thriller Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Must have been down to ability who got offered an EBT. Big diddy Bob Malcolm got one for frigs sake lmao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 One of the defences stated in last night's programme seemed to be about being aware of 'a' Ticketus deal, but not 'the' Ticketus deal. This was never returned to, and I wonder whether that may be the grounds that D&P are claiming defamation. It's not without credibility that Whyte negotiated one deal with Grier in attendance, then went on to negotiate the final deal in his absence. D&P are in a dangerous position either way. However much he knew of the details one of the partners was involved in dealings with the club prior to them being involved as administrators. I think that needed, at the very least, disclosure at the outset that this was the case. That would be the situation even if what Grier says is correct about the extent of his knowledge and involvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) What I didn't understand was that if these EBTs were the bestest tax avoidance scheme ever and totally legal and above board (unless accompanied by a side letter guaranteeing their return), why were only 40% of the players on them? Who decided whether to offer an EBT or not? And how come both Sally and Sir Wally managed to avoid being embroilled in them too? My suspicion is that their own personal accountants or FAs told them to avoid them like the plague. Didn't Sally get quoted as receiving an amount when he was a player - sure he was shown in the "data room". EBT's, of course, are legal provided that they are not replacements for salary (which they were - and commented as such in docmentation) and that they are genuine loans (so we might expect Murray to send out letters recalling the amounts "loaned" any day now :-)) Once you put that to one side, I haven't a clue what use they might be! Edited May 25, 2012 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) The farce that is Rangers rumbles on regardless of how reality impinges upon it. We have D+P's insisting on presenting a CVA, which in all likelihood even they know is unlikely to be accepted. They, D+P's themselves are in a sticky position themselves and it would be a surprise to no one if a significant creditor e.g. HMRC moved to have them removed as administrators. HMRC, even if they don't move to remove D+P from their role, will at some point apply the coup de grace to the present company by not allowing the appeal from Rangers over the EBT's etc. The football authorities whilst no doubt anxious to ingratiate themselves with UEFA by hammering the h*ns for their breach of sporting ethics are no doubt bricking themselves over the prospect of their product losing a substantial amount of its revenue from that well known philanthropic body owned by good ol'e Rupe' Murdoch. The admixture is completed by a supporting cast of characters, a script writer for festive entertainment would baulk as being too far fetched to add as pantomime villains. Confused, you will be after the next episode of Rangers! It's not D&P that will be presenting the CVA, but Charles Green and his partners. Green seems to be shady enough character in his own right not to be put off by the stench emanating from D&P Edited May 25, 2012 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 They wont be here next friday, lucky to make it to wednesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 They wont be here next friday, lucky to make it to wednesday. ...and, presuming I make it to next Friday (or even Wednesday), one of the "things you'd like to do or see happen before you die" will have been realised. I have other 'things' too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillresigned Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 (edited) D+F's have really surpassed themselves now, by taking cout action against the SFA, as the de jure management of Rangers they will find themselves in breach of UEFA( and FIFA) regulations. Ipso facto leaving the SFA little alternative, to at the very least suspension of their membership. On the other hand, the realists will tell us that football has never been equitable when finances are concerned. However, it does strike me as supremely ill advised of a member club to take action against its parent association, when the consequences are all but inevitable. Are D+F's to be seen as incompetent or something else, I must confess that personally I'm beginning to suspect along the lines of the latter. Edited May 26, 2012 by stillresigned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 . Are D+F's to be seen as incompetent or something else, I must confess that personally I'm beginning to suspect along the lines of the latter. Thought that had been obvious all along. Recent events have only confirmed what was already strongly suspected by many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy davie Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 D+F's have really surpassed themselves now, by taking cout action against the SFA, as the de jure management of Rangers they will find themselves in breach of UEFA( and FIFA) regulations. Ipso facto leaving the SFA little alternative, to at the very least suspension of their membership. On the other hand, the realists will tell us that football has never been equitable when finances are concerned. However, it does strike me as supremely ill advised of a member club to take action against its parent association, when the consequences are all but inevitable. Are D+F's to be seen as incompetent or something else, I must confess that personally I'm beginning to suspect along the lines of the latter. I think you mean D&P... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 D+F's have really surpassed themselves now, by taking cout action against the SFA, as the de jure management of Rangers they will find themselves in breach of UEFA( and FIFA) regulations. Ipso facto leaving the SFA little alternative, to at the very least suspension of their membership. On the other hand, the realists will tell us that football has never been equitable when finances are concerned. However, it does strike me as supremely ill advised of a member club to take action against its parent association, when the consequences are all but inevitable. Are D+F's to be seen as incompetent or something else, I must confess that personally I'm beginning to suspect along the lines of the latter. The whole idea is to force the SFA/UEFA/FIFA to put the beast out its misery instead of them having to do it, seeing as HMRC are dragging their heels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 They wont be here next friday, lucky to make it to wednesday. Wishful thinking or informed opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKennan Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 D+F's have really surpassed themselves now, by taking cout action against the SFA, as the de jure management of Rangers they will find themselves in breach of UEFA( and FIFA) regulations. Quality Latin verbiage there. I expect this costly appeal is being paid for from the money raised by supporters and given to the fighting fund. That'll sit well - oodles of cash to fatcat lawyers while the big hoose burns. I'm hoping this appeal gets the same kind of slapping that Sion's got last year after its little strop and appeal to Swiss law. Grown ups don't have a sense of humour. If the Mankies lose their case they can either swallow the SFA ruling or quit the SFA altogether. Fun times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 Wishful thinking or informed opinion? From what i heard the latter, and most of the stuff I posted from him before the fact came true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 No parade down Dumbarton Road today. Is it a sign........... Could be a terrible Jubilee for them although I suppose there's always next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 No parade down Dumbarton Road today. Is it a sign........... Could be a terrible Jubilee for them although I suppose there's always next time. Not sure if this is a whoosh or not, but aye there was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggyman Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 No parade down Dumbarton Road today. Is it a sign........... Could be a terrible Jubilee for them although I suppose there's always next time. there was later on in afternoon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 I see the Green fella is saying a deal has been done with HMRC on the nod. Could he be just making it easier for his lot to walk away when HMRC reject the CVA proposal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 (edited) there was later on in afternoon Apologies, I didn't see it. Maybe it didn't come through Whiteinch or I may have been out and missed it. Edited May 27, 2012 by The Devil's Point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Did Thistle take the SFA to court in 2004 over the second vote that allowed caley in?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 (edited) Did Thistle take the SFA to court in 2004 over the second vote that allowed caley in?? No, it would be the SPL we went to court over this (and a waste of money we'd have been better spending in January that season to help us stay up IMO). So I guess that didn't count because it wasn't the national FA we went against. I believe we did appeal to the SFA before we went to court but they just said it wasn't their business (I'm not too sure about the latter but they knocked us back anyway). Edited May 27, 2012 by Mr Bunny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 No, it would be the SPL we went to court over this (and a waste of money we'd have been better spending in January that season to help us stay up IMO). So I guess that didn't count because it wasn't the national FA we went against. I believe we did appeal to the SFA before we went to court but they just said it wasn't their business (I'm not too sure about the latter but they knocked us back anyway). Iirc we were going to take SPL to court but backed off at the cost. I never got my donation returned btw. Have heard we had a very good chance of winning in court but if you can't risk the dosh that's academic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Iirc we were going to take SPL to court but backed off at the cost. I never got my donation returned btw. Have heard we had a very good chance of winning in court but if you can't risk the dosh that's academic. I've seen it being quoted in a couple of papers that we went to court about this (and the suggestion I suppose is why shouldn't the currants). This bothered me enough to make me search for the facts - not easy but I managed to find (partick thistle spl legal case 2004 -[minus] rangers) enough to show that we threatened but got no further than trying to get a judgement to stop the 2nd SPL meeting which failed. (The first let us stay up but it was obvious the only reason to have a 2nd was to relegate us). We then appealed to the SFA (no use) and after that gave up due to probable expense. So it was a bit more complicated than I remembered. However key points are: 1) we never took the SFA to court 2) we never took the SPL to court to overturn a decision, just tried to stop them overturning their own (1st decision). 3) At the time we went to court we were staying up so weren't avoiding a punishment, just anticipating being shafted by the SPL at the 2nd meeting. I doubt whether EUFA/FIFA give damn about the SPL so long as they comply with their rules .. our little spat with them wouldn't bother them. If we'd taken the SFA to court though I'm sure it would have been a differnet matter. The Rangers situation key points: 1) a punishment has been meted out (ban on signing and small fine) which is pretty unexceptional. This has been by the SFA not the SPL. 2) Ranger didn't deny the wrong doing that led to this punishment. 3) Taking the local FA (i.e. the SFA) to court over this is against EUFA rules Edited May 28, 2012 by Mr Bunny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan100 Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Just to show that HMRC take a hard line - Neath FC have been wound up in the High Court. Different scale, but I imagine they didn't owe as much as the buns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Just to show that HMRC take a hard line - Neath FC have been wound up in the High Court. Different scale, but I imagine they didn't owe as much as the buns. According to what I read online they paid their tax bill £65,000 but Barclays then called in a loan the next day & that resulted in them being wound up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 This case is 'neath the Gers' case. The wee arra people will prevail, or go extinct. Extinction is the only way forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.