The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jokester said:
AFC just benefitted from the league rules as they stood at the time, they didn't break them to benefit.


It's only a "loan" if it's properly administered. From what the Rangers director said and what HMRC have in their posession it's clear these were contractual payments, that the SPL were not informed about.
Click to expand...

And you are privy as to what HMRC have in their possession are you?

The Rangers director is Hugh Adam, an 86 year old man who left the club under a cloud in 2001. What he has actually said is there was something going on, but he didn't know what and had zero evidence. He had a major fallout with David Murray which led to him resigning from the board. He could be using these allegations as a final get it up you to Murray. But then as he admitted in his interview he has nothing to back up the allegations.
 
rangers actually have several court cases against them do they not?

i mean im pretty sure all of them think they can win, that's why they are pursuing them in the first place.

im pretty sure in cases worth a lot of money, the lawyers of both sides know what the chances are of winning. albeit lawyers are in it for themselves therefore may bend the truth, but i doubt one that works for the government is likely to do that as much.

therefore using logic i do not see a strong case for rangers, im betting they lose.

why did Murray sell all his shares for £1, i think he knew the club was doomed and wanted to get rid of it before it completely bankrupted him.

in all i dont think there is any way rangers are likely to recover from all this for a very long time. rangers fans need to accept there club is doomed, something may save it, but i doubt they will like whatever is left over that has been saved.
 
steve1873 said:
And you are privy as to what HMRC have in their possession are you?

The Rangers director is Hugh Adam, an 86 year old man who left the club under a cloud in 2001. What he has actually said is there was something going on, but he didn't know what and had zero evidence. He had a major fallout with David Murray which led to him resigning from the board. He could be using these allegations as a final get it up you to Murray. But then as he admitted in his interview he has nothing to back up the allegations.
Click to expand...
Hugh Adam isn't the only person from Rangers that's said these exist.

It's all very deja vu this, this time last year people were denying that the tax case even existed.
 
Jokester said:
Hugh Adam isn't the only person from Rangers that's said these exist.

It's all very deja vu this, this time last year people were denying that the tax case even existed.
Click to expand...

Who else?

We have also had high profile players from the Advocaat/ EBT era (Albertz and Amoruso) who have said the "2 contracts" stuff is nonsense.
 
steve1873 said:
Who else?

We have also had high profile players from the Advocaat/ EBT era (Albertz and Amoruso) who have said the "2 contracts" stuff is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Darrell King from the Herald was reporting this 6 months ago - he had gotten that info from somewhere.

It's interesting that the people you mentioned were already at the club on existing contracts when the EBT started.
 
The EBT's that are perfectly legal you mean? Yes, there may be an issue regarding certain back taxes as the EBT's may have been administered in such a way that allows HMRC a claim - although given that it has went to a tribunal, it would appear that it isn't as black and white as that.

However, in no way does that mean there were 2 contracts. As I already stated the EBT's are a discretionary "loan". Non contractual. So how anyone can claim a secondary contract existed is beyond me. If such contracts existed and HMRC had them in their possession then the tribunal would have lasted a day. Because quite simply they would not then be EBT's.
 
We'll see, but I note with interest that none of the players that would definitely have been benefitting from the EBT have come out and denied it it would seem.
 
steve1873 said:
The EBT's that are perfectly legal you mean? Yes, there may be an issue regarding certain back taxes as the EBT's may have been administered in such a way that allows HMRC a claim - although given that it has went to a tribunal, it would appear that it isn't as black and white as that.

However, in no way does that mean there were 2 contracts. As I already stated the EBT's are a discretionary "loan". Non contractual. So how anyone can claim a secondary contract existed is beyond me. If such contracts existed and HMRC had them in their possession then the tribunal would have lasted a day. Because quite simply they would not then be EBT's.
Click to expand...

You seem to be adopting the "stick your fingers in your ears and shout loudly" philosophy when it comes to Rangers problems.

Obviously ex players are going to deny it as they would be liable for tax paid themselves if Rangers are found guilty of having two contracts.

Obviously the SFA deem the claim serious enough that they are having an investigation, personally I dont really care what happens, in the interest of Scottish football I hope they are cleared, if they are guilty though I hope they are suitably punished and stripped of the titles they won when using them and relegated.
 
No he's not I've said before there was an anti-rangers sentiment to these boards. Rangers were openly accused of cheating in the SPL thread this is why I started posting.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=21430564&postcount=1085

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=21449838&postcount=1112


Whilst there are accusations and if found to be true may cast doubt on Rangers previous titles Rangers have yet to be found guilty of any crime or cheating and I will defend them until such times (which I seriously doubt will come) that an official body states otherwise.
 
steve1873 said:
Good statement regarding sporting integrity from the DST eh! Remind me again if they released a similar statement when their club was saved from relegation on a technicality?
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with anything? Aberdeen never broke any rules, nor was there any suggestion that that was the case. Falkirk failed to satisfy stadia rules at the time, and therefore Aberdeen were permitted to stay in the league. They didn't break any rules.
 
jas72 said:
No he's not I've said before there was an anti-rangers sentiment to these boards. Rangers were openly accused of cheating in the SPL thread this is why I started posting.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=21430564&postcount=1085

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=21449838&postcount=1112


Whilst there are accusations and if found to be true may cast doubt on Rangers previous titles Rangers have yet to be found guilty of any crime or cheating and I will defend them until such times (which I seriously doubt will come) that an official body states otherwise.
Click to expand...

The accusations are coming from a former Rangers director, so its fair to say the claims have to be taken seriously.

Im not anti Rangers, im anti old firm, it would be brilliant if one of them went out of business, it would be even better if both did.

It would be even better though if Rangers survive but get punted to the third division or out the leagues completely, it would be like christmas and birthdays coming at once.
 
jas72 said:
No he's not I've said before there was an anti-rangers sentiment to these boards. Rangers were openly accused of cheating in the SPL thread this is why I started posting.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=21449838&postcount=1112
Click to expand...
Rangers are in a catch-22 situation, either the EBT was declared as a method of payment to the SPL to keep them sweet (and provide HMRC with evidence that it was a contract) or it wasn't declared to the SPL, which would be the right thing to do from the point of view of the EBT but against SPL rules.

Either way, they cheated.

Edit: It's not just Rangers that should be getting investigated, it's the SPL/SFA themselves.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
let's say the tax man say's no to any CVA and they effectively take everything off them and sell it off.

what then?
Click to expand...
If a CVA was blocked, the club would be wound up, the assests sold, the debts, as much as possible, settled. HMRC aren't necessarily going to get much money in that case.

In all likelihood a CVA will be agreed to keep the club going long enough to resolve the big tax case one way or another. HMRC want the tax case, the club failing before this point does not serve their interests.

If the club is liquidated, a new club would be created in it's place and depending on who gets the likes of Ibrox would either own Ibrox or potentially have to rent it from another company. Whether the new club goes straight into the SPL or another league depends on what the other clubs in the SPL decide.
 
jas72 said:
Wow Kennedy bid rejected...

I was hoping he'd get it. Don't trust Murray and Ticketus one bit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17550253

Gutted :(

Also wonder how and when they are going to remove Whyte. They keep talking as if he doesn't own 85% of the club :(

Also 500K goes back to rangers

http://www.sportinglife.com/footbal...cer/12/03/29/SOCCER_Rangers_Bain.html&BID=165
Click to expand...

They've got no power to remove Whyte since he bought the club legally and the "fit and proper" rules don't cover removal either only punishing the club, at least from the recent media reports.

I'm the same I don't trust the "Blue Knights" bid with the former directors who caused this mess in the first place and share issue, after all who would want to invest in a club that will probably have a large tax bill soon? To me it just sounds like they want control of the club's assets before it goes into liquidation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom