The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Er, no.

 

There's a quite colossal difference between the standard spending beyond a club's natural means which absolute shedloads of clubs do throughout the UK and Europe; and taking money which is the property of the taxpayer, and using it to improve results on the pitch. The moral difference between the two is monumental - and beyond that, while the former may or may not imperil the club's position in time (it all depends on the benefactor, and the assets), the latter denies the taxp?yer money they are owed.

 

Of course, it remains to be seen if that money was the property of the taxpayer or not. If it was, we have a problem - a credibility problem if we pay it back; an insolvency one if we don't.

 

Ok, so do all these English clubs have credibility problems too?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/news/9082870/Premier-League-sides-forced-to-pay-back-millions-of-pounds-in-tax-after-crackdown-on-image-rights-deals.html

 

I await your moral compass deciding with baited breath...

[shaun.lawson]

So what are you saying exactly? All clubs that have spent money that isn't theirs (basically just about every team in the SPL) should be stripped of any trophies won? Would any trophies won recently be legitimate then, except perhaps some of Celtic's?

 

 

No. See my response to Geoff above on the difference between spending beyond your natural means - tons of clubs do that - and spending money which isn't legally yours to begin with. Why should a club which doesn't pay its dues on time benefit while others play by the rules? Oh, and morally, that of course applies to Rangers not paying up on Wallace, or on what they owe Dundee United, just as it does clubs which don't pay the tax they're supposed to.

 

Ok, so do all these English clubs have credibility problems too?

 

http://www.telegraph...ghts-deals.html

 

I await your moral compass deciding with baited breath...

 

Yes, they do. While those clubs benefited during that time, how many others played by the rules and were relegated as a result?

 

Let me expand for a moment. I find it quite disgusting that at a time when millions up and down the UK are struggling, and those receiving any form of benefit are under such public attack, football clubs, with all their revenues, make so much effort not to pay tax. Yet even then, there's a difference between genuine tax avoidance and highly dubious schemes practiced by either Rangers or ourselves. If there's any kind of legal question which attaches to such schemes, it just looks plain wrong to your average fan (ie. not me ) paying through their nose to watch their team.

 

Beyond that - and this is also in response to Francis above - in the event of us losing the case, the "credibility problem" we'd have would lie in the following:

 

http://www.scotsman....hment-1-2123995

 

?The bankruptcy of Rangers shows again how insolently and arrogantly operate the Scottish football mafia,? Romanov blasted.

 

?They stole taxpayers? money, violating the rules of honest competition between the clubs. And for that were not even stripped of second place in the league table.

 

?And it was all happening while they desperately wanted to push Hearts into bankruptcy through the tax authorities and the league. They plotted conspiracies in our club and tried to spread panic.

 

?But in fact they needed all this just to distract attention from their own dubious activities.?

 

In other words. even if we paid the money back, Hearts would stand condemned by our own comments. Hoist by our own petard.

Edited November 22, 2012 by shaun.lawson

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Shaun, do you mind elaborating on the alleged evasion that we've practised?

[shaun.lawson]

Shaun, do you mind elaborating on the alleged evasion that we've practised?

 

Depends on the nature of the advice we sought at the time; or whether we sought any at all.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Depends on the nature of the advice we sought at the time; or whether we sought any at all.

 

Quite. It's why we are contesting it.

 

My understanding is that it surrounds the likes of Jose Goncalves signing to Kaunas and being loaned to Hearts. The bulk of the contract was in Lithuania and paid under Lithuanian tax rules with a minimal amount in Edinburgh. Given that Goncalves never set foot in Lithuania, was there justification for Lithuanian tax rates to apply?

 

So, it depends on tax law understanding as to whether we 'win' or not. You have a point about the moral aspects but are RFCRIP getting 'moral condemnation' at the moment? No.

[shaun.lawson]

Quite. It's why we are contesting it.

 

My understanding is that it surrounds the likes of Jose Goncalves signing to Kaunas and being loaned to Hearts. The bulk of the contract was in Lithuania and paid under Lithuanian tax rules with a minimal amount in Edinburgh. Given that Goncalves never set foot in Lithuania, was there justification for Lithuanian tax rates to apply?

 

So, it depends on tax law understanding as to whether we 'win' or not. You have a point about the moral aspects but are RFCRIP getting 'moral condemnation' at the moment? No.

 

Be honest: what do you think is the answer to that?

 

Oh, and Rangers have been morally condemned by practically everyone except the media monkeys for at least 9 months now! Wrongly (or at least, partly wrongly), as it turned out.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Be honest: what do you think is the answer to that?

 

Oh, and Rangers have been morally condemned by practically everyone except the media monkeys for at least 9 months now! Wrongly (or at least, partly wrongly), as it turned out.

 

I think it is out of order BUT I don't write the law. That's the difference.

[shaun.lawson]

I think it is out of order BUT I don't write the law. That's the difference.

 

I concur.

[Drainfish]

 

 

Quite. It's why we are contesting it.

 

My understanding is that it surrounds the likes of Jose Goncalves signing to Kaunas and being loaned to Hearts. The bulk of the contract was in Lithuania and paid under Lithuanian tax rules with a minimal amount in Edinburgh. Given that Goncalves never set foot in Lithuania, was there justification for Lithuanian tax rates to apply?

 

So, it depends on tax law understanding as to whether we 'win' or not. You have a point about the moral aspects but are RFCRIP getting 'moral condemnation' at the moment? No.

 

Lithuania joined the EU in 2004. Someone with more knowledge my be able to explain but I thought there was little the UK could do if tax was being paid in another EU country.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Drainfish

[ToYouToMe]

 

 

Yes, I know the SPL investigation into Rangers relates to dual contracts. But in the eyes of Joe Public - who for the sake of the sport's credibility, need to retain at least some sense of clubs competing in a fair way (especially when it comes to not ripping off the honest taxpayer), it is intimately related to - indeed, practically indivisible from - the Big Tax Case: which yesterday, Rangers partially won.

 

Perception is just as important as anything else in a case like this - so imagine if the SPL pressed ahead, found Rangers guilty of dual contracts, and still imposed sporting sanctions... all after the club partially won their tax case! If Hearts then lost ours, what do you think the perception of just about everyone else will be?

 

If Hearts, by failing to pay money we owed the exchequer when it was due - in fact. failing to pay it for many years - directly profited from this on the pitch in the form of trophies, prize money and CL qualification, the perception would be that we're every bit as culpable as Rangers. We'd just better bloody well hope that our tax case is won.

 

By the time ours is decided it will be all forgotten.

[ToYouToMe]

 

 

Lithuania joined the EU in 2004. Someone with more knowledge my be able to explain but I thought there was little the UK could do if tax was being paid in another EU country.

 

That is why Hector will lose this one too.

[jack D and coke]

 

Lithuania joined the EU in 2004. Someone with more knowledge my be able to explain but I thought there was little the UK could do if tax was being paid in another EU country.

Technically right but I think it's got something to do with the amount of days per year spent in the country. What I mean is they basically lived here permanently and never set foot in Lithuania. Therein lies the claim I believe.

[shaun.lawson]

Technically right but I think it's got something to do with the amount of days per year spent in the country. What I mean is they basically lived here permanently and never set foot in Lithuania. Therein lies the claim I believe.

 

Yes. And was Jose Goncalves, to name but one, resident in Lithuania for 183 days or more? He didn't even set foot in the place, did he?

 

Otherwise, what would there be to stop any British company - or any company anywhere in the EU - just registering in Luxembourg, and paying sod all tax? A few do, of course - but imagine the anarchy if they all did!

[The Old Tolbooth]

Really is sad ..., my only fear is that we are being led down a garden path by Vlad ... HEARTS HEARTS Glorious

Hearts .. remember them

it seems every night you sit and post non stop about sevco , seriously get a fecking life you sad sad person

 

^^^^^ Trying too hard.

[jack D and coke]

 

Yes. And was Jose Goncalves, to name but one, resident in Lithuania for 183 days or more? He didn't even set foot in the place, did he?

 

Otherwise, what would there be to stop any British company - or any company anywhere in the EU - just registering in Luxembourg, and paying sod all tax? A few do, of course - but imagine the anarchy if they all did!

Yep and I have to agree with your other points regarding us and Rangers. We've both it would seem used the system/cheated to gain advantage depending on your viewpoint or persuasion on the matter. Yes Rangers players apparently had dual contracts and paid players more than they could afford normally but surely that was the reason we registered these players in Lithuania instead of here ie we wouldn't have been able to afford them in normal circumstances....

Splitting hairs are we not?

Edited November 22, 2012 by jack D and coke

[SUTOL]

Otherwise, what would there be to stop any British company - or any company anywhere in the EU - just registering in Luxembourg, and paying sod all tax? A few do, of course - but imagine the anarchy if they all did!

 

But the debate is about personal tax and the employers contribution, not corporation tax.

 

 

What are the actual rules regarding payment of personal tax if resident and working in another EU country?

[jambovambo]

Compare and contrast.

 

Jabba yesterday: After Rangers' biggest ever win one question remains.. why? Daily Record (Circulation 246, 324 @ 13/10/12)

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/after-rangers-biggest-ever-win-1447935

 

Tom English today: If only Murray and his men had been co-operative from Day One: (Scotsman Circulation 33,535 @ 13/10/12))

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/tom-english-if-only-murray-and-his-men-had-been-co-operative-from-day-one-1-2650192

 

The Guardian yesterday: Tribunal verdict could leave Rangers facing a much smaller tax bill (Circulation in Scotland 11,728 @ 9/3/12)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/20/rangers-tax-liability-reduced

 

Spiers yesterday : Rangers, EBTs, what?s right and what?s wrong (Herald no longer listed @ 13/10/12 - designated a "regional title")

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/spiers-on-sport-rangers-ebts-whats-right-and-whats-wrong.1353522759

[girvanjambo]

If Goncalves, for example, who has never set foot in Lithuania, but has paid substantial tax via his wages while at Tynecastle to the Lithuanian tax authorities, now HMRC also want his tax, surely that means Hearts are paying 2 taxes, and a dispute must lie between both countries Hector's, with us stuck in the middle?

[shaun.lawson]

If Goncalves, for example, who has never set foot in Lithuania, but has paid substantial tax via his wages while at Tynecastle to the Lithuanian tax authorities, now HMRC also want his tax, surely that means Hearts are paying 2 taxes, and a dispute must lie between both countries Hector's, with us stuck in the middle?

 

I would assume that Hearts/UBIG would be due some sort of rebate from, er, Hectorov - but this would be peanuts in comparison with what Hearts would owe Hector. Indeed, it's even possible that the tax bill we're contesting might have already accounted for the difference.

Edited November 22, 2012 by shaun.lawson

[269miles]

Compare and contrast.

 

Jabba yesterday: After Rangers' biggest ever win one question remains.. why? Daily Record (Circulation 246, 324 @ 13/10/12)

http://www.dailyreco...ver-win-1447935

 

Tom English today: If only Murray and his men had been co-operative from Day One: (Scotsman Circulation 33,535 @ 13/10/12))

http://www.scotsman....y-one-1-2650192

 

The Guardian yesterday: Tribunal verdict could leave Rangers facing a much smaller tax bill (Circulation in Scotland 11,728 @ 9/3/12)

http://www.guardian....ability-reduced

 

Spiers yesterday : Rangers, EBTs, what?s right and what?s wrong (Herald no longer listed @ 13/10/12 - designated a "regional title")

http://www.heraldsco...rong.1353522759

 

Jabbas article is his predictable spin which paints HMRC as the villain in all of this and RFC RIP the" brand" and their long suffering fans which have been so damaged (like the "brand" wasn't damaged after the carnage in Manchester Jabba ?)

As was to be expected , Jabba doesn't mention the delays , the total lack of cooperation , the lack of disclosure , the legal hoops HMRC had to jump through to get the papers they wanted (which RFC had conveniently removed from the players employment records).

 

Rangers weren't guilty of anything according to Jabba, but let's not forget RFC RIP offered them ?10 million to go away - if that's not an admission of guilt what is ?

 

His post is so predictable it almost makes me depressed. Now even more angry Berrs wandering around needing anger management classes.

[tartofmidlothian]

Read Jabba today ?

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/after-rangers-biggest-ever-win-1447935

 

 

I literally can't bring myself to read his one-sided gibberings.

[jambovambo]

I literally can't bring myself to read his one-sided gibberings.

You should.

 

Quite incredible, really.

[Francis Albert]

No. See my response to Geoff above on the difference between spending beyond your natural means - tons of clubs do that - and spending money which isn't legally yours to begin with. Why should a club which doesn't pay its dues on time benefit while others play by the rules? Oh, and morally, that of course applies to Rangers not paying up on Wallace, or on what they owe Dundee United, just as it does clubs which don't pay the tax they're supposed to.

 

 

 

Yes, they do. While those clubs benefited during that time, how many others played by the rules and were relegated as a result?

 

Let me expand for a moment. I find it quite disgusting that at a time when millions up and down the UK are struggling, and those receiving any form of benefit are under such public attack, football clubs, with all their revenues, make so much effort not to pay tax. Yet even then, there's a difference between genuine tax avoidance and highly dubious schemes practiced by either Rangers or ourselves. If there's any kind of legal question which attaches to such schemes, it just looks plain wrong to your average fan (ie. not me ) paying through their nose to watch their team.

 

Beyond that - and this is also in response to Francis above - in the event of us losing the case, the "credibility problem" we'd have would lie in the following:

 

http://www.scotsman....hment-1-2123995

 

?The bankruptcy of Rangers shows again how insolently and arrogantly operate the Scottish football mafia,? Romanov blasted.

 

?They stole taxpayers? money, violating the rules of honest competition between the clubs. And for that were not even stripped of second place in the league table.

 

?And it was all happening while they desperately wanted to push Hearts into bankruptcy through the tax authorities and the league. They plotted conspiracies in our club and tried to spread panic.

 

?But in fact they needed all this just to distract attention from their own dubious activities.?

 

In other words. even if we paid the money back, Hearts would stand condemned by our own comments. Hoist by our own petard.

 

You said we would lose credibility if we "paid it back". I suppose you mean if the tribunal establishes tax is owed and we pay it.

 

I don't really see how Vlad's comments apply to those circumstances. Rangers bankruptcy arose from (indeed was deliberately engineered by) the non-payment of ?20m of taxes over which there was no dispute whatsover.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Francis Albert

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Interesting to apply a bit of hindsight to recent events

 

The tribunal document has a release date (to MIH and HMRC) of 29th October.

Between then and the decision being made public we've had Watty joining the Ibrox boardroom - presumably his implication in the EBT scheme would have been seen as a potential blot on his 'fit and proper' status.

We've also had someone's lawyers apparently in contact with McConville and others. And of course the RTC crew have all gone to ground since Tuesday.

 

There's loads more for this story to give. I noticed Paul Murray is now been given a large spread in the Record to call for the SPL inquiry to be dropped.

 

I've a better suggestion for the likes of Johnston, Green and the Murrays - if you guys are so concerned with the good name of Rangers and 'The Rangers' - why not go along and present your case in an objective and dispassionate manner to the independent judge led commission instead of steadfastly boycotting the proceedings. It's not that they've got anything to hide is it?

[jambovambo]

Agreed. Incredible that SDM can bleat on that they offered ?10m to HMRC to drop the case ... and yet they were "innocent" ?

[269miles]

Interesting to apply a bit of hindsight to recent events

 

The tribunal document has a release date (to MIH and HMRC) of 29th October.

Between then and the decision being made public we've had Watty joining the Ibrox boardroom - presumably his implication in the EBT scheme would have been seen as a potential blot on his 'fit and proper' status.

We've also had someone's lawyers apparently in contact with McConville and others. And of course the RTC crew have all gone to ground since Tuesday.

 

There's loads more for this story to give. I noticed Paul Murray is now been given a large spread in the Record to call for the SPL inquiry to be dropped.

 

I've a better suggestion for the likes of Johnston, Green and the Murrays - if you guys are so concerned with the good name of Rangers and 'The Rangers' - why not go along and present your case in an objective and dispassionate manner to the independent judge led commission instead of steadfastly boycotting the proceedings. It's not that they've got anything to hide is it?

 

No doubt the lawyers will do the decent thing and wait until HMRC decide whether or not they're going to appeal the outcome before suing for libel/whetever . Good luck trying to get money from the guy who reside in Ireland.

[Cut The Crap]

I would assume that Hearts/UBIG would be due some sort of rebate from, er, Hectorov - but this would be peanuts in comparison with what Hearts would owe Hector. Indeed, it's even possible that the tax bill we're contesting might have already accounted for the difference.

 

'Hectoras', surely? If we've learned nothing else over the past eight years, we can surely agree on that.

[Amjam]

How many of http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/rangers-administration-full-list-of-creditors-1-2325870 this list of creditors go their money back? Just wondering amidst all the Rangers found innocent triumphalism.

[hawaii]

Have a read of the comments section here

 

http://scottishfootb...ge-45/#comments

 

Looks like the 2-1 verdict was down to the 2 (not guilty) taking the witness information side where as the 1 who found them guilty based it on the documentary evidence, which was hidden from HMRC for over 5 years. Now, can someone tell me why you find people not guilty who have a vested interest in being found not guilty instead of going by the actual factual documentary evidence? Strange indeed.

[Splog]

Have a read of the comments section here

 

http://scottishfootb...ge-45/#comments

 

Looks like the 2-1 verdict was down to the 2 (not guilty) taking the witness information side where as the 1 who found them guilty based it on the documentary evidence, which was hidden from HMRC for over 5 years. Now, can someone tell me why you find people not guilty who have a vested interest in being found not guilty instead of going by the actual factual documentary evidence? Strange indeed.

 

i think it's worth clarifying that there was no "not guilty" finding. the word "guilty" or "innocent" aren't used once in the document as it wasn't a possible outcome.

the idea that there was going to be a binary WIN/LOSE decision was wrong. the tribunal looked at each of the tax claims that HMRC made and decided whether or not they were legitimate. They split the claims into 5 categories, all of which were paid via EBTs.

1- Executives' Bonuses - Not taxable.

2- Footballers: on engagement- Not taxable.

3- Footballers: termination payments- Taxable.

4- Footballers: guaranteed bonuses- Taxable.

5- "particular exceptional cases"- This one is a bit of a mess and relates to all kinds of bizarre trusts set up for people including family members of employees and in one case a "Mr Black" (who exhibited "active control exercised generally over the Group?s activities, he seemed able to decide his own bonus apparently without reference to his co-Directors"). Mr Murray? They actually state that some of these payments "may" be taxable.

 

worth noting i've no expertise in this area at all. just reading the findings.

[Munch]

i think it's worth clarifying that there was no "not guilty" finding. the word "guilty" or "innocent" aren't used once in the document as it wasn't a possible outcome.

the idea that there was going to be a binary WIN/LOSE decision was wrong. the tribunal looked at each of the tax claims that HMRC made and decided whether or not they were legitimate. They split the claims into 5 categories, all of which were paid via EBTs.

1- Executives' Bonuses - Not taxable.

2- Footballers: on engagement- Not taxable.

3- Footballers: termination payments- Taxable.

4- Footballers: guaranteed bonuses- Taxable.

5- "particular exceptional cases"- This one is a bit of a mess and relates to all kinds of bizarre trusts set up for people including family members of employees and in one case a "Mr Black" (who exhibited "active control exercised generally over the Group?s activities, he seemed able to decide his own bonus apparently without reference to his co-Directors"). Mr Murray? They actually state that some of these payments "may" be taxable.

 

worth noting i've no expertise in this area at all. just reading the findings.

 

First it was Whyte then Brown trien to get in on the act but lost out to Green but now this Mysterious Mr Black has got in on the act.

[hawaii]

Sorry, was trying to use the tabloid style wording that the main stream media have been using for the past couple of days!!

 

I did enjoy reading this

 

35. It is not accepted that there had been no deliberate concealment of the side-letters,

in view of how the first side-letter only came to light through the seizure of

Mr Berwick?s file nearly four years into the enquiry. It is not accepted that the nondisclosure of the side-letters arose from a ?credible? view that Mr Red considered the

side-letters irrelevant to HMRC?s enquiry. As a former Inspector of Taxes, Mr Red

knew, or should have known, that the side-letters were highly relevant to the enquiry.

The side-letters showed a form of contractual arrangement, and they proved linkage

between the sums contributed into the sub-trusts at the appointed dates and their

withdrawal as loans from the sub-trusts as contemporaneous transactions. The

contractual aspect and the linkage between the amounts of contributions to the main

Trust and the sums loaned had been repeatedly raised in the enquiry correspondence.

A fair conclusion to be drawn from the circumstantial evidence on the one hand, and

Mr Red?s oral evidence on the other, is that the side-letters had been actively

concealed. The reason for the concealment might have been, in Mr Red?s view, the

side-letters could be incriminating evidence against the impression of the trust

operation that he had been trying to give.

 

36. The side-letters would appear to negate many of Mr Red?s assertions regarding the

nature of the trust arrangements. They answer HMRC?s question concerning ?what

projections or calculations have been produced to allow the magnitude of

contributions to be matched with the expected future bonuses or benefits? (14/47).

They are contrary to the claim that ?there are no projections or calculations produced

specifically for this purpose? (14/51). The side-letters prove the linkage of events

between amounts of contribution to the main Trust and the granting of loans through

the sub-trusts, and negate the assertions that there is ?no trigger for the chain of events

that led to an employee being told that they could apply for a loan from the Trust?;

and belie the statement that ?the loan amount was not specified? (14/47).

[Hagar the Horrible]

First it was Whyte then Brown trien to get in on the act but lost out to Green but now this Mysterious Mr Black has got in on the act.

Was there also not a Mr Red talked about yesterday?

[Splog]

Was there also not a Mr Red talked about yesterday?

 

The findings were anonimised, making the whole thing sound like a really sh*t sequel to reservoir dogs:

 

"The Appellants called and led 15 witnesses in the following order: Mr Red, Mr Yellow, Mr Turquoise, Mr Green, Mr Violet, Mr Grey, Mr Black, Mrs Crimson, Mr Silver, Mr Gold, Mr Purple, Mr Blue, Mr Indigo, Mr Magenta and Mr Scarlet."

[wavydavy]

i think it's worth clarifying that there was no "not guilty" finding. the word "guilty" or "innocent" aren't used once in the document as it wasn't a possible outcome.

the idea that there was going to be a binary WIN/LOSE decision was wrong. the tribunal looked at each of the tax claims that HMRC made and decided whether or not they were legitimate. They split the claims into 5 categories, all of which were paid via EBTs.

1- Executives' Bonuses - Not taxable.

2- Footballers: on engagement- Not taxable.

3- Footballers: termination payments- Taxable.

4- Footballers: guaranteed bonuses- Taxable.

5- "particular exceptional cases"- This one is a bit of a mess and relates to all kinds of bizarre trusts set up for people including family members of employees and in one case a "Mr Black" (who exhibited "active control exercised generally over the Group?s activities, he seemed able to decide his own bonus apparently without reference to his co-Directors"). Mr Murray? They actually state that some of these payments "may" be taxable.

 

worth noting i've no expertise in this area at all. just reading the findings.

 

 

Like you I have no real expertise in this area but I have to say it beggars belief that items 1 and 2 are not taxable. I think I will just pay myself an executive bonus and tell HMRC wher to go as if they would accept that.

[hawaii]

How far down this list can you get without humming the Reservoir Dogs tune?

 

Mr Red ? senior member of the group?s tax function and ex inspector of taxes

Mr Yellow ? a member of the seniormanagement team of Murray International Holdings

Mr Turquoise ? a tax partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers

Mr Green ? a senior member of the management team of the Premier Property Group

Mr Violet ? A former Rangers Manager (manager at the time of the Famagusta matches)

Mr Grey ? solicitor and agent of Mr Violet

Mr Black ? his role within the Group is in providing strategic guidance to the individual companies, a group director had been involved in ?signing and selling? 350-400 players in 20 years of involvement at Rangers, also owns a villa in France (sub-trust 1)

Mrs Crimson ? a director of Trident trustees

Mr Silver ? a Spanish football agent who acted for several Rangers players

Mr Gold ? former Rangers player, now assistant coach for a national age-group football team, only person not to take out a loan

Mr Purple ? a Rangers player and client of Mr Grey, now works in the media, ?500k payment into trust at his transfer to another club (sub trust 13) joined Rangers in 1999 left in 2003

Mr Blue ? a senior member of the Group?s management team, currently a senior member of the management team of Premier Hytemp

Mr Indigo ? a board member of Rangers since 2000, initially non-exec (Subtrust 46)

Mr Magenta ? worked in football administration at Rangers, started negotiating player contracts in 2004

Mr Scarlet ? a senior official at Rangers

[jambovambo]

Mr Black - SDM ?

Mr Gold - Billy Dodds ?

[jamboruss]

In other words a spectrum of dodgers apologists/activists who all have an interest in dodGers winning the case............and their evidence was used by a judges to clear them!!!! Only in Scotland!

[hawaii]

Mr Purple - Neil McCann?

[davieholt]

Interesting that all the tweets seem to have stopped. RTC and 'the hat' are presumably keeping their heads down after Murray announced he was consulting lawyers about online (and paper) material and comment.

 

Shame because we would never have got where we are with only the MSM to inform us

[jambovambo]

Mr Purple - Neil McCann?

 

Doh

 

In my post I meant Mr Purple for Billy Dodds, not Mr Gold

 

However surely Mr Gold must be an easy one?

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Mr Gray will be Blair Morgan (at one time maybe a Dunfermline director also)

[Mysterion]

The thing I really would like to know is what is the recalculated tax bill.

 

The Red Tops has had it's field day and championed tax avoidance - it's time to chip away and turn things back on them.

[Mysterion]

Interesting that all the tweets seem to have stopped. RTC and 'the hat' are presumably keeping their heads down after Murray announced he was consulting lawyers about online (and paper) material and comment.

 

Shame because we would never have got where we are with only the MSM to inform us

 

So true.

Hopefully it's only a temporary blip.

 

I could see a collective of Legal Minds gathering to fight Murray though if he did try to prosecute. I think if Murray did try to do something it could give them the chance to call Murray as a witness and encourage him to disclose the truth or commit perjury. :-)

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Also if Mr Violet is McLeish it states that he or his agent received a contract offer from RFC in July 2001. At this time McLeish was still Hibs manager in fact if Wikipedia is correct he didn't join the Huns until December 2001.

 

Hope Rod the tache has kept his paperwork......

[The Gasman]

Also if Mr Violet is McLeish it states that he or his agent received a contract offer from RFC in July 2001. At this time McLeish was still Hibs manager in fact if Wikipedia is correct he didn't join the Huns until December 2001.

 

Hope Rod the tache has kept his paperwork......

 

Now that might prove interesting.

 

I wonder if McLeish mentioned to the Tash at the time that he'd been tapped..?

Edited November 22, 2012 by The Gasman

[kingdannyb]

Interesting that all the tweets seem to have stopped. RTC and 'the hat' are presumably keeping their heads down after Murray announced he was consulting lawyers about online (and paper) material and comment.

 

Shame because we would never have got where we are with only the MSM to inform us

 

RTC did say he was going to take a couple of days off to read and digest the 158 page report.

 

Maybe he'll see the unforseen implications of Rangers partial guilt.

[Robbo 75]

And now they have this, you can't make it up

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42143

 

[Rocco_Jambo]

There seem to be a lot of re writing history by the Rangers fans and media going on. Traynor was banging on about it last night and I've heard Rangers fans say that without the BTC a CVA would have been agreed and Rangers would have come out of administration. Puzzles me how.

 

Rangers debt without the BTC case was listed as ?55 million. HMRC were owed at least ?16 million with the small TC and unpaid PAYE and NI. The CVA wouldn't have succeeded because HMRC had more than 25% of total debt. Thats assuming all the other creditors voted for it which given they owed about ?3 million to football creditors they probably wouldn't. Couldn't have seen Hearts for instance agreeing to settle for ?70,000 of the Wallace money given if they liquidated there was always a chance of them getting the full amount.

[The Gasman]

And now they have this, you can't make it up

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42143

 

They're asking for an investigation into leaks of confidential information, and that those responsible be punished.

 

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.