Glasgow Rangers go in to liquidation

[gumps]

These are the currrent rules relating to relocation:

 

 

 

The rule relating to Clubs moving their ground were strengthened , post MK Dons,to include a list of criteria that the League's Board must be satisfied with before it would grant consent

 

The new rule states that the Board must be satisfied that the granting of permission:

 

a) Would be consistent with the objects of The League as set out in the Memorandum of Association

 

b) Would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground

 

c) Would not adversely affect such Club's Officials, players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities

 

d) Would not have an adverse effect on visiting Clubs;

 

e) Would not adversely affect Clubs having their registered ground in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location

 

f) Would enhance the reputation of The League and promote the game of association football generally

 

 

Have to say, those "rules" are pretty wishy-washy. I would have thought that after the Wimbledon/MK Dons case, which probably drove a coach and horse through whatever rules the league had at that time, that any chance of "franchising" another club would be not allowed in a lot stronger terms.

 

I don't know, but maybe because the idea of franchising is so against the history, culture and set up of football in this country that they feel they don't need stronger rules?

[JohnnyH]

The Bury thing won't happen. Even though liquidation legally takes 28 days, so still 3 weeks away officially, it has all but happened. The fact that it now shows institutional cheating from the establishment team means the SFA can't sit on their hands anymore, no matter how much they want to.

 

The talk is that a fair few of the old regimes top men could be facing jail time when this all comes out. Rumours of a a big fraud story yet to come out which the press are holding for the next stage once original RFC are no more.

 

With 3 clubs out of the 5 needed already confimed as voting against Rangers (Aberdeen, Hearts & Dundee) Celtic will certainly vote against them. It won't be out of rivalry, but from when Celtic were close to the wall in 1994 and RFC seemed to try to ensure they folded (no away fans at Ibrox game, etc) so its coming back to bite Rangers on the arse. Hibs & St Mirren have more or less also said no, so that's all that's needed to see RFC newco in the 3rd tear.

 

Expect guys like Davis, McGregor, Naismith, Lafferty, Bocanegra, Goian (i.e. the big earners) to be sold off in the next few weeks, to actually fund the wages due in June and July.

 

 

Sorry state of affairs really.

[Bjornebye]

The Bury thing won't happen. Even though liquidation legally takes 28 days, so still 3 weeks away officially, it has all but happened. The fact that it now shows therey institutional cheating from the establishment team means the SFA can't sit on tehir hands anymore, no matter how much they want to.

 

The talk is that a fair few of the old regimes top men will be facing jail time when this all comes out. Rumours of a a big fraud story yet to come out.

 

With 3 clubs out of the 5 needed already confimed as voting against Rangers (Aberdeen, Hearts & Dundee) Celtic will certainly vote against them. It won't be out of rivalry, but from when Celtic were close to the wall in 1994 and RFC seemed to try to ensure they folded (no away fans at Ibrox game, etc) so its coming back to bite Rangers on the arse. Hibs & St Mirren have more or less also said no, so that's all that's needed to see RFC newco in the 3rd tear.

 

Expect guys like Davis, McGregor, Naismith, Lafferty, Bocanegra, Goian (i.e. the big earners) to be sold off in the next few weeks, to actually fund the wages due in June and July.

 

 

Sorry state of affairs really.

 

 

 

I'd be surprised if Celtic voted against it to be honest. In-fact im surprised any of them have, simply because it means they will lose tv revenue and gate revenue.

My dad's got a celtic season ticket but won't renew as he only really travels up for old firm games

[JohnnyH]

I'd be surprised if Celtic voted against it to be honest. In-fact im surprised any of them have, simply because it means they will lose tv revenue and gate revenue.

My dad's got a celtic season ticket but won't renew as he only really travels up for old firm games

 

The vast majority of fans in Scotland are telling their clubs that a vote for Rangers will result in fans abandoning their STs. Motherwell are asking their season ticket holders to vote on it and make the decision themselves, and the fans groups are already saying it’ll overwhelmingly be a vote against Rangers. There is absolutely no doubt Celtic will vote against Rangers.

 

The fans are all (correctly) saying that if Rangers are kept in the SPL then you may as well just close up shop and end footy north of the border. You can openly cheat but if you’re a big boy then you don’t get punished by your league. For the good of the game they simply have to get done for this. If Man Utd or us did what Rangers did then every other club would vote against us (Ok, Dave Whelan would vote to keep the Mancs) and rightly to.

 

Sky have intimated that Rangers out of the league for a season or two will have no impact on their contract. However, year 3 and 4 could be a different kettle of fish if Rangers struggle to get back to the top flight in 3 years.

[No2]

Actually, you are wrong. We very clearly close to being put into administration although the reasons for getting there would have been different.

 

But, the end result would have been the same and, we wouldnt have got anything like the fees you mention for the players because there would have been a fire sale at best or, the players able to terminate their contracts and walk for nothing at worst.

 

 

Actually I'm not wrong. What we faced was administration, a fire sale of our best players, probable relegation and a few years struggling to get back to the PL. What Rangers face is the abyss. Its really not comparable, its not even certain if they own any players as all the contracts could be null and void, they haven't a clue which league they will be playing in and that's if they will be accepted into any league at all, they also can't sell a match ticket for the next 3 years because they sold them in advance already.

Every business man with a piece of the pie has worked along the principal that Rangers are to big to fail, well it looks like they are wrong.

 

Now is the time for Rangers supporters to set up a real new-co, burn the speculators and sharks, say good by to Ibrox and all the history that goes with it. 40000 fans paying £100 each is very achievable even over a short space of time. £4m would fund the creation of a new club and be more than enough to guarantee winning promotion for the first 2 years, maybe even the 3rd year and that's without getting another £4m in the subsequent years. They could rent Hampden or build a smaller stadium with room for improvements, for me its a no brainer, 4 or 5 years building towards a new future or 3 years guaranteed to win nothing and still be fucked by the end of it.

[ahunt1982]

Rangers fans benefitted from cheating in the titles/cups they bought with money they never had so they should suffer accordingly. FFS, they sold Jelevic to Everton after he helped them win three in a row without actually paying Rapid Vienna.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[ahunt1982]

 

I'd be surprised if Celtic voted against it to be honest. In-fact im surprised any of them have, simply because it means they will lose tv revenue and gate revenue.

My dad's got a celtic season ticket but won't renew as he only really travels up for old firm games

 

Long term the SPL will benefit with having a more competitive league. Celtics level will drop and the league will be more marketable. Sky pay a pittance for the tv rights and more fans will come to games due to the increased competition. just look at the attendance at the all Edinburgh Derby for proof. Clubs know they only have to topple Celtic to win a trophy.

 

Anyway, it's not all about money. What happened to integrity and competition.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[ahunt1982]

 

If they'd have only had their own way Robbie.

 

And also if you delve deep in to the hisory of time, there isn't really too much difference. Even Hitler promoted "positive Christianity" just not for the Jewish.

 

All religions are as bad as each-other.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[ahunt1982]

So we cant celebrate our war dead anymore with poppies?

 

You can, but don't be hypocritical. If you can separate the misdeeds of one organisation from its more valiant aspects you can do it for another.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Nunavut Patrick]

Anyway, it's not all about money. What happened to integrity and competition.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

Doesn't exist in football, or even in life at times.

 

As for the Too Big To Fail, well that's worked out well for Lehman Brothers and the world economy is still trying to recover from that.

 

It'd be a fucking joke if they just let them back into the SPL. Or even let them in Division 1. It's a joke just like Juventus when they were relegated for match fixing. That really straighten out the Italian Leagues didn't it??

 

How the fuck Italy are still allowed to compete in FIFA and UEFA competitions when there is so much proof that they've been running bent football for years.

[ahunt1982]

 

Actually, you are wrong. We very clearly close to being put into administration although the reasons for getting there would have been different.

 

But, the end result would have been the same and, we wouldnt have got anything like the fees you mention for the players because there would have been a fire sale at best or, the players able to terminate their contracts and walk for nothing at worst.

 

What hacks me off about these situations is, it is always the 'club' and fans left with the consequences. The directors or owners get off virtually scot free. Whyte may end up getting barred from football, big deal. Im sure he'll live without it.

 

Look at ridsdale, how many clubs has he been involved wth since he lead leeds into the shit?

 

People seem to have a problem with murray saying he'd spend double what celtic did. So fucking what, that's the way the world turns.

 

As for the EBT loans business, plenty of businesses use them. HMRC are slack closing them down so its HMRC who should be taking the flack here.

 

Rangers could pay however much more than Celtic as they wanted, but at the tax payers expense? Think of that when the next school closes. Rangers should be made to pay the price that any other club would be expected to pay and not get any dispensation for being a larger club.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Guest San Don]

Rangers could pay however much more than Celtic as they wanted, but at the tax payers expense? Think of that when the next school closes. Rangers should be made to pay the price that any other club would be expected to pay and not get any dispensation for being a larger club.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

At taxpayers expense!? EBT's are a LEGALLY declared tax vehicle whether you or HMRC like it or not.

 

HMRC can close these vehicles down pro actively or re actively (if you dont know the difference, look it up). These vehicles have to be declared every year to HMRC so why has it taken them so long to do something about it? I'll tell you why, because HMRC are fucking incompetent (and believe me, Im in tax dealings with HMRC and they have acted underhand and mislead Parliament in the case Im dealing with).

 

Yes, craig whyte acted the shyster by diverting other payments due to HMRC to his own pocket or to run the company. That clearly is illegal but every time its the club and fans who get battered, what are HMRC doing about whyte? Fuck all from what I can see.

[xerxes]

EBT's are a LEGALLY declared tax vehicle .

 

Yes, craig whyte acted the shyster by diverting other payments due to HMRC to his own pocket or to run the company. That clearly is illegal but every time its the club and fans who get battered, what are HMRC doing about whyte? Fuck all from what I can see.

 

On your first point,payments from an EBT should not be made on a contractual basis, as it would make them part of an employee's salary and subject to tax and National Insurance.

 

HMRC claims that Rangers' EBT scheme was a tax scam as it was contractual, which forms the basis of the so-called "Big Tax Case".

 

HMRC also insists it has proof of this in the form of documents and emails between former directors at Rangers and players' agents.

 

On your second point, Whyte will almost certainly have his day of reckoning in Court.

 

More generally, the reason why it is always the fans that suffer is that the rules are made by those who benefit from abusing club finances.

[Guest San Don]

On your first point,payments from an EBT should not be made on a contractual basis, as it would make them part of an employee's salary and subject to tax and National Insurance.

 

HMRC claims that Rangers' EBT scheme was a tax scam as it was contractual, which forms the basis of the so-called "Big Tax Case".

 

HMRC also insists it has proof of this in the form of documents and emails between former directors at Rangers and players' agents.

 

On your second point, Whyte will almost certainly have his day of reckoning in Court.

 

More generally, the reason why it is always the fans that suffer is that the rules are made by those who benefit from abusing club finances.

 

EBT's have to be disclosed to HMRC under the tax avoidance regulations they asked the Government of the day to bring in a few years back. So, there are two issues here. One, is a general form of taxation issue but as I have said, EBT's are notified to HMRC. It is up to HMRC to prove before an independent tax tribunal that the EBT is a 'scam.'

 

The second issue is whether EBT's are allowed by the SFA \ SPL. I do not know their position on this. In any event, I'd be majorly surprised if EBT's would require a club to be wound up.

 

As regards siding with HMRC regarding tax 'scams,' be careful what you ask for because you might next be in HMRC's 'scam' targets. HMRC consider any form of tax avoidance as a 'scam' despite tax avoidance being 100% legal. Do you dispute this point that avoidance is 100% legal, yes or no?

 

As regards whyte, he, as majority shareholder, singlehandedly has recklessly used money the club obtained and due to be paid as tax revenues to run the club instead of paying the money to HMRC yet it is the club that is punished.

 

whyte has been 'fined' about £250,000 by the SFA for his part in Rangers downfall. His response to this fine? The SFA can 'whistle' for this money. OK the SFA can probably get a worldwide ban on him but who in football would touch him now?

 

As regards the claim made by a poster about Rangers benefiting at the taxpayers expense, because HMRC decided to use their usual pigheadedness attitude, the tax payer has got precisely didlly squat from Rangers \ Rangers newco by rejecting the CVA when the 'taxpayer' would have got something, albeit a smaller amount. Now, through HMRC's pigheadedness, the taxpayer will get nowt.

[FanchesterCity]

EBT's have to be disclosed to HMRC under the tax avoidance regulations they asked the Government of the day to bring in a few years back. So, there are two issues here. One, is a general form of taxation issue but as I have said, EBT's are notified to HMRC. It is up to HMRC to prove before an independent tax tribunal that the EBT is a 'scam.'

 

The second issue is whether EBT's are allowed by the SFA \ SPL. I do not know their position on this. In any event, I'd be majorly surprised if EBT's would require a club to be wound up.

 

As regards siding with HMRC regarding tax 'scams,' be careful what you ask for because you might next be in HMRC's 'scam' targets. HMRC consider any form of tax avoidance as a 'scam' despite tax avoidance being 100% legal. Do you dispute this point that avoidance is 100% legal, yes or no?

 

As regards whyte, he, as majority shareholder, singlehandedly has recklessly used money the club obtained and due to be paid as tax revenues to run the club instead of paying the money to HMRC yet it is the club that is punished.

 

whyte has been 'fined' about £250,000 by the SFA for his part in Rangers downfall. His response to this fine? The SFA can 'whistle' for this money. OK the SFA can probably get a worldwide ban on him but who in football would touch him now?

 

As regards the claim made by a poster about Rangers benefiting at the taxpayers expense, because HMRC decided to use their usual pigheadedness attitude, the tax payer has got precisely didlly squat from Rangers \ Rangers newco by rejecting the CVA when the 'taxpayer' would have got something, albeit a smaller amount. Now, through HMRC's pigheadedness, the taxpayer will get nowt.

 

I thought HMRC's logic was that they could either accept (9?)pence in the pound as part of the CVA, or liquidate the club and recover monies as a major creditor? (and they believed the latter would result in more money coming their way)?

 

Althought IF the assets really were sold for just 5 millions, won't that 5 millions be split between creditors in some fashion?... assuming HMRC got it ALL, the original debt would have to have been over 45 million to make the CVA more attractive?

 

There's also the very murky waters of HMRC wanting to give a signal - that they won't buckle to 'it's the best I can do guv, take it or leave it'.

 

Is that incorrect? (could well be!)

[xerxes]

The fans are all (correctly) saying that if Rangers are kept in the SPL then you may as well just close up shop and end footy north of the border. You can openly cheat but if you’re a big boy then you don’t get punished by your league. For the good of the game they simply have to get done for this.

That is how it is.

 

Even in the venal, money grabbing cesspit of modern day football there comes a defining moment, a point at which people should look at each other and say "enough".

 

Rangers have cheated, and financially doped, affording themselves an illegal sporting advantage. A sanction of expulsion- then re-admittance, means that the SPL really might as well not bother with any rules at all.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Rangers fans benefitted from cheating in the titles/cups they bought with money they never had so they should suffer accordingly. FFS, they sold Jelevic to Everton after he helped them win three in a row without actually paying Rapid Vienna.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

So they should also have all titles/cup wins nulled from the history books for the seasons they won them, whilst not paying for players.

 

Not sent from my iPhone and not with Forum Runner

[xerxes]

EBT's have to be disclosed to HMRC under the tax avoidance regulations they asked the Government of the day to bring in a few years back. So, there are two issues here. One, is a general form of taxation issue but as I have said, EBT's are notified to HMRC. It is up to HMRC to prove before an independent tax tribunal that the EBT is a 'scam.'

 

This is not about whther EBT's are legal, we agree they are. It is about the fact that they may not be made on a contractual basis - HMRC maintain they were

 

The second issue is whether EBT's are allowed by the SFA \ SPL. I do not know their position on this. In any event, I'd be majorly surprised if EBT's would require a club to be wound up.

 

EBT's are, as you pointed out legal, so long as they meet HMRC guidelines. SFA/SPL rules do not forbid them.

 

Celtic confirmed that it established one EBT scheme in April 2005, which BBC Scotland understands was for the benefit of the Brazilian midfielder Juninho Paulista. The scheme was worth £765,000 but the club did not declare the trust payment to the Scottish Football Association or the Scottish Premier League.

 

The payments made to the trust were declared in Celtic's annual report for 2004/2005, but in 2008 the club became aware of an event giving rise to a potential tax liability which was subsequently paid after agreement with HMRC.

 

The remaining 10 SPL clubs confirmed they had never set up an EBT scheme for any of their employees.

 

As regards siding with HMRC regarding tax 'scams,' be careful what you ask for because you might next be in HMRC's 'scam' targets. HMRC consider any form of tax avoidance as a 'scam' despite tax avoidance being 100% legal. Do you dispute this point that avoidance is 100% legal, yes or no?

 

Asking or telling? You yourself say that tax avoidnace (minimisation) is legal, we agree.But you then claim that all tax avoidance is regarded as a scam by HMRC- which implies that it is illegal. Which is it?

 

As regards whyte, he, as majority shareholder, singlehandedly has recklessly used money the club obtained and due to be paid as tax revenues to run the club instead of paying the money to HMRC yet it is the club that is punished.

 

Whyte has been 'fined' about £250,000 by the SFA for his part in Rangers downfall. His response to this fine? The SFA can 'whistle' for this money. OK the SFA can probably get a worldwide ban on him but who in football would touch him now?

 

As regards the claim made by a poster about Rangers benefiting at the taxpayers expense, because HMRC decided to use their usual pigheadedness attitude, the tax payer has got precisely didlly squat from Rangers \ Rangers newco by rejecting the CVA when the 'taxpayer' would have got something, albeit a smaller amount. Now, through HMRC's pigheadedness, the taxpayer will get nowt.

 

The misdemeanors of Rangers pre-date Whyte, not least in the "Big Tax case", Rangers materially secured an illegal sporting adavantage, if found guilty.

 

Whyte will have his day in Court.

 

It is not true that "Now, through HMRC's pigheadedness, the taxpayer will get nowt".As HMRC said: "A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company's financial affairs in recent years."

 

This will run and run.

[ahunt1982]

 

EBT's have to be disclosed to HMRC under the tax avoidance regulations they asked the Government of the day to bring in a few years back. So, there are two issues here. One, is a general form of taxation issue but as I have said, EBT's are notified to HMRC. It is up to HMRC to prove before an independent tax tribunal that the EBT is a 'scam.'

 

The second issue is whether EBT's are allowed by the SFA \ SPL. I do not know their position on this. In any event, I'd be majorly surprised if EBT's would require a club to be wound up.

 

As regards siding with HMRC regarding tax 'scams,' be careful what you ask for because you might next be in HMRC's 'scam' targets. HMRC consider any form of tax avoidance as a 'scam' despite tax avoidance being 100% legal. Do you dispute this point that avoidance is 100% legal, yes or no?

 

As regards whyte, he, as majority shareholder, singlehandedly has recklessly used money the club obtained and due to be paid as tax revenues to run the club instead of paying the money to HMRC yet it is the club that is punished.

 

whyte has been 'fined' about £250,000 by the SFA for his part in Rangers downfall. His response to this fine? The SFA can 'whistle' for this money. OK the SFA can probably get a worldwide ban on him but who in football would touch him now?

 

As regards the claim made by a poster about Rangers benefiting at the taxpayers expense, because HMRC decided to use their usual pigheadedness attitude, the tax payer has got precisely didlly squat from Rangers \ Rangers newco by rejecting the CVA when the 'taxpayer' would have got something, albeit a smaller amount. Now, through HMRC's pigheadedness, the taxpayer will get nowt.

 

Pig Headedness, so If I owed you 100 quid you would accept 9 Quid. Taxman has to set an example on principal. If they allowed Rangers this outlet then every company in Britain could follow suit due to this precedent.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[ahunt1982]

Tax avoidance is legal, applied correctly. This scheme was misused as it was paid as a part of a contract within a side letter.

 

So two issues, contractual payments are not allowed within this EBT Therefore this is tax evasion. Rangers were able to pay higher wages than they would otherwise be able to afford.

 

Secondly, the side letters were not disclosed to the SFA. Rangers could not submit these as it would have exposed the contractual element of the payments. For obvious reasons all payments must be disclosed to the national organisation of which the club plays in. There have been so many instances were a club has been relegated for such an offence alone. Case in point Derry City in Ireland who held duel contracts on their players.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[ahunt1982]

 

So they should also have all titles/cup wins nulled from the history books for the seasons they won them, whilst not paying for players.

 

Not sent from my iPhone and not with Forum Runner

 

Yes. Yes they should.

 

This would have happened already in any other country then Scotland.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Josef Svejk]

If I read "Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner" again, I'm going to cry...

[xerxes]

An interesting response from Falkirk which suggests that the SFL may not be quite as welcoming as some thought.

 

Falkirk FC

[ahunt1982]

If I read "Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner" again, I'm going to cry...

 

Cry your heart out...

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[xerxes]

I thought HMRC's logic was that they could either accept (9?)pence in the pound as part of the CVA, or liquidate the club and recover monies as a major creditor? (and they believed the latter would result in more money coming their way)?

 

Althought IF the assets really were sold for just 5 millions, won't that 5 millions be split between creditors in some fashion?... assuming HMRC got it ALL, the original debt would have to have been over 45 million to make the CVA more attractive?

 

There's also the very murky waters of HMRC wanting to give a signal - that they won't buckle to 'it's the best I can do guv, take it or leave it'.

 

Is that incorrect? (could well be!)

 

That is a pretty fair summary.

 

Not sent from my iPhone and not with Forum Runner