Rangers Rumours Archive November 21 2012

 

Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.


21 Nov 2012 15:07:04
good to see the youth keeper stating ,he wants to stay at his boyhood heroes,with both Manchester clubs keeping tabs on him.Well done young Robbie,im sure you will become a first team player in no time,great to see that kind of commitment.

Believable51 Unbelievable27

Ed could you post a link to this cause a can`t find anything about it

SM {The Ed039's Note - Its in relation to Under 16 keeper Robbie McCrorie, google it mate and you will find it)

Agree0 Disagree0

Fantastic news... Im sure it wont be long before he is accused of having no ambition by people who have players in their squad that knocked back real football in the epl to come to the spl...

Agree0 Disagree0

You sure its no United of Manchester after him lol

Agree0 Disagree0

21 Nov 2012 12:58:36
An independent commission's hearing on possible dual contracts at Rangers will now begin in late January or early February, the BBC has learned so they are still going ahead with this farce of a investigation the spl is a joke should never be left to them to change our leauge structure they cant get anything rite

Believable74 Unbelievable42

The spl and sfa are embarrasing them selfs there a joke

CAMPBELL

Agree5 Disagree1

What the EBT case has proved is that payments were made to players that weren't declared to the governing body.
These payments, in some instances were performance related (appearances, goal scoring etc).
Titles WILL be stripped.
Enjoy your "hollow" victory.

Agree4 Disagree9

They will have to continue with it as HMRC are Appealing against the result this will drag on for some time yet.
PAYE and VAT was still withheld
I dont see why people are so overjoyed with the result as Rangers entered liquidation a new club was founded this will have no effect on them.
I see this as an executed man being posthumously pardoned it may help reputation but he's still dead
DB77

Agree2 Disagree3

Its a farce all right the SPL are still bending over for Newco,we all know titles will and should be stripped this stalling and trying to fastrack a new club into the SPL is frankly shocking

Agree3 Disagree4

"What the EBT case has proved is that payments were made to players that weren't declared to the governing body"

Correct. It also proved that these payments were loans and non-contractual. For the small minded, this means no dual contract. Whatever constitutes a "side letter" is obviously irrelevant. The players recieved loans from a trust set up by MIH. This is no different from a player getting a loan from another outside organisation such as a bank. Nothing "hollow" about vindication. Please tell your east end chums to stop crying. See you in three :)

Agree4 Disagree0

The tims sucking at straws ones again not unusal there tho is it


campbell

Agree4 Disagree0

Still moaning about us being fastracked which wont happen..not enough hmrc shafted us ..dont want us to be strong again ..news we will be back

Agree2 Disagree1

I think its clear now that some accusers out there need to eat some humble pie.

Loan = non taxable

discretionary= non contractual

c'mon now eat up!

Agree4 Disagree0

Strange this loan debalce.

am i correct in thinking that you must sign a CONTRACT, before any loan funds are released with any organisation.

we all know the loans were not part of the players contract. so the question is did each player who signed for rangers take sdm's word on them recieing a loan every appearence they made, no chance, there will be signed documents out there and this (wether a loan or not) relates to a payment for performing on the park.

the big tax case only proves that the side payments (loans) were in a sense not taxable (albeit in the report they have highlighted some payments were).

in addition why so happy, your club has been lost forever over sdm and whytes bottle. should you not be angry instead of happy, all that history gone forever.

god help the fans who invest in newco share issue, there loyalty means nothing to green and he will be off in january.

Agree1 Disagree3

They were not all loans, read the report.

Agree0 Disagree0

Third parties are NOT ALLOWED to pay players, a trust is a third party....

gers paid turst, trust paid players.

simples.... but innocent until proved guilty, smoking gun ... me thinks {The Ed039's Note - Hmmmmmm, was it not decided that it was not a payment but a loan?? What part of that dont you get? I know what it was and you know what it was, but the definition in the eyes of the law is very complicated)

Agree1 Disagree0

A contract can be verbal, in which case no signature.... but a handshake is still legal in scotland.


why would there be any sideletters saying you never have to pay back this loan or future tax on it?

payment is a loan you never have to pay back

loan is a payment you have to payback

Agree1 Disagree0

And what part of Scotland is it legally constituted that a handshake is a legally binding agreement please, do back this up with Current law.

Agree0 Disagree0

"am i correct in thinking that you must sign a CONTRACT, before any loan funds are released with any organisation"

No you arent correct. A loan requires a credit agreement which is very different. And even if it were the case that a credit agreement could be seen as being in any way related to a contract, this would have been with the trustee appointed by MIH and not RFC. We like being happy! Why are you lot so sad?

Agree0 Disagree0

Ed039 is ebt payments were not payments (and with the word payment in that its hard but lets run with it) but loans.

Why on earth did rangers disclose the EBT ammounts (not details) to SPL ?

damned if they did (at they thought these were payments but outline info would be sufficient) damned if they did not ( and withheld info).

If you are caught with hand in cookie jar - its so hard to concoct reason for it being there not due to obvious reason.

Also a respected judge has considered all the availale evidence,and thier opinion is that there was willful aim to disguise payments as loans....

Can spl ignore a judge coming to that decision with all the facts, not what we read on boards... ?

Agree0 Disagree0

Why did Rangers offer HMRC 10 MILL for this to go away??

Reading between the lines, Rangers were giving out more loans than the bank of Scotland.

Agree0 Disagree0

Let's try to nail this down.
Rangers declared EBT's in their accounts because they put in a sum of money each year into the trusts.
They did not name the players who received the 'loans' because, in theory, they did not know which player got a loan as it is down to the trustees to decide this, in this way Rangers management have no knowledge of the players who benefit from the trust - it's called plausible deniability.
Rangers can now say there were no dual contracts because they don't know who got money from the trust and who didn't.
Now the SPL tribunal is not a court of law and may decide there is enough evidence to suggest the management did know which players benefitted - but if there's one thing we should learn from the BTC is to stop judging before the verdict is in - innocent until proven guilty!
Put the witch hunt on hold
JMG

Agree0 Disagree0

The legal beneficiaries of the loan were not the players, but partners/wives/families.

As for 'web you sign for a loan it's a contract' comment....so will all celtics trophies be taken away cos all players had mortgages from a bank but didn't tell the SPl and SFA??

By the way, loans are allowed in rules of the game and, loans are non-taxable....this is why HMRc's case effectively collapsed...the side-letters were said to be the smoking gun by HMRC....law officers laughed it out the door.

SPL will try to strip trophies and embarrass themselves and Green will have them in court like they did after the transfer embargo debacle...money the SPL can't afford to waste....then the truth will come out again as it did then....
I'd also imagine sponsors etc will react furiously of te SPL say we didn't govern game properly and we are ranting a club for 'cheating' even though we knew about the EBT's and loads of your prize money/sponsorship has been mishandled....

I for one hope the SPL go down this route as it will be ruinous for them...and hopefully lead to the SFA gettin rid of the league bodies and bringing it all under 1 roof.

Agree0 Disagree0

Title stripping has got nothing to do with green, his new club have no honours to remove.

Agree2 Disagree0

The newco has all the honours. As much as that irritates Timmy, I'll explain why:

There was a big difference between an new club, and a transfer of the old club to a new parent company. the SFA transferred the original clubs share and history, rather than halting it and issuing a brand new one.

Blame the SFA for that one. That was there ruling and that allowed rangers to keep the history rather than start with a new share.
It also explai a why no other club in the highland league were allowed to bid to get in as there was still a valid hate in the top 4 tiers, and not an empty space for applications to be submitted to....

It's bad enough for timmy we are still the most successful un in the world, but to also win the big tax case..... Priceless.

Agree0 Disagree0

22 Nov 2012 08:15:01
We all know what really happened. Legal experts work in mysterious ways. Some of it stinks to high heaven and real fans know this but time to move on and get on with the game. Andymac.

Agree0 Disagree0

Ebt's & dual contracts are not and have never been related......get with the program. {The Ed039's Note - Thanks, I have been trying to explain this but nobody wants to listen)

Agree1 Disagree0

Ed 039, I share your frustration, what is it with people who simply just don't listen to facts ? Just let this all get to an end and then move on from where ever it stops.

Agree0 Disagree0

In reply to this comment -

'Title stripping has got nothing to do with green, his new club have no honours to remove'

This has also been through the courts and Rangers were judged to be the same entity as it's always been. Just owned by a different parent company. So we still have our History, all the titles and trophies. And after the latest Court ruling, the SPL will have no chance of taking any of these away. So we're still 54 and counting and even if it takes us 5 years to get back in the top-flight, The 'other mob' will still be lagging behind on the trophy count!

It amazes me how so many rival fans either can't understand, or turn a blind eye to any court ruling that is in favour of Rangers.

overdose15

Agree0 Disagree0

It's good to read in the press and hear on TV all the comments regarding old historical rangers destroyed, dead, drove in the hearse and buried by the BTC. And then saying CG had to start a new club. Clears that issue up.
Secondly every single minute detail regarding each players specific EBT was required by the SPL. This was not declared by old rangers hence players falsely registered. These are Uefa/FIFA regulations that SPL/ SFA have to uphold.
Having a single line item on an annual balance Sheet doesn't come close.

Agree0 Disagree0

@ "It's good to read in the press..."

What a horrible post. How is that 'nice' exactly. If Celtic (I am specifically not saying you support them before the usual posts of 'how do you know... blah, blah, blah) had went to the wall in 94 I would've been absolutely gutted for half of my family and a number of close mates who happen to support Celtic and certainly wouldn't have gloried in it as you clearly are. Banter is one thing...

Anyway, haven't you learnt anything in the last two days or is taking it in that pre judging the verdict can leave you with egg on your face too 'taxing' (pardon the pun - well, not really) for you? Just because some of the press say it is so that makes it true then does it, lol? Is this the same press/media that almost universally concluded that Rangers would lose the BTC, including certain blogs who won prestigious awards for their judicious efforts etc, and condemned them for their actions? They got that one right didn't they? Same as the BTC time will tell. Once BDO have concluded their business and the Oldco is officially no more then we will see if the crest, colours, history, etc are OFFICIALLY gone or officially transferred to the new company as a continuation of the old. You are more than welcome to give it large then.

Your second point doesn't hold much water either I am afraid. Clearly you haven't thought through what you are saying. No they were not. Technically Rangers did not pay the players directly so would be obliged to show nothing more than a 'single line on a balance sheet', the trust set up by MIH did. Rangers will have paid monthly LUMP sums (this is how these things work) into the trust and the trust would divvy it up from there and provide the players with 'loans'. Therefore, Rangers will have declared annually to the SFA any payments made by themselves directly to the players on an individual basis. They also will have, and did, declare lump sum payments they paid separately to the trust set up in the name of MIH who then 'offered' these players 'loans' each month. All of which was perfectly acceptable to the SFA at the time. Rangers should get away with this one too on a technicality of LAW as they, technically, did not break the rules, where clearly we would not in relation to emotion or immorality as we certainly bent them to our advantage. The independent commission, unlike the SPL, cannot afford to be emotional, they will be duty bound to look at the LEGAL aspects of what happened. Morals (and it was and is still morally indefensible in my opinion) should not come into their decision making process. All the side letters highlight is how much of a 'loan' each player was allowed to take out from MIH dependent on appearances etc. We all recognise it is distasteful but if the verdict comes back as guilty (which is a distinct possibility) then Rangers will, just like the transfer embargo, take it to court and (try to) get it overturned. Do you think the players in the EPL, or anywhere else, who are on EBT's do not have contracts detailing what they should receive from them? I don't see the FA pulling them up for it and stripping them of titles.

Brian

Agree0 Disagree0

Both David and Paul Murray both declared today that Rangrrs have still been destroyed so stop claiming that this new entity has any history or honours.It really is clutching at straws,

Agree1 Disagree0

Brian a question, if rangers did not technically pay these players directly, why would it be shown on their balance sheet,don't know much about these things but seem's strange it would not be on the balance sheet of those who supposedly paid them.
Tam

Agree0 Disagree0

Tam. It would show as a lump sum payment to the trust set up by MIH on the balance sheet, not as payments to Rangers players directly. That will be the reason for the single gross figures shown in the accounts each year. It wouldn't, and couldn't, have been split to show what each player was paid as legally it wasn't Rangers paying them (plausible deniability in this case as we know the side letters detailed what the trust was to pay them), it was the trust giving them loans. It stinks morally I know and I would rather we had never touched them, but if they were legal 'loans', as the verdict suggests, then the side letters are merely confirmation of these 'loans' the players were to receive from the trust, not Rangers. It all comes down to whether or not they have been administered correctly or not.

Brian

Agree0 Disagree0

There should be no formal documentation between Rangers and the loan recipients, all documentation must be between the recipients and the Trust.

Any document from Rangers referring to these loans could be considered a technical breach of conditions.

Agree0 Disagree0

Cheer's for that Brian
Tam

Agree0 Disagree0

The spl is only interested in reconstruction of their own league not yours the sfl can arrange theirs all they like

Agree0 Disagree0

 
Change Consent