The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
eddiemcgarrigle said:
McMav, will Newco pay the fine imposed on Oldco as they are the same club (according to you) or will Newco wriggle out of it claiming that Oldco where liquidated and the imposition of the fine is not liable to them?
Click to expand...

Covered by five.stars if you don't get it it's clear your either not all there or just don't want to get it. I'll be generous and say it's option 2 :-)
 
And for every bit of propaganda for keeping the history there's the same back the way :)

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=23336072#post23336072

We can argue all day Rangers fans will say the old club never died and the rest of Scottish football fans will argue the opposite, it's time to put it to bed :)

We are where we are, personally I was surprised that Rangers where placed in the 3rd Division (despite the attempts of the SPL & SFA to bully the member clubs into shoehorning them into the SPL, then the 1st Division), so maybe they have been punished enough for the misdeeds of David Murray & Craig Whyte :eek:

It would help heal the wounds if some humility and contrition from the Rangers Family was shown, drop the threats, retribution and sabre rattling and likewise the rest of Scottish football can stop "prodding the corpse" and we can get on with trying raise Scottish football from it's current position of being a laughing stock :cool:
 
strocky said:
And for every bit of propaganda for keeping the history there's the same back the way :)

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=23336072#post23336072

We can argue all day Rangers fans will say the old club never died and the rest of Scottish football fans will argue the opposite, it's time to put it to bed :)

We are where we are, personally I was surprised that Rangers where placed in the 3rd Division (despite the attempts of the SPL & SFA to bully the member clubs into shoehorning them into the SPL, then the 1st Division), so maybe they have been punished enough for the misdeeds of David Murray & Craig Whyte :eek:

It would help heal the wounds if some humility and contrition from the Rangers Family was shown, drop the threats, retribution and sabre rattling and likewise the rest of Scottish football can stop "prodding the corpse" and we can get on with trying raise Scottish football from it's current position of being a laughing stock :cool:
Click to expand...

I'm sure as soon as there are apologies made then maybe that will happen. Remember Charles Green had to apologies for actions of the oldco.
 
strocky said:
Is that apologies from the Kangaroo Court that Mr Green failed to recognise, until it suited? :p
Click to expand...

He said all along there was no need to go down this route. All he said yesterday was that the Kangaroo court proved him correct.

I see the numpties at CQN want to goto CAS now LMAO.
 
BERkfCvCQAAmtUe.jpg
 
Interesting bit in the PDF was that the newco decided to co-operate after all and used the same lawyer as the oldco. Media have kept that one quiet. :p
 
McMav said:
He said all along there was no need to go down this route. All he said yesterday was that the Kangaroo court proved him correct.

I see the numpties at CQN want to goto CAS now LMAO.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, Rangers where found GUILTY of contravening the SPL rules on disclosure of payments between 2000-2011 to the tune of £47m, so the "Kangaroo court" actually proved their case ;)

It's a bit rich of ex-Rangers staff & fans to complain about the waste of £350k when if there had been no deceit undertaken in the first place, there would be no need for the enquiry ;)

TBF to Ally McCoist he has acknowledged the guilt and apologised, albeit then indulged in whatabouterry and a re-writing of recent history straight after the apology :rolleyes:

The two main things that have annoyed the rest of the Scottish football fans is the small fine against a liquidated entity and the assertion that there was no sporting advantage on the field (despite EBT's allowing Rangers to offer better financial packages in order to secure the Cannigia's, The De Boers & The Gavin Rae's of the world :D)
 
Jokester said:
Just read the report, you know why they decided that they hadn't fielded any ineligible players?



Because as far as the SFA were concerned they were properly registered at the time and hence eligible, even though Rangers had lied to them about the contracts, something if they had known about at the time would have meant they wouldn't have been eligible.


So they didn't disclose to ensure that they weren't caught by the tax man yet they felt that there was no sporting advantage gained in being able to pay players more than they would have otherwise?

Whitewash.

I'm done with Scottish football.
Click to expand...

Sorry Jokester, but you are absolutely WRONG on that part. The EBT's were, as has been established by the FTTT non contractual. So how exactly did the club "lie about the contracts"??? :rolleyes:

The club were duty bound to disclose all financial arrangements with the playing staff. The club at the time interpreted that since the financial arrangements regarding the EBT's were not directly between the club and the player, that it was unnecessary to disclose this. It would appear that they interpreted the ruling incorrectly. Thus they have been fined. End of story.
 
strocky said:
Just to clarify, Rangers where found GUILTY of contravening the SPL rules on disclosure of payments between 2000-2011 to the tune of £47m, so the "Kangaroo court" actually proved their case ;)

It's a bit rich of ex-Rangers staff & fans to complain about the waste of £350k when if there had been no deceit undertaken in the first place, there would be no need for the enquiry ;)

TBF to Ally McCoist he has acknowledged the guilt and apologised, albeit then indulged in whatabouterry and a re-writing of recent history straight after the apology :rolleyes:

The two main things that have annoyed the rest of the Scottish football fans is the small fine against a liquidated entity and the assertion that there was no sporting advantage on the field (despite EBT's allowing Rangers to offer better financial packages in order to secure the Cannigia's, The De Boers & The Gavin Rae's of the world :D)
Click to expand...

Firstly, £47 million was the total amount of money paid to the EBT's. David E Murray was the biggest beneficiary of this to the tune of over £6 million. Other directors and non playing staff were also beneficiaries. Did any of these need to be declared? So the "£47 million" quoted by the Daily Record, Neil Lennon and the official Celtic statement is massively inaccurate.

Secondly, nothing was "undeclared". All money is accounted for in the clubs audited accounts as signed off by both the SFA and SPL year on year. The former company was found guilty of minor admin errors with regard to the disclosure of all financial arrangements with regards playing staff. Crucially though... and I know you wont want to hear this, so I will type it out in big bold letters, you know just to CLARIFY!

(6) Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers FC;

Just in case you missed this bit, I will repeat it, in big bold capital letters,

"NOR DID THE NON-DISCLOSURE HAVE THE EFFECT THAT ANY OF THE REGISTERED PLAYERS WERE INELIGIBLE TO PLAY"

Hope that clarifies things for you!
 
Five.Stars said:
Sorry Jokester, but you are absolutely WRONG on that part. The EBT's were, as has been established by the FTTT non contractual. So how exactly did the club "lie about the contracts"??? :rolleyes:

The club were duty bound to disclose all financial arrangements with the playing staff. The club at the time interpreted that since the financial arrangements regarding the EBT's were not directly between the club and the player, that it was unnecessary to disclose this. It would appear that they interpreted the ruling incorrectly. Thus they have been fined. End of story.
Click to expand...
You should read the actual report and not just what the succulent lambs have printed.

Section 70:-
Each side-letter issued to a Specified Player clearly constituted a contractual agreement: the unanimous view of the Tax Tribunal also was that it was an “obligation”.
Click to expand...

Section 105:-
Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme
Click to expand...
 
Jokester said:
You should read the actual report and not just what the succulent lambs have printed.

Section 70:-


Section 105:-
Click to expand...

Thanks. You have read or seen these side letters have you?

As far as I am lead to believe, they merely state the amount that the club would deposit in to the Murray Group Remuneration Trust and instructions as to the eligibility of the employee to gain access to said funds in the form of an interest free loan.

If you know better, then please enlighten us.

But what you say is that the club and its directors actively LIED ABOUT THE CONTRACTS. That is a serious allegation. Would you be willing to go on twitter or facebook using your real identity and make such an allegation? If so, let me know so that I can contact those that you would be libeling.
 
Last edited:
Five.Stars said:
Thanks. You have read or seen these side letters have you?

As far as I am lead to believe, they merely state the amount that the club would deposit in to the Murray Group Remuneration Trust and instructions as to the eligibility of the employee to gain access to said funds in the form of an interest free loan.

If you know better, then please enlighten us.
Click to expand...
Ask Nimmo Smith, he's the one saying they were contractual and thus declareable to the SFA ;)

It can be seen that each of these side-letters contains an undertaking by Oldco to the Specified Player “to fund the MGMRT”. A similar undertaking is found in every other side-letter before us and it is clear to us (as we believe it must have been to anyone at Oldco with even a basic grasp of legal matters) that the undertaking was contractually binding as between Oldco and the player.
Click to expand...

Some of the side letters are in the report by the way.

Five.Stars said:
But what you say is that the club and its directors actively LIED ABOUT THE CONTRACTS. That is a serious allegation. Would you be willing to go on twitter or facebook using your real identity and make such an allegation? If so, let me know so that I can contact those that you would be libeling.
Click to expand...

Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme
Click to expand...
I'm just repeating what Nimmo said, they deliberatly withheld information. Hardly the bastion of truth and honesty were they.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom