The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[kingdannyb]

Tom English talked last night about the obvious sporting advantage gained by the EBTs...

Time for some title-stripping!

Edited August 28, 2018 by kingdannyb
Autocorrect

[Bazzas right boot]

27 minutes ago, kingdannyb said:

Tom English talked last night about the obvious sporting advantage gained by the EBTs...

Time for some title-stripping!

 

Key for me. 

 

Legally there may be a way out, but the sporting advantage thing needs dealt with. 

 

2 Completely separate issues, one for the courts and one for the football authorities. Stripped is also not quite the correct term as rangers were liquidated and reformed in 2012, but it would be a start. 

[tntjambo]

need the COLD SHOULDER to kick in ASAP then we will see how TGASL handles that ?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

9 hours ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

With the side letters, And SDM and the Club have thrown these players under the bus, If I was one of the 13 named earlier, I would at least try and hold the newco to blame as it is after all football debt?  And the 5WA should be exposed. Remember the side letters stated they did not have to pay it back, the club therefore should take the hit?  Its the same club after all?

 

Micky Stewart had sympathy for these players, I don't, they knew the side letters were not presented to the SPL,  So Rangers/SDM and their agents knew it was dodgy or why hide the ****,  Sympathy me, no I am laughing my tits off

 

Only when it suits them and only when they are due money but not when they owe money.

 

Remember the Charlie Telfer case, IIRC Dundee Utd refused to pay newco the development fee saying that it was oldco who had developed the player, therefore any development fee was payable to oldco, newco kicked up feck and were eventually awarded the development fee.

So if newco were entiltlied to the money due to oldco, then equally they should be liable for the debts of oldco, same club = same debts, well that's the way I see it.

[Spellczech]

10 hours ago, farin said:

 

It’s secret for a reason, but has anybody ever asked the then sitting chairman that question?. 

I suspect every club chairman in the country would've been of the opinion that one day it could be their own club. Sometimes a hardline approach is not the best one, even against cheats and fraudsters...

 

13 hours ago, jambosdad said:

Could the pursued sue any of the old co Management/Board for misleading them.  

Is it only UK residents who are being chased.

HMRC take the view that individuals are responsible for their own tax position. This is why even your employer cannot communicate directly with HMRC about his employee's tax code being correct or not.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Spellczech

[Spellczech]

39 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Key for me. 

 

Legally there may be a way out, but the sporting advantage thing needs dealt with. 

 

2 Completely separate issues, one for the courts and one for the football authorities. Stripped is also not quite the correct term as rangers were liquidated and reformed in 2012, but it would be a start. 

They do seem to have been allowed to have their cake and eat it in this respect. No annulling of dodgy titles, and then allowing the newco to claim these as well as legitimate titles...

Edited August 28, 2018 by Spellczech

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

Stripped is also not quite the correct term as rangers were liquidated and reformed in 2012, but it would be a start. 

 

Well . . . the Oldco needs the titles stripped from it/vacated. The Newco can Go For 1.

[jamboz]

32 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

I suspect every club chairman in the country would've been of the opinion that one day it could be their own club. Sometimes a hardline approach is not the best one, even against cheats and fraudsters...

 

Possibly. But other clubs would be apologetic, remorseful and subject themselves to the will of the authorities, accepting their punishment with good grace and humility being thankful that their very existence has been assured. Not bullying and demanding and playing the victim with a nauseating sense of bigotry, self importance and entitlement. 

[Mikey1874]

11 hours ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

With the side letters, And SDM and the Club have thrown these players under the bus, If I was one of the 13 named earlier, I would at least try and hold the newco to blame as it is after all football debt?  And the 5WA should be exposed. Remember the side letters stated they did not have to pay it back, the club therefore should take the hit?  Its the same club after all?

 

Micky Stewart had sympathy for these players, I don't, they knew the side letters were not presented to the SPL,  So Rangers/SDM and their agents knew it was dodgy or why hide the ****,  Sympathy me, no I am laughing my tits off

 

Individuals are liable

 

It should be clear risks were attached to EBTs even if it seemed watertight

 

 

[graygo]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Only when it suits them and only when they are due money but not when they owe money.

 

Remember the Charlie Telfer case, IIRC Dundee Utd refused to pay newco the development fee saying that it was oldco who had developed the player, therefore any development fee was payable to oldco, newco kicked up feck and were eventually awarded the development fee.

So if newco were entiltlied to the money due to oldco, then equally they should be liable for the debts of oldco, same club = same debts, well that's the way I see it.

 

Newco were liable for the debts of Oldco, well football debts anyway.

 

n fact legally they weren't liable for them but it was the only way they were getting back into the leagues as agreed in the 5WA.

Edited August 28, 2018 by graygo

[Hagar the Horrible]

14 minutes ago, jamboz said:

 

Possibly. But other clubs would be apologetic, remorseful and subject themselves to the will of the authorities, accepting their punishment with good grace and humility being thankful that their very existence has been assured. Not bullying and demanding and playing the victim with a nauseating sense of bigotry, self importance and entitlement. 

All correct appart from the Victim bit, that is erserved for Celtic, Sevco are not victims they play the "we are above reproach, WATP, do as we say not as we do, ya da yada  laws/rules dont apply, and run along little people"  Which is why with the lack of humility when it all goes pete tong again, they wont get any help from anybody else again?

 

Also how are they able to be LINKED to a £2m target from Osijek, Who is bankroling that, as ifthis goes through, their entire income will be spent, unless thay are putting all on red by hoping for the Europa league group stage?

[SUTOL]

23 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Individuals are liable

 

It should be clear risks were attached to EBTs even if it seemed watertight

 

 

 

The problem with Rangers and possibly other football clubs EBT schemes was that they weren't actually EBT's. 

 

The 'side letters' and fact they were seen as contractural payments prove they weren't EBT payments. 

[8skacel8]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/rangers-sebastien-faure-ian-black-4907614

 

Found this story on Pie and Bovril this morning. A classic from a few years ago, what a laughing stock.

[Tommy Brown]

Correct me if wrong

 

Flo paid approx £3m (no tax paid on it).

Tax would be at 40%.

 

I assume any foreign player can ignore it, but would they be able to  come back to the UK?

Guys like Murray, Souness, Smith will be looking at Bazza's recent bankruptcy and seeing it as a decent move

 

[alwaysthereinspirit]

43 minutes ago, farin said:

 

It’s abundantly clear what they were tbh. 

 

 

Is there anyway that olde non existent Rankgers paid this to players out of the goodness of their heart?

Just a wee thank you for being a good employee.

[davieholt]

16 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Correct me if wrong

 

Flo paid approx £3m (no tax paid on it).

Tax would be at 40%.

 

I assume any foreign player can ignore it, but would they be able to  come back to the UK?

Guys like Murray, Souness, Smith will be looking at Bazza's recent bankruptcy and seeing it as a decent move

 

 

Too late for them. The courts would undoubtedly regard any move to transfer assets now as 'gratuitous alienation' of assets. They're screwed.

[tntjambo]

55 minutes ago, farin said:

 

It’s abundantly clear what they were tbh. 

 

 

 

Its clear they cheated and gained an unfair advantage on the rest of Scottish Football all tainted titles and cups cheated to win during this period should be removed from the history

[alwaysthereinspirit]

3 minutes ago, tntjambo said:

 

Its clear they cheated and gained an unfair advantage on the rest of Scottish Football all tainted titles and cups cheated to win during this period should be removed from the history

There'd be ANOTHER armageddon if we tried to do that.

[tntjambo]

Lol we all know how the last Armageddon turned out

[NANOJAMBO]

19 hours ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

With the side letters, And SDM and the Club have thrown these players under the bus, If I was one of the 13 named earlier, I would at least try and hold the newco to blame as it is after all football debt?  And the 5WA should be exposed. Remember the side letters stated they did not have to pay it back, the club therefore should take the hit?  Its the same club after all?

 

Micky Stewart had sympathy for these players, I don't, they knew the side letters were not presented to the SPL,  So Rangers/SDM and their agents knew it was dodgy or why hide the ****,  Sympathy me, no I am laughing my tits off

They did have to pay it back but it would come out of their estate when they died (IIRC), but the reality is , they would never have paid it back IMO.  In any case , what employee would take a wage cut to have it replaced by a "discretionary" loan,  it defied belief & logic ?

 

In Bazza's case, if my timings are correct , he transferred his assets as soon as Rangers RIP went bust (2012), knowing he was going to get a tax bill (he would have known , because Rangers had already offered Hector £10M  as a settlement which HMRC batted away with contempt). Rangers went bust owing the taxman. Bazza would know Hector was going to be knocking at his door eventually. 

 

In which case I don't understand why HMRC isn't appealing the 5 year rule. Rangers dragged this out for years, they lied to the authorities and they lied to the footballing authorities and then went bust , with the players effectively hiding their assets from the tax man as soon as they knew the game was up. 

[Spellczech]

15 hours ago, farin said:

 

It’s abundantly clear what they were tbh. 

 

 

Wow that is unbelievable! How did they ever think they could get away with blithely saying these payments were not contractual? They signed Flo on a 4.5 year contract in November 2000 and the payments are annual over the next 4 years paid in November... From a finance/payroll perspective that is amateurish stuff. Did they seek any professional advice or did the office junior dream up this wheeze?

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/scottish-premier/2993243/Rangers-12m-Flo-gamble.html

[JamboAl]

16 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Wow that is unbelievable! How did they ever think they could get away with blithely saying these payments were not contractual? They signed Flo on a 4.5 year contract in November 2000 and the payments are annual over the next 4 years paid in November... From a finance/payroll perspective that is amateurish stuff. Did they seek any professional advice or did the office junior dream up this wheeze?

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/scottish-premier/2993243/Rangers-12m-Flo-gamble.html

 

Precisely!  The payments were made "on condition that you were registered with the club on the due dates".  If that phrase does not mean it is made by reason of his employment with Rangers, and therefore taxable, I don't what does.  As I said earlier it is mystifying how the  Courts could not have come to that conclusion earlier.

[davieholt]

15 hours ago, tntjambo said:

Lol we all know how the last Armageddon turned out

 

I think I quite like armageddons

[tntjambo]

They have based there future on Europa League qualification and winning the League which could lead to Champions League Money Millions of pounds spent in advance this weeks 2 results are big for sevco win both and its party time loose both and the grim reaper is at the door.?

[primrose]

Interesting.

 

I have no doubt that HMRC will chase the oldco / liquidators for the tax due.

 

However

 

If the players become liable for the tax will these be considered football debts? 

 

I understand that paying off all  football debts was a condition of sevco joining the league set up. 

 

No doubt sevco will claim that this does not count as the oldco was liquidated, but surely that would re open the continuation myth debate? Realistically they can't say that they are the same club and have the trophies and the history, if they are not willing to live up to the footballing liabilities of the old Rangers.

 

If they say we are not the same club to avoid the tax bill, titles frozen at 54, trophy count only has lower league titles.

 

Popcorn time....................................

 

 

[brunoatemyhamster]

6 minutes ago, tntjambo said:

They have based there future on Europa League qualification and winning the League which could lead to Champions League Money Millions of pounds spent in advance this weeks 2 results are big for sevco win both and its party time loose both and the grim reaper is at the door.?

Thursday is massive for them.

Reckon theyve spent the EL money already, so getting pumped oot could be the start of problems ( hope so ).

That followed by a scudding from Celtic could be catastrophic.

Is their General meeting not on friday?

Well timed.

[Hagar the Horrible]

That was the point I was trying to make earlier, when this came to light?  MS on sportsound stated he had sympathy as they were ill advised, I dont, as even a total moron hiding money is always a bad idea unless you get a written confirmation from the Taxman himself that it is kosher?  But that aside Innocence of the law is never an excuse..fact.  But taking the legal side out of it that as the club were first port of call to pay tax liability, secondary the player pays the loan back, or thirdly the player pays tax on it?

 

However these hidden side letters which broke the rules knowingly by Deadco, stated the club would accept full liability.  Now that the club "Sevco" claims it is the same club, and have used the law to chuck these players under a bus, thats the deadco's problem and as such now yours?   But what I am trying to say is even though Hector by law will go after the players will aggression,  The players themselves should be going after the club, the newco as this IS football debt and the 5WA insisted that all footballing debt should be paid?  If I was a player rather than risk losing my house and why protect a club that has shafted you royaly

 

So the big questions are:  

is Sevco in breach of the 5WA or not????

Is this football debt?

When we pass these players on the street, should we give them 10p for a cup of tea?

 

[NANOJAMBO]

23 minutes ago, primrose said:

Interesting.

 

I have no doubt that HMRC will chase the oldco / liquidators for the tax due.

 

However

 

If the players become liable for the tax will these be considered football debts? 

 

I understand that paying off all  football debts was a condition of sevco joining the league set up. 

 

No doubt sevco will claim that this does not count as the oldco was liquidated, but surely that would re open the continuation myth debate? Realistically they can't say that they are the same club and have the trophies and the history, if they are not willing to live up to the footballing liabilities of the old Rangers.

 

If they say we are not the same club to avoid the tax bill, titles frozen at 54, trophy count only has lower league titles.

 

Popcorn time....................................

 

 

I can't see how. Simply put, they are social taxes and there precedents where HMRC has been sorely pissed off about the FA/SFA only being concerned with football debts meaning the football authorities have deliberately avoided taking action in cases like this. It's become perverse that football clubs could run up debts with HMRC into millions (long before Rangers died) and the SFA/FA would do nothing but would then put swingeing penalties in place if clubs were late in paying players, fines etc. The SFA (ie it's member clubs) deliberately have no FFP in place for that reason. If they did, Rangers wouldn't have died and Sevco wouldn't be able to do what they're doing currently in emulating it's dead brother. 

[primrose]

11 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

I can't see how. Simply put, they are social taxes and there precedents where HMRC has been sorely pissed off about the FA/SFA only being concerned with football debts meaning the football authorities have deliberately avoided taking action in cases like this. It's become perverse that football clubs could run up debts with HMRC into millions (long before Rangers died) and the SFA/FA would do nothing but would then put swingeing penalties in place if clubs were late in paying players, fines etc. The SFA (ie it's member clubs) deliberately have no FFP in place for that reason. If they did, Rangers wouldn't have died and Sevco wouldn't be able to do what they're doing currently in emulating it's dead brother. 

 

 

But the Flo side letter clearly stats that the players wont be liable, as they are indemnified by the club, so if tax liability transfers to a player it will become a football debt?

 

Or if not, it will allow them to say it has nothing to do with them, as they are not the same club!

[jambosdad]

2 hours ago, Spellczech said:

ow that is unbelievable! How did they ever think they could get away with blithely saying these payments were not contractual? They signed Flo on a 4.5 year contract in November 2000 and the payments are annual over the next 4 years paid in November... From a finance/payroll perspective that is amateurish stuff. Did they seek any professional advice or did the office junior dream up this wheeze?

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/scottish-premier/2993243/Rangers-12m-Flo-gamble.html

Surely that last paragraph in particular clarifies the Oldco's position and therefore it's Officials.

"The club indemnifies you against UK or Norwegian tax".  Also by telling the player to be careful how to move the funds and come to them for advice on this 

is important.  The last sentence appears to be a disclaimer  against any problems if the funds become disclosed to tax authorities by some action of the player and

this would nullify the Indemnity.

 I am not a legal more financial but the whole letter appears to be an admission that there is something in the agreement that tax authorities would be interested in.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by jambosdad

[JamboAl]

50 minutes ago, primrose said:

 

 

But the Flo side letter clearly stats that the players wont be liable, as they are indemnified by the club, so if tax liability transfers to a player it will become a football debt?

 

Or if not, it will allow them to say it has nothing to do with them, as they are not the same club!

The club do not have the power in law to indemnify anyone from tax.  Only Hector, via statute, has that power.

One could easily argue it is a football debt because the debt was initially that of the club and only transferred to the players as Hector's next port of call for his money.

One thing that is often overlooked in this matter is that tax is required to pay for emergency services and many other things.  They are cheating Joe Public.

[Hagar the Horrible]

Ufa manager wants to release Rangers players from their Ibrox hell should they knock the taxdodgers out?  Love they guy already

 

Sevco getting a taste of their own medicine, I hope the offers are all derogatory?

[jamboz]

Unpaid tax is a footballing debt.  I am sure we can rely on the footballing authorities to demand Sevco honour the tax due of 48 million pounds of payments, without fear or favour.  

[Don Dan]

2 hours ago, primrose said:

 

 

If the players become liable for the tax will these be considered football debts? 

 

I would say they were and Sevco would be liable. If I was a player that would be my first port of call. 

[Rudolf]

1 hour ago, jamboz said:

Unpaid tax is a footballing debt.  I am sure we can rely on the footballing authorities to demand Sevco honour the tax due of 48 million pounds of payments, without fear or favour.  

Are footballing debts not debts owed to other clubs?

 

Otherwise, as a football club, every debt would be a football debt?

[Shanks said no]

Our unpaid tax bill wasn’t a footballing debt

[NANOJAMBO]

2 hours ago, JamboAl said:

The club do not have the power in law to indemnify anyone from tax.  Only Hector, via statute, has that power.

One could easily argue it is a football debt because the debt was initially that of the club and only transferred to the players as Hector's next port of call for his money.

One thing that is often overlooked in this matter is that tax is required to pay for emergency services and many other things.  They are cheating Joe Public.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean Rangers RIP couldn't promise to pay any tax liability that might arise in the future. Which is what they did to presumably persuade players to give up their annual wage for a "discretionary" loan.  

[NANOJAMBO]

3 hours ago, primrose said:

 

 

But the Flo side letter clearly stats that the players wont be liable, as they are indemnified by the club, so if tax liability transfers to a player it will become a football debt?

 

Or if not, it will allow them to say it has nothing to do with them, as they are not the same club!

It's a tax bill , not a matter between football clubs or the football authorities. 

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Footballing debts include payments due to players so I'm waiting to see how the players/PFA play this. Could easily be argued from the side letter above that this constituted a contract between club and player.

 

so the order of events would be HMRC move to enforce payment from individual player.

said player follows up by registering a complaint with the SFA/SPFL. The NewCo argument would hold in court which is why this may be the only option for several players.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Glamorgan Jambo

[JamboAl]

54 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Agreed, but that doesn't mean Rangers RIP couldn't promise to pay any tax liability that might arise in the future. Which is what they did to presumably persuade players to give up their annual wage for a "discretionary" loan.  

Rangers RIP could promise anything they like but it doesn't make it legal.

It may be down to a matter of semantics but agreeing to pay tax on their behalf and indemnifying them against a tax bill are not the same in law.

The liability for the tax bill in this case rests firstly and firmly with the employer and if that fails, then with the employee who received the benefit.  No words in a contract change that.

If the employee feels aggrieved about losing out then he can sue the employer, or whoever, if he feels he has been misled but he will have the same luck getting money out of Oldco as HMRC had.

That's my view for what it's worth.

[Pans Jambo]

6 hours ago, Spellczech said:

Wow that is unbelievable! How did they ever think they could get away with blithely saying these payments were not contractual? They signed Flo on a 4.5 year contract in November 2000 and the payments are annual over the next 4 years paid in November... From a finance/payroll perspective that is amateurish stuff. Did they seek any professional advice or did the office junior dream up this wheeze?

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/scottish-premier/2993243/Rangers-12m-Flo-gamble.html

Something not right about that letter. Did they call themselves "THE" Rangers football club back in 2000 (look at the letter head)?

[The Gasman]

6 hours ago, Spellczech said:

Wow that is unbelievable! How did they ever think they could get away with blithely saying these payments were not contractual? They signed Flo on a 4.5 year contract in November 2000 and the payments are annual over the next 4 years paid in November... From a finance/payroll perspective that is amateurish stuff. Did they seek any professional advice or did the office junior dream up this wheeze?

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/scottish-premier/2993243/Rangers-12m-Flo-gamble.html

 

This is who dreamt up the scheme;

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/rangers-ebt-scheme-creator-fined-7799871

[The Gasman]

11 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Something not right about that letter. Did they call themselves "THE" Rangers football club back in 2000 (look at the letter head)?

 

Yes, despite all the folk getting all exited about the NewCo being “The” Rangers, the OldCo was as well.

[Spellczech]

16 minutes ago, The Gasman said:

 

This is who dreamt up the scheme;

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/rangers-ebt-scheme-creator-fined-7799871

LOL Why would you take tax planning advice from a lawyer (let alone a dodgy one) rather an accountant?  I've got both qualifications and my legal training taught me sod all about taxes...

 

Though you do wonder what Rangers auditors were up to for all those years...They must've been just doing year on year reviews for the wages costs and no substantive work at all, but then how could they fail to see  Flo's amount of £700k leaving the bank without questioning it? It is a round figure and a large one - surely it was anomalous? It would've stuck out like a sore thumb even to a second year trainee...

Edited August 29, 2018 by Spellczech

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, Spellczech said:

LOL Why would you take tax planning advice from a lawyer (let alone a dodgy one) rather an accountant?  I've got both qualifications and my legal training taught me sod all about taxes...

 

Though you do wonder what Rangers auditors were up to for all those years...They must've been just doing year on year reviews for the wages costs and no substantive work at all, but then how could they fail to see  Flo's amount of £700k leaving the bank without questioning it? It is a round figure and a large one - surely it was anomalous? It would've stuck out like a sore thumb even to a second year trainee...

Because from the top down they were all crooks.

[Romanov Stole My Pension]

1 hour ago, JamboAl said:

 

If the employee feels aggrieved about losing out then he can sue the employer, or whoever, if he feels he has been misled but he will have the same luck getting money out of Oldco as HMRC had.

That's my view for what it's worth.

 

Could they sue the club rather than the "holding company" or whatever nonsense they call it.

[RobNox]

1 hour ago, Spellczech said:

LOL Why would you take tax planning advice from a lawyer (let alone a dodgy one) rather an accountant?  I've got both qualifications and my legal training taught me sod all about taxes...

 

Though you do wonder what Rangers auditors were up to for all those years...They must've been just doing year on year reviews for the wages costs and no substantive work at all, but then how could they fail to see  Flo's amount of £700k leaving the bank without questioning it? It is a round figure and a large one - surely it was anomalous? It would've stuck out like a sore thumb even to a second year trainee...

 

Would they not just show as payments into employee trusts?  Nothing illegal about an EBT scheme if operated properly and it would be none of the auditors business as to how the trusts operated in practice.

[The Gasman]

5 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

Would they not just show as payments into employee trusts?  Nothing illegal about an EBT scheme if operated properly and it would be none of the auditors business as to how the trusts operated in practice.

 

I think that’s likely exactly the position the Auditors would’ve taken - they wouldn’t want to know any more than that - plausible deniability.

[Spellczech]

2 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

Would they not just show as payments into employee trusts?  Nothing illegal about an EBT scheme if operated properly and it would be none of the auditors business as to how the trusts operated in practice.

EBTs are usually for holding shares ie to provide an ownership interest for employees. There has never been a footballer to my knowledge who has been given shares in a club, and certainly not when he is still a player (Thinking Quinn at Sunderland being only ex-player who became an owner). I can only assume that the 700k payments and other similar ones to other employees were blagged when questioned, as they surely must've been by Grant Thornton, and I am sure they were never shown that letter to Flo!!! 

[Mikey1874]

8 hours ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

That was the point I was trying to make earlier, when this came to light?  MS on sportsound stated he had sympathy as they were ill advised, I dont, as even a total moron hiding money is always a bad idea unless you get a written confirmation from the Taxman himself that it is kosher?  But that aside Innocence of the law is never an excuse..fact.  But taking the legal side out of it that as the club were first port of call to pay tax liability, secondary the player pays the loan back, or thirdly the player pays tax on it?

 

However these hidden side letters which broke the rules knowingly by Deadco, stated the club would accept full liability.  Now that the club "Sevco" claims it is the same club, and have used the law to chuck these players under a bus, thats the deadco's problem and as such now yours?   But what I am trying to say is even though Hector by law will go after the players will aggression,  The players themselves should be going after the club, the newco as this IS football debt and the 5WA insisted that all footballing debt should be paid?  If I was a player rather than risk losing my house and why protect a club that has shafted you royaly

 

So the big questions are:  

is Sevco in breach of the 5WA or not????

Is this football debt?

When we pass these players on the street, should we give them 10p for a cup of tea?

 

 

I might be inclined to go after the individuals such as David Murray and Campbell Ogilvie or whoever administered the scheme.

 

But I do believe the individuals are responsible.