SUTOL Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 What's the difference between second and third place in prize money? The higher up the league they finish, the more prize money they'll get, so more funds available for the administrators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 What's the difference between second and third place in prize money? The higher up the league they finish, the more prize money they'll get, so more funds available for the administrators. Nine hundred thousand pounds. Not much of a dent in the amount they owe Her Majesty! :greggy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 How much are they due us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heartsfc_fan Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 How much are they due us? I think it's around ?750,000. But it's not due till the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balmain Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Nine hundred thousand pounds. Not much of a dent in the amount they owe Her Majesty! :greggy: Make a massive difference to Motherwell though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Administration is just a side show to the main event, and a manufactured one at that. The main event is the big tax case, with the next events on the bill being the 3rd party contracts, 2nd contracts, and SPA/SPL complicity with RFC officials, not to mention the Strathclyde polis' investigations into criminal behaviour. If the first one doesn't kill them, then one of the others will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albishop Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Administration is just a side show to the main event, and a manufactured one at that. The main event is the big tax case, with the next events on the bill being the 3rd party contracts, 2nd contracts, and SPA/SPL complicity with RFC officials, not to mention the Strathclyde polis' investigations into criminal behaviour. If the first one doesn't kill them, then one of the others will. Any idea what criminal activities are being probed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf's Mate Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Administrators press conference job losses inevitable. Hopeful of conclusion on decision tomorrow. Announcement has Monday deadline. March 16 deadline for interested parties to step forward re: takeover. "Material" level of interest to date "Challenge" to meet March 31 deadline to play in Europe. : Clear balance got to strike between good of the club on pitch and necessary cuts off field. Wage deferrals "never acceptable" to administrators. need to deliver ?1m savings. Won't speculate on how to achieve that through cuts. Final decision is ours, not players. We want club to perform well on pitch but it has to survive off the pitch. Cash frozen from Collyer Bristow won't be freed in time to prevent redundancies. The full story of this on the bbc website is a bit worrying as other posters have already pointed out, the administrators should not be acting in the best interests of the club! BBC Duff and Phelps failed to accept a union offer of "substantial salary deferrals" on Friday. Joint administrator David Whitehouse said wage deferrals would mean "a higher level of cost base" that would hinder the sale of the club. Sorry but the above should have signalled the start of the process to offload the players they believe should go. They are being dictated to by the union and the club "There's a very clear balance that we've got to strike between what's for the good of the club on the pitch and what needs to happen off the pitch as well. Err it should be what is best for the creditors not the club. Ok they can argue that this may go hand in hand but they shouldn't be coming out making this kind of statement. "Deferring wages is sustaining a higher level of cost base which we have to address to make the business saleable. "We have said that we need to deliver ?1m a month cost savings. Ultimately the decision [on who leaves] is ours. Deferring wages isn't going to make the business saleable as either some of the proceeds from the sale would have to go to clearing the deferred wages or any prospective new owner would have to take the hit. If it's a new owner then you can argue that it wouldn't make the club more attractive. I also doubt they will be deemed a secured creditor which is surely the only way they can guarantee the deferred would be covered. Someone may have better info on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam Tarts 1874 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Make a massive difference to Motherwell though. Champions League for Motherwell too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Any idea what criminal activities are being probed? Fraud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Bishop Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Anyone hear about a SFA announcement this week about a massive pointsreduction for der Hun for playing players reistered through a 3rd party?? Couple of Gers fans in the pub last night saying this was the big story going round Ibrox yesterday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rubble Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Anyone hear about a SFA announcement this week about a massive pointsreduction for der Hun for playing players reistered through a 3rd party?? Couple of Gers fans in the pub last night saying this was the big story going round Ibrox yesterday! 50 points is what i heard and once again if true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Anyone hear about a SFA announcement this week about a massive pointsreduction for der Hun for playing players reistered through a 3rd party?? Couple of Gers fans in the pub last night saying this was the big story going round Ibrox yesterday! I would imagine there were a few stories going round, because I think a few home truths were delivered to them yesterday. I think it was possibly the first time the gravity of the situation has been explained to them by football fans, as I don't think the Glasgow papers have delivered the stories in a manner which has made them aware of what the feck could happen to them. They seemed unaware of half the investigations that are going on, and the potential implications, all they were worried about was being placed into administration (I really didn't have the heart to explain that was the very least of their worries). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davesmith Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Does Scotland currently have a rule about third party ownership of players? Somehow doubt Rangers are alone in having unusual player ownership deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdl2002 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Anyone hear about a SFA announcement this week about a massive pointsreduction for der Hun for playing players reistered through a 3rd party?? Couple of Gers fans in the pub last night saying this was the big story going round Ibrox yesterday! only one course of action available to SFA if this is proven. They must be expelled from the league. 50 points is an insult to the other teams. The inquiry is due to report back this week, Lord Nimmo Smith will convey the findings to the SFA. I would then expect the expulsion penalty applied. If this plays out i believe it will be swiftly followed by LIQUIDATION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdl2002 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) Does Scotland currently have a rule about third party ownership of players? Somehow doubt Rangers are alone in having unusual player ownership deals. Yes they do, its documented in the big Rangers administration thread. lt has been the subject of debate rather frequently during the Hugh Adams Story discussions in the media this past few days. Edited March 4, 2012 by jdl2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Bishop Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Does Scotland currently have a rule about third party ownership of players? Somehow doubt Rangers are alone in having unusual player ownership deals. Well unfortunately for your lot there is a rule in place meaning points deduction for every point earned whilst players who have 3rd party contracts have played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Poor Dave - every possible route out he thinks of is being scuttled! :greggy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Independence Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Yes they do, its documented in the big Rangers administration thread. lt has been the subject of debate rather frequently during the Hugh Adams Story discussions in the media this past few days. Is this related at all to RFC's Big Hoose ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAYEL Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Poor Dave - every possible route out he thinks of is being scuttled! :greggy: Poor Dave :greggy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Independence Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Yes they do, its documented in the big Rangers administration thread. lt has been the subject of debate rather frequently during the Hugh Adams Story discussions in the media this past few days. Is this related at all to RFC's Big Hoose ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Does Scotland currently have a rule about third party ownership of players? Somehow doubt Rangers are alone in having unusual player ownership deals. Who would want to own players in Scotland? Not much money to be made here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdl2002 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Is this related at all to RFC's Big Hoose ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) Does Scotland currently have a rule about third party ownership of players? Somehow doubt Rangers are alone in having unusual player ownership deals. Indeed it does, which is why it is an aspect being investigated by the SFA. I am sure there are contracts written by other clubs which might appear a little unusual, but as long as everything meets the SFA requirements and is registered correctly then it shouldn't be a problem. In this case it is clear things have been getting bent to the extreme and parts of it have not been properly registered. Much though I found him to be a very decent person on the occasions I met him I think the one guy who is going to come out of this in pieces is Campbell Ogilvie, much of what has gone wrong appears to come back to him, in one way or another, as he was club secretary at Rangers for many, many years. Edited March 4, 2012 by portobellojambo1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 whatever investigations and official inquiries are going on / will go on, it should not be limited to rangers and craig whyte. it MUST extend much further than that and drill down into the complicity / incompetency of the SFA and SPL. the trouble is... who's going to do it? who is there with any will to go after the governing bodies? they wont hang themselves out to dry after all. UEFA are unlikely to give a shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davesmith Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Indeed it does, which is why it is an aspect being investigated by the SFA. I am sure there are contracts written by other clubs which might appear a little unusual, but as long as everything meets the SFA requirements and is registered correctly then it shouldn't be a problem. In this case it is clear things have been getting bent to the extreme and parts of it have not been properly registered. Much though I found him to be a very decent person on the occasions I met him I think the one guy who is going to come out of this in pieces is Campbell Ogilvie, much of what has gone wrong appears to come back to him, in one way or another, as he was club secretary at Rangers for many, many years. I totally agree with this however the point I was making was Romanov, Firework Phil and Campbell Ogilvie where involved in some big money deals (on our scale) for Hearts. Do we really want the spotlight going in on transfer/ownership deals too much. As for Revenant - How do you feel the SFA/SPL have been incompetent? They are there to run the game and not individual clubs. The owners and directors of Rangers have been those who have been complicit/incompetent. The SFA/SPL will have no choice as a result to make rules and responsibilities stricter and this is likely to be another financial burden on clubs. It isn't unusual for professional bodies to be self governing and rely on its members to follow guidelines then punish non compliance rather than define every rule down to every possible scenario. I think tbh the SFA/SPL are well advised to stand back and see the outcome then work to fix it in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 whatever investigations and official inquiries are going on / will go on, it should not be limited to rangers and craig whyte. it MUST extend much further than that and drill down into the complicity / incompetency of the SFA and SPL. the trouble is... who's going to do it? who is there with any will to go after the governing bodies? they wont hang themselves out to dry after all. UEFA are unlikely to give a shit. Bizarrely by introducing transparency will likely cost Regan his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I totally agree with this however the point I was making was Romanov, Firework Phil and Campbell Ogilvie where involved in some big money deals (on our scale) for Hearts. Do we really want the spotlight going in on transfer/ownership deals too much. As for Revenant - How do you feel the SFA/SPL have been incompetent? They are there to run the game and not individual clubs. The owners and directors of Rangers have been those who have been complicit/incompetent. The SFA/SPL will have no choice as a result to make rules and responsibilities stricter and this is likely to be another financial burden on clubs. It isn't unusual for professional bodies to be self governing and rely on its members to follow guidelines then punish non compliance rather than define every rule down to every possible scenario. I think tbh the SFA/SPL are well advised to stand back and see the outcome then work to fix it in future. Dont try and shift the blame. I guarantee Romanov is squeaky clean when it comes to this, and indeed at the moment, it is only your mob who are guilty. Cookiejar syndrome I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Bizarrely by introducing transparency will likely cost Regan his job. Regan hasn't been there long enough to have fingers pointed. Ogilvie, on the other hand... BTW, anyone notice that our resident SFA shill has gone very quiet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Bizarrely by introducing transparency will likely cost Regan his job. I dont see why he should lose his job for crimes committed under the reigns of his predecesors. Regan is doing a good job at the SFA, in fact he is doing more to change the SFA for the better then anyone in the past has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davesmith Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The SPL and SFA will end up blaming each other no doubt. Will it be clear who is responsible for what? The SFA will almost certainly wash their hands of the financial side as this is contracts between the SPL and clubs and the SPL the registration/membership/ownership side and we will go round in circles. Could have far reaching consequences as this does happen as having different boddies different for different parts of enforcement must make it very easy for things to be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davesmith Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I dont see why he should lose his job for crimes committed under the reigns of his predecesors. Regan is doing a good job at the SFA, in fact he is doing more to change the SFA for the better then anyone in the past has. If the fall out is wide ranging enough a sacrificial lamb will be needed. This isn't always the person responsible. I do think its more likely to be Ogilvie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 make your mind up dave! the SFA & SPL must be fully investigated for the reason that, if evidence can be found that complicity ( including the turning of a blind eye ) to circumvent strict rules existed within governing organisations, it stands to reason that there could easily have been other forms of corruption going on all the while. there are many characters within the media who would swiftly have denounced anyone as a complete heretic who suggested that corruption exists in scottish football. the dogma has always been that complete honesty and integrity rules the day in this country. finding tangible evidence of SFA/SPL complicity in this long running affair would blow that wide open. all bets would be off and nobody would be credibly able to dismiss suggestions of corruption. it would also make it extremely hazardous for future administrators to continue to govern with a 'soft touch'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davesmith Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 make your mind up dave! the SFA & SPL must be fully investigated for the reason that, if evidence can be found that complicity ( including the turning of a blind eye ) to circumvent strict rules existed within governing organisations, it stands to reason that there could easily have been other forms of corruption going on all the while. there are many characters within the media who would swiftly have denounced anyone as a complete heretic who suggested that corruption exists in scottish football. the dogma has always been that complete honesty and integrity rules the day in this country. finding tangible evidence of SFA/SPL complicity in this long running affair would blow that wide open. all bets would be off and nobody would be credibly able to dismiss suggestions of corruption. it would also make it extremely hazardous for future administrators to continue to govern with a 'soft touch'. Don't get e wrong their must be investigations and if corruption is found then reform is vital to avoid it happening again. The SFA/SPL will inevitably get a hard time here but so far I haven't seen any systematic SFA failings. I don't think its unreasonable to expect clubs to follow rules without the SFA checking each rule is being followed. Rangers will obviously change that. The SPL on the other hand seem to have been incompetent. Why after Gretna they didn't put in place escrow accounts to protect clubs is beyond me. Rangers and everyone else should be depositing money owed to other clubs into accounts immediately on receipt to avoid it being lost in the insolvency process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Don't get e wrong their must be investigations and if corruption is found then reform is vital to avoid it happening again. The SFA/SPL will inevitably get a hard time here but so far I haven't seen any systematic SFA failings. I don't think its unreasonable to expect clubs to follow rules without the SFA checking each rule is being followed. Rangers will obviously change that. The SPL on the other hand seem to have been incompetent. Why after Gretna they didn't put in place escrow accounts to protect clubs is beyond me. Rangers and everyone else should be depositing money owed to other clubs into accounts immediately on receipt to avoid it being lost in the insolvency process. yeah that's just it. the soft touch approach ( if that's what it is ) clearly can't be allowed to continue. personally i don't believe for a second that certain things were completely invisible to the SFA/SPL regarding contracts and 3rd party payments. it strikes me that the governing bodies were known to be to be too weak and that they were taken advantage of in that regard. it also strikes me that the SFA/SPL lived up to expectations and ended up like rabbits in the headlights. frozen in fear and unable to tackle an issue which was too hot to handle for them. full investigation and retributions required. a better chance of future vigilance and transparency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The SPL on the other hand seem to have been incompetent. Why after Gretna they didn't put in place escrow accounts to protect clubs is beyond me. Rangers and everyone else should be depositing money owed to other clubs into accounts immediately on receipt to avoid it being lost in the insolvency process. Whilst good in theory, it doesnt solve the issues of clubs not paying HMRC. And, by default, nothing will have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davesmith Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Whilst good in theory, it doesnt solve the issues of clubs not paying HMRC. And, by default, nothing will have changed. No but it will protect other SPL clubs as the dunfermline money for example would have been in an SPL account to be released. The only way you can enforce the other is insisting that all clubs are checked monthly and if debts aren't up to date suspended but I would expect that to be too far as I would be amazed if there isn't at least 2 or 3 other SPL clubs who would be in trouble if they got suspended for late payment. I still don't get why HMRC haven't chased the debt before now given their pro-active approach to other clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) No but it will protect other SPL clubs as the dunfermline money for example would have been in an SPL account to be released. The only way you can enforce the other is insisting that all clubs are checked monthly and if debts aren't up to date suspended but I would expect that to be too far as I would be amazed if there isn't at least 2 or 3 other SPL clubs who would be in trouble if they got suspended for late payment. I still don't get why HMRC haven't chased the debt before now given their pro-active approach to other clubs. Escrow accounts are unnecessary. The SPL will have a minimum that each club will be awarded at the end of the season. Monies from that can be deducted to pay other clubs as they are not part of the administration process Rangers FC (in administration and soon to be liquidation) are going through. On your second point, the key 'win' for HMRC is the precedent of EBT's being used as a means to pay income while avoiding tax. There are estimates this could raise ?2bn from other businesses with similar set-ups. Rangers are collateral damage. Edited March 4, 2012 by Geoff Kilpatrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Don't get e wrong their must be investigations and if corruption is found then reform is vital to avoid it happening again. The SFA/SPL will inevitably get a hard time here but so far I haven't seen any systematic SFA failings. I don't think its unreasonable to expect clubs to follow rules without the SFA checking each rule is being followed. Rangers will obviously change that. The SPL on the other hand seem to have been incompetent. Why after Gretna they didn't put in place escrow accounts to protect clubs is beyond me. Rangers and everyone else should be depositing money owed to other clubs into accounts immediately on receipt to avoid it being lost in the insolvency process. I think part of the problem with Rangers is they don't have enough money to run on a daily basis (being placed into administration is the give away to that, but the business still has to function), and any money they are bringing in is being spent on their own day to day requirements rather than diverted to the recipients it should be going to. It is clear they have been paying wages for God knows how long that they couldn't afford to pay, presumably to keep the fans happy. Until such time as they have stripped back beyond simply reducing outgoings by ?1m a month, they will be unable to meet any of their requirements. And in the eyes of all that includes finding an additional ?15 million, or however much it is, by whatever means it takes to pay HMRC what should have been getting paid anyway, over the course of the last tax year. Excluding the big tax case it is brutally clear that they have been living way beyond their means since May of last year, and I think it is equally clear that Murray would sell to the first person who stuck their head above the parapet. Unfortunately for Rangers that person was Craig Whyte, a well known asset stripper with a history of buying into failing businesses and successfully finishing them off. There was only one thing he was bringing to the table, other than a ?1 coin, and it certainly wasn't the saving of Rangers FC. Murray created the shit, and Whyte saw an opportunity to take it ot the next level, and for ?1 he wasn't going to turn that opportunity down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/rangers_administration_ogilvie_out_of_ibrox_probe_1_2152924 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bickfest Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) Don't get e wrong their must be investigations and if corruption is found then reform is vital to avoid it happening again. The SFA/SPL will inevitably get a hard time here but so far I haven't seen any systematic SFA failings. I don't think its unreasonable to expect clubs to follow rules without the SFA checking each rule is being followed. Rangers will obviously change that. The SPL on the other hand seem to have been incompetent. Why after Gretna they didn't put in place escrow accounts to protect clubs is beyond me. Rangers and everyone else should be depositing money owed to other clubs into accounts immediately on receipt to avoid it being lost in the insolvency process. Sorry, again not correct. Campbell Ogilvie, Rangers company secretary, and the person responsible for SFA & SPL compliance sat as head the SFA Finance & Accounts committee which is supposed to scrutinise & verify all financial and contractual submissions by clubs including Rangers. Martin Bain, Rangers' CEO (who was most certainly aware of the "illegal payments from the EBT" - since he likely received some) was on the SPL management committee. Both of these individuals appear to have systematically failed in their responsibilities to the game as a whole. Given that Rangers derived financial benefit from these corrupt practices, prize & TV money as well as Champions League places, and in the process may have deprived other teams of thei rightful shares and league placings, it seems to me that fraud may have been committed (as well as corruption and conspiracy) - criminal offences. Not only should Rangers be expelled, their title victories since the EBT started should be expunged from the records. Edited March 4, 2012 by Bickfest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 It doesnt matter what way davesmith cuts the mustard, it doesnt matter how much the cries of "they ur daein it n aw" echo round govan - the bottom line is, Rangers are about to be liquidated, and any new club rising from the shite left behind, will ALWAYS have that black cloud hanging over them, and insinuations of corruption will ALWAYS follow them. The best thing a New Rangers United can do - is to buy an English club, and move down south. This whole carry on has proved one unavoidable truth... Sottish Football does NOT need a Glasgow Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) Escrow accounts are unnecessary. The SPL will have a minimum that each club will be awarded at the end of the season. Monies from that can be deducted to pay other clubs as they are not part of the administration process Rangers FC (in administration and soon to be liquidation) are going through. On your second point, the key 'win' for HMRC is the precedent of EBT's being used as a means to pay income while avoiding tax. There are estimates this could raise ?2bn from other businesses with similar set-ups. Rangers are collateral damage. The galling thing is Geoff that it appears HMRC are only investigating the period from around 2000 to 2011. If Hugh Adams is to be believed, and I have no reason to think he is lying, it appears Rangers have been operating this system since the very early 1990's, shortly after David Murray arrived. There is potentially an additional, and very large sum of evaded tax they haven't looked at yet (although may do so now, or may already be in the process of doing so). Edited March 4, 2012 by portobellojambo1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 ?The inquiry isn?t judge and jury. The process is one of investigation and presenting the facts. The board will consider the facts and if the board feels that the facts are compelling they will pass that to the compliance officer and it will go through the normal disciplinary process.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The galling thing is Geoff that it appears HMRC are only investigating the period from around 2000 to 2011. If Hugh Adams is to be believed, and I have no reason to think he is lying, it appears Rangers have been operating this system since the very early 1990's, shortly after David Murray arrived. There is potentially an additional, and very large sum of evaded tax they haven't looked at yet (although may do so now, or may already be in the process of doing so). I think they will. It all hinges on what documents they managed to get during the Boomsong raid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Sorry, again not correct. Campbell Ogilvie, Rangers company secretary, and the person responsible for SFA & SPL compliance sat as head the SFA Finance & Accounts committee which is supposed to scrutinise & verify all financial and contractual submissions by clubs including Rangers. Martin Bain, Rangers' CEO (who was most certainly aware of the "illegal payments from the EBT" - since he likely received some) was on the SPL management committee. Both of these individuals appear to have systematically failed in their responsibilities to the game as a whole. Given that Rangers derived financial benefit from these corrupt practices, prize & TV money as well as Champions League places, and in the process may have deprived other teams of thei rightful shares and league placings, it seems to me that fraud may have been committed (as well as corruption and conspiracy) - criminal offences. Not only should Rangers be expelled, their title victories since the EBT started should be expunged from the records. If they lose the case and all this has been proven to be true, then all the other clubs in the SPL/SFA will have legal ground to sue for loss of earnings. Think of it as the same as what happened with peoples bank accounts and claiming for their charges back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wavydavy Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 ?The inquiry isn?t judge and jury. The process is one of investigation and presenting the facts. The board will consider the facts and if the board feels that the facts are compelling they will pass that to the compliance officer and it will go through the normal disciplinary process.? The board being the famous five who are always arse licking to the old firm, so they will be impartial then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The board being the famous five who are always arse licking to the old firm, so they will be impartial then They will put forward their final findings to David Murray to see if it's OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) I've struggled to understand why Whyte bought the club from Murray in the first place. Could it be that did not appreciate the scale of the alleged wrongdoing till he took over. Under the most recent relevations almost all the shenanigans took place under the previous administration who are notably keeping their head down. As a side issue whilst the tax payer and football clubs like ourselves are amongst creditors at risk of losing money Lloyds Bank have somehow managed to get their ?18 million back before the bubble burst Edited March 4, 2012 by jambos are go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4,405
Recommended Posts