...now saying 'not me guv'?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 6m 6 minutes agoMore Murray says he received proof of funds letter from Whyte's solicitors, but it was "unsigned" So not up followed then?? With a question from Findley as to why not or sent back by Murray to be signed!!! Edited April 28, 2017 by Dannie Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 6m 6 minutes ago More Murray says he received proof of funds letter from Whyte's solicitors, but it was "unsigned" So not up followed then?? With a question from Findley as to why not or sent back by Murray to be signed!!! I remember Whyte didn't sign the Ticketus agreement correctly either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 I remember Whyte didn't sign the Ticketus agreement correctly either Is it any surprise they (Rangers, Sevco) are a shambles and deep in financial trouble when they get the simple things wrong. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Is it any surprise they (Rangers, Sevco) are a shambles and deep in financial trouble when they get the simple things wrong. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I was thinking it looks more like it's deliberate to me, like he thought he'd get away with it legally if he didn't sign properly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 I was thinking it looks more like it's deliberate to me, like he thought he'd get away with it legally if he didn't sign properly Nothing would surprise me. Reading Murray's answers he is very vague i think he's as dodgy Whyte and the rest of them. They know what happened and what they did. Let's hope the Jury are awake. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshallschunkychicken Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Murray seems to be taking a bit of a roasting from Findlay now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Spivvery, Ducking and Diving and Street Market dealing was and is alive and well at Ibrox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 I remember Whyte didn't sign the Ticketus agreement correctly either If the agreement wasn't properly signed, is it legally enforceable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 If the agreement wasn't properly signed, is it legally enforceable? You'd think not wouldn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Nothing would surprise me. Reading Murray's answers he is very vague i think he's as dodgy Whyte and the rest of them. They know what happened and what they did. Let's hope the Jury are awake. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Or that Craigy boy has some incriminating evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) You'd think not wouldn't you? Yes. SDM will be frantically checking the Rangers sale agreement that Whyte would have signed to purchase the club. Edited April 28, 2017 by Jambo-Jimbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 I hope this is the start of chucking each other under the busThat is exactly what is happening. King has tried to throw Murray under a bus. Murray has also returned the favour about King, Johnston and P Murray. I don't know if JD's tweets reflect it but David Horne, one of Murray's trusted advisors, had taken notes from a meeting with Whyte and Andrew Ellis about Octopus/Ticketus funding in support of a takeover offer as early as Oct/Nov 2010. SDM says he wasn't told anything about that. Looks like SDM is prepared to throw everyone under a bus to protect his reputation. Rangers director James Blair has been spotted in the building which suggests that Dave King could also be around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 David Murray might still own Rangers then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) If the agreement wasn't properly signed, is it legally enforceable? May not be, under the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act of 1995. That's not to say that all contracts must necessarily be memorialised, or that there might not be something in Scots Law that permits "clear intent of the parties" to control even if all the T's were not crossed, nor all the I's dotted. And/or "performance"--meaning the parties conducted themselves in a manner that indicated their mutual understanding that the agreement was valid and executed. That's certainly the case in U.S. law in many jurisdictions. Edited April 28, 2017 by Justin Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdannyb Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Anyone know when Agent Whyte is in the dock ? Final stage of Operation TheyDon'tDeserveToExist is about to commence .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Anyone know when Agent Whyte is in the dock ? Final stage of Operation TheyDon'tDeserveToExist is about to commence .... Most observers seem to think he won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 My understanding is that it's a bit of both. The Glazers borrowed money from third party sources to buy the club, then having control and a majority shareholding were able to transfer the debt onto the club. It is legal but, in my opinion, little different from the alleged financial assistance charge that Whyte is facing. Had Whyte been able to raise cash to pay off Lloyds from some other source on a short term basis, he could have bought the club, then as the controlling majority shareholder, switched the debt to the club and, if he felt the need to do so, raise cash from Ticketus to pay off the original lender, leaving the club in a similar position, but all legal and above board. Did the Glazers not have assets, ie Tampa Bay or whatever NFL team, that they could use to guarantee the loan they took to buy ManU? Whyte had nothing except a (probably rented) house in Monaco. Another difference is that Glazers lumped all their own debt onto United once they owned it but did not cut off revenue stream of the company unlike Whyte did with Ticketus deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Anyone know when Agent Whyte is in the dock ? Final stage of Operation TheyDon'tDeserveToExist is about to commence .... Whyte is in the dock But if you mean he gives evidence then that would be epic A few weeks / months away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Did the Glazers not have assets, ie Tampa Bay or whatever NFL team, that they could use to guarantee the loan they took to buy ManU? Whyte had nothing except a (probably rented) house in Monaco. Another difference is that Glazers lumped all their own debt onto United once they owned it but did not cut off revenue stream of the company unlike Whyte did with Ticketus deal. Which takes us back to him getting his lawyer to say he had 9.5 million lodged with them. By the way, you know Bears Den doesn't have a thread on this case? Weird eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 24m24 minutes ago @jamesdoleman Says Murray briefed the press daily, briefed behind managers back James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 24m24 minutes ago Replying to @jamesdoleman "I have learned one thing from football, normal rules of business does not apply" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 So what would happen if the sale shouldn't have technically gone ahead? absolute mind melting stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Which takes us back to him getting his lawyer to say he had 9.5 million lodged with them. By the way, you know Bears Den doesn't have a thread on this case? Weird eh? They do. It's in the boardroom section. But you have to know the knocks the passwords to gain admittance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 They do. It's in the boardroom section. But you have to know the knocks the passwords to gain admittance. I'm a member, I don't see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 No I've got it, it's getting talked about on the Tax case thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 This is turning into a bear pit - all these ex-directors of Rangers turning on each other? Findlay was a director for 13 years under Murray wasn't he? Unsigned letters and contracts? I cannot believe SDM truly believed Whyte had the readies, he just needed someone, anyone to take Rangers off him...I'd be interested to hear more about the relationship between Murray and the Bank of Scotland. The bank was into Murray for about 750m at the time of the banking crisis which Murray had borrowed for bum investment property deals. Now a decent amount of money was also directed into Rangers via interco loans from Murray International. So given that Rangers was a black hole it is pretty obvious why the bank wanted SDM to divest himself of Rangers - at least the property investments had a chance of coming good again if the bank continued to support Murray International. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 I'm a member, I don't see it It's possibly been bumped then. Orders from above. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 If he didn't sign the letters, then Craig will walk from this Unsigned documents, Murray pressured by the back to accept it or get his money cut off lack of any kind if diligence I'd be amazed if he gets found guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts