Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Does exactly what it says on the tin - the forum for football-related discussion.

Moderators: Romford, Rio, Gnome, Northern Paulo, Lost Hammer, bonehead, chalks, goes2eleven, Alf Garnett's (Ex) Missus, bristolhammerfc, Wheels, sicknote

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Thu May 24, 2012 4:44 pm

Murray wants Duff & Phelps appointment investigated (BBC link)

"Some serious allegations in this programme seem to be backed up by documentary evidence," said Murray.
"And I really feel that there has to be an investigation as a matter of urgency by the regulatory bodies."


If the Ticketus allegation is true, the waste matter will well and truly contact the air conditioning Image
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 8833
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The dry again leafy lanes of Surrey

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Antwerp_Lad on Thu May 24, 2012 5:02 pm

I think Duff and Phelps have been seen as grossly incompetent, but that's it.

David Grier though is up to his neck in the proverbial stuff.

Surely if there is such evidence HMRC would have petitioned for their removal a long, long time ago ?

And if they don't do it now they never will.

Removing the administrators now means the end of Rangers, there will be no more money, no time for the process to start all over, no CVA, no NewCo,...

I say: Let them do the CVA (Or at least attempt it), if it works out or not get Rangers back on track (Be it NewCo, Div3,...) and then investigate them.
User avatar
Antwerp_Lad
 
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Cork.

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby evomutant on Thu May 24, 2012 5:15 pm

That email is pure bovine excreta. Though surely by including the terms "replaces previous offers" they are acknowledging that that offer existed and is meanigful in a legal sense?

Also, on an OT note, when did the club start using that wanky Pardew era "Moore than a football club" line again?
User avatar
evomutant
 
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:33 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby DaveWHU1964 on Thu May 24, 2012 5:22 pm

Sorry Antwerp, but to only describe the administrators as 'grossly incompetent' when one of their partners was actively involved in the key Ticketus deal is being charitable in the extreme. If it's true that £47,000,000 went into these alternative contracts then that gave Rangers a significant advantage between 2001 and 2010. That was certainly the intention, otherwise why do it?

And it worked for Rangers at the time. During that period there were years when either Celtic or Rangers comfortably won the league. However on occasions during that time Rangers won on goal difference and by a single point. Other times they won it by margins of four and six points. Let's be charitable and ignore those last two titles but there can be little doubt that those secondary contracts were the deciding factor in at least those other two title races (2002-3 and 2004-5) as Rangers were able to field key players in tight title races that otherwise they could not have afforded.

I don't like re-writing footballing histories and am not keen on taking titles away, but those two titles at least are utterly tainted and meaningless now.
User avatar
DaveWHU1964
 
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:14 am

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Thu May 24, 2012 7:37 pm

Dave

From the Rangers Tax Case blog site:

The law firm of Harper McLeod have been hired by the SPL to investigate if a prima facie case against Rangers on the dual contract issue exists. Let me help Harper McLeod out a little.

On 28 July 2001, Rangers played Aberdeen at Pittodrie. Rangers won the game 3-0. Making his league debut that day was a German who would later go on to become General Manager of Bayern Munich, Christian Nerlinger. He also scored one of the goals. That game against Aberdeen marked the first game where the EBT scheme that is the subject of the ‘Big Tax Case’ interfered with the Scottish Premier League.

Harper McLeod should take a look at Nerlinger’s contract filed with the SFA. Next they should obtain Nerlinger’s contract documents and payment history from Rangers FC (IA)’s administrators. Comparing the contract to the payment history alone will expose payments of well in excess of £1 million that are not listed on his SFA-registered contract. There is your prima facie case, Mr. Doncaster. There is no need to investigate any further to demonstrate that Rangers have a case to answer and that an independent inquiry is required.


So back as far as 2001 things were in place for them to win "tainted titles."
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby prophet:marginal on Thu May 24, 2012 7:39 pm

Johnny Byrne's Boots wrote:Image


Image
User avatar
prophet:marginal
 
Posts: 20751
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:54 pm
Location: Miles From Everything

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby York Ham(mer) on Thu May 24, 2012 9:03 pm

Just watching the programme on iPlayer. Barely eight minutes in and it emerges that Rangers took tax advice from a porn star. #youcouldnaemakeitup

David Murray bought Rangers because he wanted to shag Joanna Lumley? #pulltheotherone

Whyte clamed that Prince Albert of Monaco would invest in the club? #duped
User avatar
York Ham(mer)
 
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:15 am
Location: In exile up north

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Antwerp_Lad on Thu May 24, 2012 9:50 pm

DaveWHU1964 wrote:Sorry Antwerp, but to only describe the administrators as 'grossly incompetent' when one of their partners was actively involved in the key Ticketus deal is being charitable in the extreme. If it's true that £47,000,000 went into these alternative contracts then that gave Rangers a significant advantage between 2001 and 2010. That was certainly the intention, otherwise why do it?

And it worked for Rangers at the time. During that period there were years when either Celtic or Rangers comfortably won the league. However on occasions during that time Rangers won on goal difference and by a single point. Other times they won it by margins of four and six points. Let's be charitable and ignore those last two titles but there can be little doubt that those secondary contracts were the deciding factor in at least those other two title races (2002-3 and 2004-5) as Rangers were able to field key players in tight title races that otherwise they could not have afforded.

I don't like re-writing footballing histories and am not keen on taking titles away, but those two titles at least are utterly tainted and meaningless now.


They still paid them the same money, right ?
HMRC just got left out of a huge amount of tax.

Pedantics, I know, but I'm just getting fed up with this 'They fielded players they otherwise couldn't afford' myth.
They could pay them, they just chose to apply a scheme that would mean they had to pay less tax on the money paid.

As for the administrators: It was David Grier who was involved in the Ticketus deal, he was (at that time) not with Duff and Phelps, but with MCR (who were later taken over by D&P).

I would agree that the administrators have to be investigated, but if HMRC in the past had any doubt about their credibility or impartiality they surely would have stepped in ?
And they're still silent, so is the court that appointed them.

The Ticketus deal is done btw, it's over, Ticketus have agreed to cancel the deal and chase Whyte personally for their money, so that's off the table.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18119318" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Antwerp_Lad
 
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Cork.

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby DaveWHU1964 on Thu May 24, 2012 10:17 pm

Antwerp,

But that's the point. The tax case is ongoing but if it's found that Rangers didn't pay HMRC what they owed then they have had shedloads of additional money to fork out on wages, fees etc. If it is found that happened then that means they have sought and gained an unfair competitive advantage. If they had had the money to bring in these players, pay them good wages and also pay HMRC what they were due then why apparently haven't they? If, and I know at this stage it still is only an if, they did this over the course of a decade then they have their name carved on trophies that wouldn't have been theirs otherwise.

I don't wish ill on any club but any club, West Ham included, should pay the consequences if (that word again) they have benefitted by cheating.
User avatar
DaveWHU1964
 
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:14 am

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Antwerp_Lad on Thu May 24, 2012 10:20 pm

And no doubt Rangers will pay the consequences, but there is no precedent for stripping titles.
User avatar
Antwerp_Lad
 
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Cork.

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Cuenca 'ammer on Thu May 24, 2012 10:31 pm

Antwerp

No, not really. They could only afford them by paying them loans which didn't require re-paying. In effect then, as pointed out, IF they would have paid the taxes they couldn't effectively have afforded them.

You're not being pedantic, just (I think) a little bit wrong.

Sources close to Ticketus described the apparent move to terminate the contract as "a formality" as it was already being treated as a creditor in a CVA, which implied the ticket deal would no longer stand.



They're a creditor which also means they'll get naff all. However, according to what has been posted on here, as being owed a large amount of money, could they block a CVA and force liquidation ? I get so confused by all of this, so it seems they are trying to recover all that they can as a creditor but also chasing Whyte for a repayment ? Good luck to that.
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
 
Posts: 22995
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Antwerp_Lad on Thu May 24, 2012 10:35 pm

They could very well block a CVA (not on their own though), but have already stated they won't.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol ... Whyte.html

Yeah yeah, The Sun, I know ;)
User avatar
Antwerp_Lad
 
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Cork.

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby York Ham(mer) on Thu May 24, 2012 11:12 pm

Excellent documentary. Seems clear that EBTs were inappropriately used in both tax law and SPL rules. And that Duff and Duffer are compromised.
User avatar
York Ham(mer)
 
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:15 am
Location: In exile up north

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby York Ham(mer) on Fri May 25, 2012 12:00 am

So what's coming up next?

30 May: SPL clubs vote on sanctions on clubs in insolvency events (newcos) - bet they put it off again.

1 June: All those players who took a 75 per cent cut from their salaries revert back to full pay - Rangers will likely be trading insolvently at that point (if they're not already!).

8 June?: Creditors meeting where they vote on a CVA. Was to be on the 6 June but two weeks notice is needed and this hasn't happened yet.

Undetermined: the 'big tax case' in which Rangers are appealing HMRC tax assessment relating to EBT.

Undetermined: the SPL investigation into undeclared 'contracts. The SPL has apparently set Duff and Duffer a deadline for providing documents with the threat of sanctions if they do not.
User avatar
York Ham(mer)
 
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:15 am
Location: In exile up north

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Fri May 25, 2012 12:09 am

Can there be a meaningful vote on a CVA until after the Tax Case has been determined?
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 8833
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The dry again leafy lanes of Surrey

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby jamesie on Fri May 25, 2012 12:24 am

York Ham(mer) wrote:Just watching the programme on iPlayer. Barely eight minutes in and it emerges that Rangers took tax advice from a porn star. #youcouldnaemakeitup

David Murray bought Rangers because he wanted to shag Joanna Lumley? #pulltheotherone

Whyte clamed that Prince Albert of Monaco would invest in the club? #duped



:cry:
User avatar
jamesie
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:44 am
Location: Brussels

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Wembley1966 on Fri May 25, 2012 8:17 am

Antwerp_Lad wrote:And no doubt Rangers will pay the consequences, but there is no precedent for stripping titles.

But there's precedent for fielding players who registration is not in order - any match that has an illegible player is classified as a 0 - 3 defeat for that team.
Wembley1966
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:48 pm

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby York Ham(mer) on Fri May 25, 2012 9:58 am

What Rangers are alleged to have done is unprecedented. It would be the biggest scandal in British sporting history. Any sanctions would likely be unprecedented too. But let's not go too fast, the SPL has not come to a judgement yet.
User avatar
York Ham(mer)
 
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:15 am
Location: In exile up north

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby York Ham(mer) on Mon May 28, 2012 9:33 pm

Duff and Phelps say that the CVA proposals are to be published tomorrow and the creditors' meeting is to take place Thursday June 14. Need a sweepstake on how many pence to the £ will be offered.
User avatar
York Ham(mer)
 
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:15 am
Location: In exile up north

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby York Ham(mer) on Mon May 28, 2012 10:00 pm

Revised timeline:

Tomorrow 29 May: Legal challenge against the Scottish Football Association’s 12-month transfer ban due to continue in the Court of Session.

30 May: SPL clubs vote on sanctions on clubs in insolvency events (newcos).

1 June: All those players who took a 75 per cent cut from their salaries revert back to full pay.

14 June: Creditors meeting where they vote on a CVA.

15 June: extended deadline for D&P to "provide certain documents required by the SPL financial disclosure requirements", i.e. audited accounts

Undetermined: the 'big tax case' in which Rangers are appealing a HMRC tax assessment relating to EBT.

Undetermined: the SPL investigation into undeclared 'contracts'. The SPL has apparently set Duff and Duffer a deadline for providing documents with the threat of sanctions if they do not.
User avatar
York Ham(mer)
 
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:15 am
Location: In exile up north

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 61dicksey, AChicagoHammer, alpine hammer, Antwerp_Lad, Austin 'Ammer, bigbiglove2, bspur1, Captain Slaphead, DMC, DoubleDave, Geordie Hammer, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Hawaiian hammer, hermolt, Honkypig, inter me nan, jamesb84, JCHAMMER, jjwred7, jon253, kippaxcockney, kosherhammer, LeonRivers, mightyhammer, MilHammer, MK3 HAMMER, Morocco Mole, Norwich Iron, Odessa, PabloSanDiego, Paddy O'Hammer, Philosophical Dan, pigiron, Rodney Morash, sion, Sir_Trevor, southbrishammer, StoneHammer, Ticket 2 Ryde, Tristan Shout, unmartillo, warp, water, Wembley1966, westhamburgerking, westhamirish, wewe100, WorcesterWHU, 'Appy 'Ammer and 302 guests