Rangers Banter Archive November 20 2012

 

Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.


20 Nov 2012 22:50:17
As a Rangers supporter the love I have for the great history and traditions of my club outweighs any bitterness I have against any single other club , group of clubs, or football authority.
Please dont reply

Believable10 Unbelievable4

Why not if you love your club that much you should be bitter I am and so are all the rangers fans I know. We have been victims of a witch hunt and been treated with nothing but hate by the whole of the SPL this is why green says he will never return and with the anger I fell right now I agree with him 100%

Agree8 Disagree1

20 Nov 2012 22:43:05
After winning the big tax case, apologies should be forthcoming from the anti-Sir David Murray brigade? Livi Blue

Believable15 Unbelievable8

How blinkered can you get! You can't be serious surely. Get your head examined ASAP pal

Agree8 Disagree4

Yeah, I'm sure there will be once he's apologised in full to the creditors he left out of pocket.

Agree1 Disagree4

Murray sold Rangers to Whyte without checking him out at all. Yes Murray has been vindicated for the EBT issue but he can never be forgiven for selling the club to Whyte.

Agree5 Disagree3

Dodging tax is still wrong morally. All companies are at it in some way or other, and there are a lot of hypocrites out there. SDM got singled out, for that he deserves some slack.

But that was one huge risk! Far too big! And like 3 said, selling us to whyte for a quid!
I'm just glad for the club and the support right now.

Agree2 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 22:34:04
any good rangers supporting lawyers out therr

Two torts that involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity such as a corporation. Libel is any Defamation that can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.

Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.

JG

Believable9 Unbelievable3

Don't worry JG the day is coming Murray is already consulting his lawyers and I'm sure green/rangers will be as well. And the best thing is the idiots over at breezeblock towers were first on the bandwagon shouting that we were cheats and titles should be stripped you thought you had us dead but you failed now its our turn

Agree4 Disagree0

Except OP your confusing English law and Scottish law, tort is English terminology for a delict(Scottish) , the same as with slander and libel both English terms, in Scotland defamation covers written and spoken words etc

Agree1 Disagree1

20 Nov 2012 22:33:23
great news from the tax case, 2 judges to 1,

what even makes it better is the Tims have been humped 2-1 twice in the same day

Believable15 Unbelievable4

Win or lose, what was the difference? They weren't getting paid either way. I'm a Celtic fan and I actually think it is hilarious that you won. And the reason it is hilarious is because of what you do best, blame and moan. Now the question is "Murray, hero or villan?" That dilemma will keep some of you awake till Easter.

And here is the second best part of its hilarity, some of you mistakenly think this makes the SPL investigation a certain failure which it isn't.

Someone can be charged with speeding and drunk driving, they can easily be found guilty of one and not the other. The SPL are by no means looking at this from the same viewpoint as HMRC, so while Rangers might be found not guilty, it is by no means guaranteed, "prima facie" and all that.

And so to my final point. THIS HAD NO BEARING ON THE CVA. The creditors totalled £55m of debt of which HMRC were OWED (not maybe going to owe pending the result, actually physically owed, £21.5m. This figure was for unpaid PAYE and National Insurance by all accounts.) It required 75% to pass it and HMRC were holding 39.1% of the debt.

The big tax case had NOTHING to do with the CVA, live with it!

Agree11 Disagree13

Yeh its hilarious now eh, you guys!!!!!!!

Admit it, you are sick as a dog. Back to your own site now that another timmy prediction has dissolved. xx













1

Agree4 Disagree2

Think theres only 1 set of people who wont get sleep till easter, silly "obssesed" !!

Agree5 Disagree2

Another that refuses to understand the basic, ie. with no ''big tax case'' Whyte would never have been there and created this situation.

Agree4 Disagree1

@1 still delusional no titles will be stripped we ain't dead. I struggled to understand why Celtic supporters dressed up as hector but now I understand the taxman is a loser and so are they

Agree5 Disagree2

20 Nov 2012 21:59:56
"HMRC have refused to accept the CVA proposal due to the level of indebtedness to HMRC"

That was the quote from HMRC when they refused the CVA proposal. There was £8m in the bank plus £5.5 m from Green. The level of indebtedness was in total £21m.

Taking the other creditors in to the equation a 40p in
the pound would have been available to creditors. It is a disgrace that HMRC did not accept CVA, which led to liquidation. When Companies go into admin most creditors would bite their hands off to get 40p in the pound.

Therefore this has cost us at least two years in Europe, three in SPL plus income associated. There should be the ability to sue HMRC for loss of earnings.

This goes back to when Murray was selling the club and could not get a buyer due to potential massive amount due to HMRC. So that person Whyte came along , saw a quick way to get make a buck and because the BTC was delayed, he then decided to not pay Paye and NI. The only way he could make a buck was admin. so because HMRC had this hanging over our heads we ended up being sold for £1. I am sure that a buyer could have been found had this potential penalty not been there.

It is unbelievable that HMRC can do this with no comeback, they have put us out of business for next to nothing.

The worst part of today's statement is that they deliberated for 29 days. The case was in February, it is now November. The whole thing is beyond belief.

Believable12 Unbelievable4

HMRC operate 'outside' the remit of the rest of us. They can do no wrong, it would be extremely difficult to sue HMRC if at all. We will have to accept what has happened and move on.

Agree4 Disagree4

The whole BTC stinks, it almost appears to have been driven by some unknown agenda

JG

Agree7 Disagree3

Rangers never went bust because of the big tax case it was the non payment off payee from begining of whytes ownership.

Agree7 Disagree4

1) op here, you are correct there is no chance of doing anything but it hurts that all our troubles have been due to this potential £94m.

It is shocking that this was heard in May 2011, then Feb 2012 and it is now November. It is ridiculous that this has taken so long and that is the reason for our troubles. They say they deliberated for twenty nine days in 18 months, disgusting!

Agree8 Disagree1

They could be sued for some of their staff leaking Rangers financial information

Agree9 Disagree1

The CVA was for 8 or 9p in the pound, will you stop rewriting history please.

Agree4 Disagree5

20 Nov 2012 21:31:41
ed as spl are having their own investigation do u think they will rule against us and titles scottish cups stripped..and could we appeall this if it goes against us {The Ed039's Note - They could still do this yes, and they would have to very clearly word their findings, and yes this could be appealed, and this is where we would find out if the history of the club definately continues, because who would appeal? If the club is dead and buried, would BDO be bothered? I think not. But if it is issued to "The Rangers" and Charles Green appeals, then we would all have an answer)

Believable4 Unbelievable0

The tribunal said they are loans. If loans they are not part of contract. Therefore no dual contracts. They should drop case tomorrow morning.

We should then expect an apology from all SPL teams for calling us cheats. We should expect an apology from those tax experts in the East End.

Whatever we have lost and it is huge, we can hold our heads up, not guilty!

Agree9 Disagree3

The spl and sfa have shot them self in the foot celtic didnt have a case to answer with junhino so how can we
trueblue

Agree11 Disagree2

20 Nov 2012 21:16:29
To all the Celtic fans still trying to say we were in the wrong and the SPL will punish us for two contracts. Think about it logically, if you can....the tribunal has ruled that the EBT payments were loans and not taxable as remuneration and so there is no further tax to be paid. Therefore logic would state that if the EBT payments were not earnings for carrying out a job of work then the SPL cannot claim that players were paid with two contracts.

Believable15 Unbelievable6

20 Nov 2012 22:20:17
are the players going to repay the loans to help out repaying the creditors who lost out when rangers folded

Agree5 Disagree2

@2 yeah it is possible they may pay back loans. From their estate when they die. But they don't have to. It is at mih discretion.

Agree7 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 21:13:14
So what happens next? I am no expert unlike our east end pals. Surely a company cant be insolvent if it was owed money from ebts {The Ed039's Note - Yes it can, it is insolvent if it owes more than it brings in/can afford to pay and can no longer trade properly)

Believable3 Unbelievable4

Directors gave any £45million is a way that meant no way for rangers to claw it back if say unexpected bill arrived....

so when other bills landed nothing in kitty, if these were loans from rangers to players, then they could have been called in to rescue rangers... in effect ranger ex players helped kill rangers...

also directors had sufficent value in assets to pay actual debts, but were not sure as they gambled future on ebt scheme from pornographer who was struckoff.... why do this

why risk 140 years of a great club... ask the directors and ex-players what were they thinking of when they collectively grabbed £45million pounds for nothing?

fans should ask now for the generations to come to understand why....

Agree2 Disagree1

Firstly the trustees were MIM, not Rangers. The trustees would not and will not demand the loans repaid.

They did not gamble with EBTs, they were legal, they took advice and used them properly. It is not their fault if HMRC took a different view. HMRC were wrong.

Agree6 Disagree1

20 Nov 2012 21:08:35
That number 64 bus is rather large {The Ed039's Note - I dont know what this is supposed to mean, but just a memory from being a wee guy in the East End, the number 64 bus used to go to Mountblow, and the name of the place used to make me giggle as a 13/14 year old)

Believable0 Unbelievable0

Was that the 64 from auchenshoogle to dalmuir used to be a tramcar route ,the leyland atlanteans were used on these route tollcross to maryhill no 61 bus fell asleep on it once drunk ended up at both terminuses lol doug t.s.o

Agree2 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 21:01:34
Section 14, page 32, article 45 under paragraph 3.2 states and i quote "round yeez"....no more wannabe investigative journos, no more "my brothers burds best pals aunties bit oan the side is a lawyer n he says......blah blah" finished!! Finally.
J1985

Believable14 Unbelievable2

20 Nov 2012 21:56:52
Having looked at the EBT ruling unfortunately for gers fans it confirms that some, not all, cases were administrated illegally. Contrary to posts relating to the dual contract situation Section 4 of SFA Articles require clubs to declare any payments made relating to playing activities must be made on the relevant contract/agreement and not paid through a third party. The remaining issue is whether MIM's EBT is considered a third party..I agree that todays result is a morale victory to a certain extent but i'm not blindly saying they are guilty for the sake of it i'm just trying to offer an alternative viewpoint to the decent gers fans capable of leaving all the **** aside so if yous dont mind any chance of fact based responses

Believable7 Unbelievable6

Not administered illegally but may be liable to some tax as they were used for exit payments a la juniniho and the spl have already set a precident on that one... time to move on timmy

Agree7 Disagree3

Should you not be watching the Anti Football roadshow live in Lisbon. Off to bed Timmy.

Agree6 Disagree3

Rangers have always stated that the ebts were recorded on the accounts submitted to the spl every year.today has proven they were NOT contractual payments,they were LOANS, a side letter cannot be considered a contract as the ebts WERE NOT CONTRACTUAL PAYMENTS.

Agree7 Disagree3

@2: only if there were 30 minutes of injury time.

Agree1 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 20:00:35
surely after the decision of the btc to reduce the amount due ,bdo will now feel the right to chase the players to repay the loans...... that is when it may get sticky .....do you think they will pay as i for one dont believe they would have believed that they were infact loans

Believable6 Unbelievable1

Because the EBT's have been regarded as operating legally following today's result then, according to Neil Patey of Ernst and Young, it is unlikely that HMRC can force the players to pay any of it back anyway. It is an agreement between the Trust and the trustee and the terms of repayment are at the discretion of the trustee. If these particular EBT's used by Rangers were deemed illegal that would have been a different matter.

Brian

Agree4 Disagree2

It will depend on the individual conditions of each loan. Who knows what they might be.
BDO would have to eventually go to court to get the money as I am sure each recipient would initially tell them where to go and that would just incur extra costs to the liquidation process.
Some of the recipients could also get 'time to pay orders' dragging it out as well.
Who knows, but HMRC have been dealt a swift kick in the haw maws.

Agree1 Disagree1

..Dont think you are getting to grips with this pal....EBTS are indeed loans and are to be paid back at the discretion of the trust managers who i think work for MIH..indeed they might only be paid back upon the death of the recipient from his estate...nothing to do with bdo...now if you could pass that info on to the spl...

Agree5 Disagree3

3) thank goodness somebody understands the position, well said mate

Agree2 Disagree2

20 Nov 2012 22:26:42
are these loans still avaliable they sound great. no interest and you dont have to repay them. sign me up

Agree4 Disagree1

A loan does not have to be repaid. It is the oldco who lent the money, they are no longer thanks to HMRC. The oldco cannot demand loans back because they are no more, HMRC have no ability to go after those that got a loan, not a chance in hell.

Agree2 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 20:09:13
oh happy day,
oh happy day,
get in!!!
mtan

Believable12 Unbelievable6

Its always good when on the same day we get a victory and celtic get a defeat

JG

Agree4 Disagree2

Have been over to the other side, they are not happy bunnies that the EBT result went in our favour. Seems to be the major 'bitching' point, I thought they had a game tonight, you wouldn't know.

Agree2 Disagree1

Went in to see a celtic supporting mate of mine this afternoon at work, he had his head in his hands and was near to tears - I thought something was wrong and asked him what was up "F-----s have won the tax case", I burst out laughing!
JMG

Agree1 Disagree2

If thats true he is a sad man,garlar07

Agree1 Disagree1

20 Nov 2012 19:09:04
Yes we have won our tax case but I have to say HMRC are considering an appeal

Believable7 Unbelievable3

Why would they appeal what good would it do who do they get the money off,garlar07

Agree10 Disagree3

@1: possibly appeal to set a precedent for other clubs that may have done the same. {The Ed039's Note - This is possible, but at what cost? Remember they spent circa £1m trying to get money from Harry Redknapp and his chairman and ended up with egg on their face, where does it become unviable financially for them, especially when they are chasing a liquidated company)

Agree4 Disagree1

Decision was split 2-1, so its not hard to review and appeal and appeal.

Rangers cant appeal, but HRMC can.

If spl/sfa prove rangers failed to notify, the case that this a coverup and was payments is stronger...


still in balance, going into extra time , and possibly penaties (lol)

Agree3 Disagree8

If HMRC appeal there should be a public outcry. They are spending more tax payers money on a case where they can't recover the money even if they win. There is no chance of them appealing this decision

Agree1 Disagree1

What would hmrc appeal.....


cos as a result of this ebt, arsenal paid, manu paid...etc etc etc 200 clubs handed over payments for thier schemes, if hmrc walks away then rest may not pay....

only gers wanted to fight, judgement says some payments must be paid, half , quarter ( this would still be £5million)...... wait and see final amount due, which is due asap.

Agree0 Disagree3

@3. Keep clutching timmy

Agree5 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 18:46:45
NOT A GER SO CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BUT DOES THIS RULING NOT MEAN RANGERS WERE LIQUIDATED FOR ONLY OWING 9 MILLION POUNDS IN PAYE {The Ed039's Note - No, there are still many creditors owed alot more money than that)

Believable10 Unbelievable4

£12 million paye, £7 million to debenture holders (fans), £5 million to rest

if hrmc reduces to 0, and ticketus not valid creditor...

So could be rangers went into admin/liquidation with assets of £80+million (greens figures) but owing only £25 million...

go figure - how directors allowed this to happen, muggs.

Agree6 Disagree0

So just selling ibrox for £30million could have saved all...now why did d&p not try that???

Agree0 Disagree0

Plus they haven't been liquidated yet.

Agree2 Disagree1

Loans are not a contract so how can they be seen as duel contracts by the spl case should be dropped asap

Believable12 Unbelievable4

If they weren't listed in the contract possibly? Depends what the league etc. have to be told about.

Agree2 Disagree6

A loan has nothing to do with your income.

Agree8 Disagree1

These were noted in every set of accounts submitted and passed by SFA and SPL. The fact that they passed them means they have no case to answer

Agree13 Disagree4

Can't see how the SFA/SPL can now punish Rangers. Could be seen as being vindictive if they proceed especially after today's EBT statement. What you think Ed? bigbaz {The Ed039's Note - They will still have their investigation, the outcome will have to be worded very carefully one way or another for transparency and to keep everyone happy)

Agree4 Disagree3

20 Nov 2012 18:19:47
"While MIH has at all times respected the privacy of the Tax Tribunal proceedings, a substantial quantity of confidential information relating to the case has become available for public consumption stimulating considerable discussion and often ill-informed debate. This has been wholly inappropriate and outwith the fundamental principles of natural justice.


"We therefore formally request that the relevant authorities investigate how these sensitive details have been released so widely. We have instructed our lawyers to retrospectively review online and printed publications relating to the case to identify whether legal redress is either appropriate or necessary."

Source: Scotsman

Believable9 Unbelievable4

Cant sue if people release facts...

very expensive to sue otherwise, how do you prove what was printed not factual.

Agree1 Disagree2

@1 If the 'facts' in question are regarded as confidential and/or sensitive by law then there is a clear opportunity for Murray to sue those responsible. Personally I think he would have a cheek to do so since we all know players were in part paid via these so-called 'loans' (a different matter proving they weren't operated as loans as HMRC have discovered today) but legally he would certainly have a decent case to pursue those responsible for releasing/leaking and publishing the said documentation.

Brian

Agree3 Disagree2

20 Nov 2012 18:16:05
The club was using the EBTs to make extra money available to players and staff. EBTs can be a legal way of allowing employees to borrow money tax free, which may not need to be paid back, but they must not be payment for work. They cannot be associated with a contract and must be at the discretion of the trustees running the trust.

Believable6 Unbelievable2

Good to hear from you now, pity nothing from you for last 9 months. Another tax expert, no doubt

Agree4 Disagree1

"which may not need to be paid back"

its not a loan then..... ?

a Loan is something that has to be paid back , this how it avoids tax.

Agree3 Disagree1

@2 If not paid back during the lifetime of the recipient it is claimed from their estate upon their death and returned to the fund who pay the appropriate amount to HMRC. That is how they get away with referencing it as a loan. It does get paid back, just not in agreed instalments or to an agreed scheduled time as you or I would have to do, nor necessarily within the lifetime of the recipient.

Brian

Agree1 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 18:11:30
Those who argue that Rangers should be stripped of titles will look to the evidence of Roderick Thomson QC, on behalf of HMRC. He told the tribunal that side letters had not been registered with the football authorities, the SFA and SPL - and that the spirit of the rules was that the whole contract terms should be registered.

Believable4 Unbelievable8

Op loans are not part of the contracts, therefore they should not be disclosed. The HMRC QC wanted the loans to be seen as part of the contracts, so they could be taxed, but they were loans seperate from their contracts for football.

Agree9 Disagree3

At 1 , the thing is the payments that were made correlated with those the were obliged under a secondary contract for playing football games, appearance money, goals etc.

Agree2 Disagree9

20 Nov 2012 18:08:26
The possible appeal from HMRC is not the only matter that will ensure that this story will drag on. The Scottish Premier League's own investigation into Rangers' EBT scheme has yet to conclude its own findings. Some argue that today's decision makes it more likely that the commission will rule against Rangers - because of suggestions there were side letters undisclosed to the authorities.

Believable5 Unbelievable9

HMRC already stated that since the oldco no longer exists it won't pursue the matter further {The Ed039's Note - I didnt read that, they have confirmed that they will consider an appeal is what I read)

Agree4 Disagree4

@ed who could they consider a appeal against though think it would have to be Murray as all EBTs were run through MIH and oldco no longer exist?? {The Ed039's Note - This is what I have been asking, is it financially viable for them to go after a liquidated company through an appeal?)

Agree1 Disagree0

HMRC also said they would consider an appeal after they lost the Harry Redknapp case.
JMG

Agree3 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 17:47:41
It was the Inland Revenue that did not allow us to come out of administration they forced Rangers into Liquidation with the mantle they can then easier pursue CW and DM well what the heck was going on at the Inland Revenue they made all this public and did not obviously do any risk management on a won verdict. I think there should now be a public enquiry into this whole affair and the IR should be investigated and pursued for compensation of proven negligent. We did not need to go into admin it was one clown that forced us down that path omg think I will have some jelly and ice cream tonight. 54 titles and still the best supported team in the World WATP

Believable9 Unbelievable4

Lol what about the £35m that was owed to small businesses?!?
Or the £30m owed in VAT, PAYE and NI.
Idiot! {The Ed039's Note - Where do you get £30m owed in VAT, PAYE and NI?)

Agree5 Disagree7

Hmrc will appeall this could drag on..spl separate investigation into ebt,s and could rule against us we are not out of woods by long way .this will of course drag on..hmrc will pursue ex-players for £46m {The Ed039's Note - HMRC can not pursue players for £46m, liquidators would need to do that for the benefit of creditors and HMRC would get no extra from this. I dont see how they can justify spending more money on a case that obviously isnt cast iron. Now lets face it, you know what these "loans" were, I know what they were, but the law is complicated and I dont see where spending more money pursuing a liquidated company can benefit HMRC)

Agree2 Disagree6

Ed, in response to your comments to 1. The exact amount is irrelevant , it's stil 10's of millions! {The Ed039's Note - I know that, but someone wanting to make a bad situation sound worse than it is doesnt sit well with me)

Agree3 Disagree6

What a merry dance that was. If your not liable does that mean I'm not obsessed.

Agree3 Disagree3

@1 do you just print any silly nonsense

Agree2 Disagree4

Op, you are spot on. It is a disgrace that HMRC have put us out of business and this has been hanging over our head for years. It is clear the CVA should have been accepted and there should be recourse. Their statement says they discussed this for twenty nine days. The hearing was in Feb, it's now November, a damned disgrace!

Agree7 Disagree3

@6: yup, all the fault of HMRC. Nothing to do with the other tax that was owed, eh? Remember the tax that Whyte didn't pay? This one had nothing to do with admin etc.

Agree4 Disagree4

29 night judge days, when busy doing other work... so this takes months to take place.

Also all the redaction (Mr Blue, Mr Red, Mr green), who asked for that MIH ?

why - who are these people ? to coin a phrase......

Agree0 Disagree0

Hey ed039, are these loans not debts then, cos they not due yet.... , if not are they payments ... ? {The Ed039's Note - Who's debt? The players debt? Was there a repayment schedule in the loan agreement)

Agree1 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 17:47:37
why all the smiles about the big tax case?yous where liquidated before the appeal,that must hurt bigtime too real rangers men!!it was the WEE tax case that killed rangers!mabe get back too football banter now,rather than all the experts on economics&tax.pmsl...stevo {The Ed039's Note - Stevo you seem to have been the biggest expert throughout this, actually I seem to remember you stating that the verdict had went against Rangers some time ago, so think, and engage your brain before you start typing)

Believable8 Unbelievable9

Op back on the buckie stevo?

Agree9 Disagree4

Stevo has more faces than a diamond

Agree7 Disagree3

Ed. The verdict did go against Rangers - this was an appeal. {The Ed039's Note - Clutching at straws me thinks)

Agree7 Disagree7

@3 No, the HMRC sent a bill for £xmillions. Rangers appealed that bill. Rangers won the appeal and the verdict is in Rangers favour.

Agree6 Disagree3

Stevo, the tax expert from the East end. Well you and your mates have been wrong all along, what a surprise. You have a cheek to ask us to get back to banter after your rantings. At least you have the guts to come on here, although an apology is in order. You have called us cheats, and I for one would expect a sincere apology.

Agree8 Disagree1

Ed. An FTTT is an appeal. Just making a point for clarity, that's all. {The Ed039's Note - OK)

Agree3 Disagree1

@5 Are there not 35 instances where tax's and insurance have to be paid?
Tam

Agree1 Disagree1

7. By your reasoning Hearts should be liquidated now. They would be if they had a 49million tax bill hanging over them which was later proved to be incorrect.

Agree0 Disagree1

My post to Num 7 was meant for the thread above this one. V

Agree0 Disagree0

Bottom line is your beloved club died due to non payment of tax& ni,dual contracts still to be decided,so remeber your toxic club started this whole sorry mess!!stevo {The Ed039's Note - Is that the best you can come up with Stevo after being ripped a new one by all and sundry ....... you started it. Take the hint Stevo, nobody likes you)

Agree1 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 17:18:54
HOPE MURRAY SUES HMRC AFTER BIG TAX LIE...

As we have now been vindicated of this 'financial doping' rubbish mooted by the ginger whinger, please stand up for yourselves Rangers. We never cheated. We played within the rules. We have been victimised.

Strong words......I hope so.....About time we were able to walk with our heads held high once again.

WATP P.C LOYAL

Stuarty Bear

Believable10 Unbelievable6

Liquidated for nowt. Nuggets. Lol

Agree5 Disagree3

1) liquidated because whyte needed a way to bring admin forward, with the BTC hanging over our head. HMRC said when refusing the CVA that the possible debt level was £160 m or thereabouts. So the CVA should have been accepted, so no liquidation necessary. It's a damned disgrace, and there should be recourse against HMRC.

Agree7 Disagree3

20 Nov 2012 17:20:27
Missing person report,
Two Celtic supporters answering to the names of Miko, Timalloy both could be suicidal

Das Shadow

Believable19 Unbelievable5

20 Nov 2012 17:00:37
message to Miko,Timalloy Green Jhedi looks like there will be no title stripping of titles after all

GIRUY

you lot over at Porkheid must be about to blow a fuse lol

Lochaber Bear

Believable17 Unbelievable7

Did you read what the judgement said?

Tax bill is only reduced, it's still there.

It actually now more than ever contradicts the official contracts/registrations that were given to the SFA and SPL.

Agree6 Disagree8

Yous are still deed giruy.Henke7

Agree6 Disagree8

What if dual contracts are proven? Isn't it a different case?

Agree5 Disagree9

It is clearly stated in the report that side letters were not disclosed. Cut and paste straight from the report:

Side-letters, of course, had not been registered with the football authorities, the SFA and SPL. The spirit of their rules was that the whole contract terms should be registered. Suspiciously, no evidence was led as to who decided that the benefits in terms of the side-letters should not be registered. Non-registration of side-letters was incompatible with both authorities' policing and disciplinary powers. For example any fines imposed on players would customarily reflect the disclosed wage. Non- disclosure would thwart the authorities' powers.

Title stripping has nothing to do with the FTT it is the SPL investigation which will decide that and the above statement leaves lord Nimmo-Smith with a stick on guilty verdict.

Agree8 Disagree8

Eh why not, just seen publication of numberous side letters to players... doh!

is that not instant stripping of titles ??

Agree3 Disagree3

With his celtic connections who gives a flip

Agree2 Disagree2

Surely now proven to b loans the liquidators of rangers must go after the people who received these loans. As they r a debtor to rangers for the benefit of creditors. Some worried ex players managers and directors !!!

Agree3 Disagree1

Quite clearly Lochaber Bear does not understand the differene between the two cases. {The Ed039's Note - I have tried to explain the difference between the 2 cases many times but nobody wants to listen)

Agree4 Disagree0

The EBTs were noted in every set of accounts which were passed by SFA and SPL. The fact that they passed them means no case to answer.

Agree1 Disagree2

@7 It wasn't rangers who set up the trusts it was MIH if anybody can ask for the loan back it's them not rangers.
JMG

Agree0 Disagree0

4. That isn't a report, its what the hmrcs QC put forward to the appeal judges. It's not fact and even he is careful not to say SPL rules but goes against the spirit of the rules.

Agree1 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 16:57:29
Would the fact that Rangers (oldco) have won the BTC not make any further investigation nul and void, I mean why should the SPL waste even more money for a forgone result

Believable6 Unbelievable4

Who says they won, BBC and MIH... ? lol

read the result, a bill is due... how much ? and too who ?

Agree5 Disagree3

Isnt it the case that the former Rangers cubl won their appealagainst penalties and that there is still a substantial unpaid tax bill to be settled ? {The Ed039's Note - There is still a substancial amount of tax to be settled for witheld tax and PAYE by Craig Whyte, of course)

Agree3 Disagree0

Who cares what the SPL do now they are sinking fast Sporting integrity my a.........

Agree9 Disagree3

20 Nov 2012 16:56:43
So rangers win the big tax case,

What the **** was Craig whyte playin at then!???????

Believable12 Unbelievable1

Look at his track record - he did the same thing to almost every company he's been involved with. As soon as he got his hands on the Gers it was inevitable.
JMG

Agree0 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 16:52:02
Reported on BBC that tax case won. Unbelievable!

Put the club into admin for no need. HMRC are a disgrace, this hanging over our head caused all our problems. They say it took twenty nine days to reach decision. Well the case was in Feb.

Absolutely delighted ad they can no longer accuse us
of cheating, but at what price has this victory been won.

An absolute disgrace!

Believable15 Unbelievable8

The cheating still took place because the contracts were not disclosed. The report actually makes the point that they were witheld from the football authorities.

Agree6 Disagree13

@1 So the next time you get a loan you will declare it to your work/HMRC then?
JMG

Agree1 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 16:36:57
Well ed now that Rangers have won their tax case ie EBTs will all our friends who keep posting on this site acknowledge our predicament was down to one man not paying ni/tax.According to MIH they have asked for an inquiry into how so much private information was put on Internet sites and public domain. Sqeeky bum times for any one involved.(Karmas a bitch).

Believable11 Unbelievable7

Sad day for the bbc as they hate rangers so much

Agree6 Disagree2

20 Nov 2012 16:36:46
So Rangers win the big tax case. What the f111 are the dims going to use now in their quest for sporting integrity as the EBTs were described as legal and proper.
It has got to have other knock on effects such as would we be where we are now if we had this result months ago-who knows?
If we had known the result earlier would the dims even be in europe.
Finally surely someone from the SPHELL now has to say the witch hunt stops here and disband the hearing committee at the very least on the otherside of the coin someone Maybe even HMRC should be paying out compensation as well as appoligies to Rangers and the loyal fans who have had to live through this witch hunt nightmare.East Bear.

Believable6 Unbelievable4

Doesn't the report state that contract details were withheld from the football authorities? That means they have to have the investigation, not the witch-hunt as you call it. Rangers could still be found to have broken contract rules by the SFA/SPL. Would you suggest nothing happens if this is the case? {The Ed039's Note - What business would HMRC have discussing what happened between Rangers and the footballing authorities, it has nothing to do with them)

Agree4 Disagree2

20 Nov 2012 16:33:37
Big tax case won. Simples
Gavla

Believable12 Unbelievable3

It's a shame it took so long to be decided.
We have been liqudated for no other reason than Craig Whytes handling of the club and Murray's lack of bottle to see the Tax case through. This Tax case has been haging over our heads for the last few years and in the end it was all for nothing. i could cr.

Agree4 Disagree2

If true this is great news but I would also feel a little sad as I believe it was the uncertainty of this that forced gers into admin then liquidation which ended up with us being out in the 3rd and having to listen to some unsavoury comments/abuse from all other fans/clubs in scotland. I would also like to see us compensated by the SPL for the way they have treated and blackmailed rangers. If this verdict is correct then it just goes to show how disgusting the authorities have treated there biggest club over false allegations. As for our friends across the city if this turns out to be true I hope there will be some apologies as some of the words used to describe us were disgusting. Eds any news on this would be welcomed. If it is true this would be great as the last 10 months have been torture

Agree7 Disagree4

Why do you want compensation? For what? For going into liquidation and facing the consequences of that? Whose fault was it? Certainly not the SPL's.

Agree5 Disagree6

The guilty parties here are obvious - HMRC for delaying this decision for years, SDM for being a bottler and Whyte for being an out and out shyster. Afraid SPL are blameless as they applied the rules as they saw them.
JMG

Agree2 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 16:30:17
tax case has been won sportin integrity anyone WATP

Believable13 Unbelievable4

20 Nov 2012 16:28:58
So MIH wins the big tax case.
Implications of this are legal action into who leaked confidential information relating to the case and the sellik/SPL enquiry.
Obviously the whole of the shellsuit brigade are devastated at the news.
Mon the Benfica

Believable12 Unbelievable3

Ed. 1st time post on this site. Sue HMRC!? Sue SPL!? . Not taking sides but have always believed general public are pretty stupid. HMRC are government. The government will appeal & will win the appeal. The normal Rangers fan had nothing to do with this but the comments on here beggar belief and a degree of childlike intelligence. I do not include ED in this but you must just shake your head sometimes.

Agree0 Disagree2

1) no they won't. I think you will find they will concentrate on the other 22 clubs under investigation. Still bitter after all this time are you and still the malicious gossip. Dear dear.

Agree1 Disagree0

@1 I am in total agreement with you there. I sometimes cringe with embarrassment when I read what so called Rangers fans say on here or laugh at the stupidity some of them display. No wonder hardly any of them don't have the brains to think up a name as a tag, some of them are worse than ANY Tim I have read on here. Oh and don't question anything or you will be tagged a Tim.
Here's a quick question to Rangers fans that can actually think for themselves, why did a source close to SDM say in todays Record 'They destroyed a Scottish institution' then in the same piece say 'The institution of Rangers football club needs to be protected'. A total contradiction all in the one interview, and more tellingly, note that the words 'football club' does not have capital letters at the start. Hopefully we can put all this tax nonsense behind us and start talking about football again and all the idiots that waste this site, Rangers and Celtic will leave.

Larky Bear.

Agree0 Disagree0

20 Nov 2012 16:28:32
Honesty, Integrity, loyalty and a clear Conscience!!
gerrit rite up yeez!!
Bluebells are blue

Believable14 Unbelievable5

Pmsl,what a load of tripe ya bufoon,still over 25million owed,companies screwed over for millions,yet you state clear consience,obviously you dont understand whats going on.

Agree5 Disagree9

20 Nov 2012 16:25:33
SHHHH dont tell the dims but we won the Tax Case!!! East Bear. source BBC.

Believable15 Unbelievable4

20 Nov 2012 16:16:36
rangers win big tax case. said all alone we had no case to answer now been proved in court so timmy and all your other wee muppets must be a big shocker for yous to realise that us/rangers/pride of scotland/biggest and best scottish club ever and there ever will be are no cheats just years better than the scabs from the jungle spl/div 3 makes no difference we will be there and we will be back so enjoy your time as it aint lasting long . we are and always will be rangers

Believable13 Unbelievable4

Fraid not,What about the 35 case's do they not count then ?
Tam

Agree1 Disagree1

20 Nov 2012 16:13:04
The lucky run ends tonight, cardoza and 3-0

Believable8 Unbelievable3

20 Nov 2012 16:09:16
Rangers win the big tax case! A wonder how long it will take murray to surface now?

Believable5 Unbelievable2

Does this mean that SDM sold the club for £1when in actual fact the the debt was managable all along ?

Agree8 Disagree1

20 Nov 2012 17:00:11
unconfirmed from an e-mail...but a bit more information than " Rangers win the big tax case"
An anonymised version of the First Tier Tribunal verdict was published by the Finance and Trbunals service today. The 145 page document will take some reading but it concluded:

"the trust payments are to be construed as 'emoluments' for the purposes of the tax legislation"

For those without a dictionary to hand,... Emoluments: Synonyms earnings, pay, recompense.

I for one am absolutely shocked that Sir David's confidence was misplaced on this matter.

Enjoy the game!

"having ascertained the real nature of the transaction, you cannot ... disguise it by using camouflaged clothing"

Sham

'it is wrong and an unnecessary self-limitation' not to give regard to 'the manifested intentions of the parties' in the face of documents or transactions that are not 'shams'

Agree0 Disagree1

Rangers didn't win anything!
Their tax bill has been reduced.
If anything it makes the SPL tribunal more open and shut than it would've been!

Agree5 Disagree12

@3 Rangers lost the appeal then as far as you are concerned? Honestly, some people appear to be permanently blinkered on here. Rangers won the appeal after querying the original bill and are now liable for a significantly reduced sum. That IS a victory in anyone's language and however you look at it.

Brian

Agree2 Disagree1

20 Nov 2012 13:57:43
Share issue announced 12 October - still no prospectus issued with less than a month (17 December) until shares issued..this isnt going to happen! CG false promises again..

Believable4 Unbelievable7

OP - all this share talk is getting tiresome now but you are right about one thing, the share issue will not happen by December 2012. It may be 6 to 12 month down the line but it will happen when it happens, whats the big deal there? it just means that there is no immediate rush to raise capital

JG

JG

Agree5 Disagree2

A quick glance at  the Financial Times hmmmm, an about to float, oversubscribed share issue in a company with 7% of the worlds population as customers , what an opertunity , would expect to see it , somewhere, headlined, ????

Agree2 Disagree2

Green's up against it before BDO come in and put things right!

Agree1 Disagree0

Just having a look at Rangers Football Plc and note that the report from Companies House under ˜Recent Filing History' states: ˜This Report excludes 88(2) Share Allotment documents'.

I was under the impression that the the 88(2) Share Allotment form had been superceded on 1 October 2009 by the SH01 form with the main difference being the new form doesn't require the recipient of shares allotted from the company's share capital to be identified. Under the SH01 form this information doesn't need to be declared until the company's annual return is made although, from memory, the SH01 form must be lodged at Companies House within 30 days to advise of any other relevant amendments.

With regard to Rangers Football Plc only 1 x £1 Subscriber Share is shown at incorporation of the new company on 16 November although any new shares created would require to be notified using the SH01 form within the required time frame.

Agree0 Disagree0

Loadsa tweets from Sun + others saying FTTT won by Rangers but Timmy denieing it.

Agree3 Disagree1

BTC case decision is out, its a split decision 2-1

"Accordingly, the assessments made fall to be reduced substantially"

looks like type and is fail to be reduced substantially, so £25 million owed but by who, oldco or ebt recievers.

Agree0 Disagree0

 
Change Consent