wabashcannonball

While not a great believer in the Ellis alleged interest, some points of this "article" test my bullshit level. 1) The journo and I use the word lightly, is britney, a person known for exageration over egging and piss poor reporting in general. 2) AJ, Bain and I would hazard the finance director, met with the bank early last week, for whatever reasons. We are now informed in this "article" that WS had a private meeting with said bank after the scheduled directors meeting, I will let you pick the bones out of that one, of course that is if you believe it ever happened. 3) Why did AJ wait till he was safely back in the USA, before giving this "exclusive" to the fannybaws britney. He should have made the statement through the official Rangers website and channels, he is after all our Chairman. 4) Seems very very very strange that NL can allegedly get more out of Ellis than AJ can, just a thought. 5) The times is a stablemate of the scum and the news of the screws. So in general I treat all of britneys pish with the same contempt and large buckets of salt. ETA..... as an afterthought...what about the statement issued by the RSA confirming Ellis had proven funding, a meeting attended by the Rangers hierarchy, were said hierarchy happy to see that statement released to the plebs, us, whilst having major doubts as to its veracity.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NySN_plfiNI]YouTube- Mr T Snickers commercial[/ame] :fish:

Further pails of pish from the evening tims.... http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/420988711?-11344

Now that the source has been tracked down to a manky soapdodger... http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/2010/05/celtic-40-motherwell-spl-1-may.php#comment-595422... surely the club can boot his and his mhank editor's baws up and doon Union street...

Went to a wedding there, the price of the swally is fekin frightening, as bad as a tax bill (query/alleged/bullshit/madeup/invented/*******wished), how the fek anybody can get pished at the prices they charge is beyond me...

Aye these journo's ? certainly have a boner for the Gers....fuk me that is a distant memory, wonder if yon vigra is any good....:spl: ETA..... some folk have no grasp of reality. http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=151375

That will be you off the xmas card list....:fish:

I know what their answer will be Frankie, but at least I will have registered my disgust at the total lack of leadership, how about you and the thousands of others who could make the call also.

Most lucid article yet. Tax move may come back to kick Rangers where it hurts Published on 28 Apr 2010 ANALYSIS: Chris Watt IF it seemed too good to be true, thatââ?¬â?¢s probably because it was. A scheme employed by Rangers to cut wage bills has come back to bite the club where it hurts. Employee remuneration trusts ââ?¬â?? beloved of Premiership sides and City slickers alike ââ?¬â?? have been a stock tactic in the armoury of cost-cutting firms for years. A legal, if controversial, means of shaving costs without hitting players in the pocket, the trusts are a tempting way to make the tax burden disappear from high earnersââ?¬â?¢ pay packets without breaking the rules. Built on a legal tightrope, however, the penalties can be significant for those who fail to toe the line. Arsenal were perhaps the highest-profile casualty when HM Revenue & Customs started taking a closer interest in such dealings six years ago. A House of Lords ruling made clear the legality of such trusts was shaky and the club scrapped its own payment scheme and accepted a quadrupling of its tax bill year-on-year. It is the club that suffers when HMRC makes approaches for cash back, because foreign players are likely to have left the UK when the dust settles, and as such have no duty to pay back anything. Celtic scrapped its own small-scale scheme in 2006 after one year of operation. Nonetheless, such payment options have remained popular with bigger clubs both north and south of the Border. Players at Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs are rumoured to have been remunerated in such a manner, while it is still relatively commonplace in the Premiership. HMRC yesterday refused to confirm or deny whether it was looking into other clubs, saying it would never comment on any business dealings unless court action was approaching. However, Rangers are understood to have paid a total of Ã?£46 million through the employee remuneration trusts between 2001 and 2009, with an input of between Ã?£1m and Ã?£10m each year. Payments peaked at Ã?£9.19m in 2006, but fell to Ã?£4.9m the following year, with further drops to Ã?£2.29m and Ã?£2.36m in 2008 and 2009. This coincides with a period when the club was pursuing wider cuts to its wage bill. It is not known which players benefited. One tax expert said that based on those payments, the bill from HMRC could top Ã?£24m, almost doubling the clubââ?¬â?¢s Ã?£30m debt. The tax revelations come as the club struggles with a grave financial outlook. Some board members fear Lloyds is about to ring-fence incoming season ticket cash from supporters ââ?¬â?? in the region of Ã?£20m ââ?¬â?? to be used to reduce the clubââ?¬â?¢s debt. They are also concerned that most of the Ã?£15m windfall brought in from next termââ?¬â?¢s Uefa Champions League ties will also be taken by the bank as Rangers are forced to work under a crippling business plan. Both of these concerns were dismissed by the club last night. Director Dave King, in a meeting with fans in Johannesburg last week, said he wanted to buy the club. It has been suggested he was prepared to offer Ã?£18m to Lloyds and Ã?£1 to Sir David Murray for his shareholding. It is understood Mr King will not return to the table until the bank agrees to take on the warranties over this tax probe. The SPL champions ââ?¬â?? who retained their title on Sunday ââ?¬â?? were told last October that administration could be an option. The Heraldââ?¬â?¢s sister paper, the Evening Times, revealed there was only a 5-4 boardroom vote to accept the Lloyds business plan. It has been overseen by controversial turnaround specialist Donald Muir, who joined the board at that time. Some prominent figures at Ibrox believe the recent bid made by London-based property developer Andrew Ellis to take over the club is ââ?¬Å?dead in the waterââ?¬Â. A spokesman for Rangers said: ââ?¬Å?The club can confirm that there is an ongoing query raised by HMRC, which is part of a pending court case. ââ?¬Å?On the basis of expert tax advice provided to Rangers, the club is robustly defending the matters raised. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment further at this stage. ââ?¬Å?There is endless speculation about the future of the club, much of it ill-informed. It is to no-oneââ?¬â?¢s benefit to comment on every speculative opinion.ââ?¬Â However , an insider within the club described it as the ââ?¬Å?ultimate poison pillââ?¬Â at Ibrox, adding: ââ?¬Å?The bill for this, when HMRC completes its investigations, could be double figures in the millions. ââ?¬Å?No-one knows the exact figure, but who is going to buy the club unless someone agrees to pick up that bill? ââ?¬Å?There are people who want to buy Rangers, but not under the current conditions. ââ?¬Å?The business plan expected will see no investment in new players. The club is about to be squeezed even further.ââ?¬Â Thin blue line Q. What exactly have Rangers done? A. The club have been paying some players in part through an employee remuneration trust. Instead of incurring hefty income tax and National Insurance (NI) bills, Rangers have paid the money into an offshore account. This is then ââ?¬Å?loanedââ?¬Â to players at a low interest rate, currently 4.75%, with no expectation of players repaying it. Q. Why would they do this? A. Players often negotiate wage deals based on take-home pay, rather than pre-tax income. Using trusts allows the club to afford better players. Q. Is this legal? A. Yes, although it is a matter of opinion. HM Revenue & Customs has pursued cases against firms that do it, claiming they are breaking the law. Either a negotiated settlement is reached or the case becomes bogged down in court with both sides arguing the toss. It is very common, with big City firms and larger sports teams across the UK adopting the practice. Q. How much money would be involved? A. About Ã?£46 million at Rangers, according to figures obtained by The Herald. The tax man could potentially try to get back all the PAYE tax and NI contributions that would be due on this balance; assuming all the players were on the top rate of tax, this would be roughly Ã?£24.3m, effectively doubling Rangersââ?¬â?¢ debt. Q. Which players could be involved? A. Neither Rangers nor HMRC will comment on this. After accountantsââ?¬â?¢ fees are taken into account, however, it would only make sense to pay top earners in this way ââ?¬â?? players on at least Ã?£6,000 a week would be the most likely candidates. And since the fund has been running since 2001, this could mean any number of Rangersââ?¬â?¢ biggest names from the past decade, including (above left to right): Fernando Ricksen, Peter Lovenkrands, Ronald De Boer, Dado Prso and Pedro Mendes. Q. Shouldnââ?¬â?¢t it be the players who pay the money back? A. Some would argue so, but for foreign players, at least, any such attempts would be easy to avoid, simply by leaving the UK. Q. And why could this make Rangers ââ?¬Å?unsellableââ?¬Â? A. Given the potential for a Ã?£24m can of worms to open up a year or two down the line, any buyer will be cautious about making a bid. If thereââ?¬â?¢s any danger, it is going to rule out all but the most foolhardy of investors. Dispute could end up in Lords or Supreme Court COMMENT: Mark Houston This type of tax planning is widely used by Premiership clubs, because thereââ?¬â?¢s a high concentration of high-net-worth individuals on their payrolls. Thereââ?¬â?¢s nothing illegal about it, but the Revenueââ?¬â?¢s position is that it doesnââ?¬â?¢t work and it sees it as aggressive, because it believes it has legislation that counters this. Tax planners disagree and feel the legislation allows this type of planning. Rangers have clearly taken advice and appealed. There are upwards of 3,000 schemes under scrutiny in the UK, and in the recent Budget, HMCR announced steps to stop this planning with effect from April 2011. I understand that it is used at a number of clubs down south, and there have been stories about Wayne Rooney, for instance, using it. It appears to be routine. The HMRC has been pursuing a lot of cases, and thereââ?¬â?¢s a bit of a log-jam. If there isnââ?¬â?¢t a negotiated settlement, this may end up in a courtroom down the line. I think whoever was looking to buy Rangers would definitely look closely at the potential tax liability that may be there and may seek to be indemnified by the vendor for this liability. Mark Houston is a tax specialist at Johnston Carmichael. PS where do the "agents" fit into this ?

Why.........it is the club that is being traduced on a daily basis.

Whither I know it to be nonsense or think it to be nonsense is of little consequence in the grand scheme of things, the name of the club is being dragged through the mud by every fekin low life journo with a pencil. I was taught to defend myself and that dear to me from an early age, if the club wont defend itself we are going to have to do it for them.

I called for a club statement as to the state of play regards the takeover, alleged or otherwise and was told that the club had said all they could, plus were hamstrung by takeover rules. However it seems every source in the land from Ellis to redtop rags can say what they like with impunity, on matters relating to the alleged take over. It is good to see that other sites are now calling for a club statement after the nonsense printed in the last 24 hours, this will only be achieved by concerted pressure, for my part I will be on the blower at 9 o'clock to the Rangers press office asking for that clarity, as I said before thousands of calls sending their switchboard into meltdown might get the message across to the club.............. or is there a reason why the club directors appear unwilling to fight our corner ?

Just to add more negativity to the pot the SS hits us with.... http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/rangersfc/Tom-English-39Some--consider.6297764.jp.... although I think there is simple truth in that article. Grandson no.1 laughed at his auld granda last night...he of HMRC, reiterating the tax bollox was exactly that bollox, he tells me again that the subbie is liable for any shortfall under the terms of the sort of gadget Rangers get the subbie (player) to sign up to, fuk knows life is complicated enough wi' oot having to need a degree in financial skulduggery to support your team....:spl: Same publisher different view. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article7127776.ece

When is someone going to call time on these fukers.

Dear me deleted threads again...Pravda is alive and well......however I digress.......I have just had it confirmed from an impeccable source that there was no meeting yesterday. We are not surprised are we.

What meeting, has Watties future been decided, only a matter of hours to go until the 48 hour deadline. :spl:

I get it, Murray is just being Murray, moonbeams and shareholdings come alike, so despite him claiming to be and being registered as the clubs major shareholder, it is just more smoke and mirrors, now why didn't I think of that...

Minty owns 91% of Rangers shares as per article by admin on this board. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=177:the-rangers-agm-the-more-people-talk-the-less-they-say&catid=1:articles&Itemid=67

That's the trouble rbr, Murray thinks he owns everything, probably because he said on the Club website that he does, aka the majority shareholder. http://www.rangers.co.uk/articles/20090826/murray-ends-glorious-reign_2254024_1769606

That Minty, can you believe a word he says, even when he plasters it all over his pet newspapers... ââ?¬Å?Rangers is a stand-alone company and there are no cross-guarantees tying them to the Murray Groupââ?¬â?¢s finances.ââ?¬Â....here's me thinking it was Murray who owned Rangers and wasn't attempting to punt the club in any serious manner. Where would we be without the experts,

OK. point taken, but my whole contention is with the very first sentence of the assembly statement, a statement from a meeting that AJ, Muir and Bain were allegedly present at, AJ either believes the statement regarding Ellis's funding or he doesn't, Muir can either confirm it as true or he can't, I really do not see why we the fans are being kept in the dark, as to the veracity of this funding statement. I have heard in a few watering holes in Partick, that funding was not confirmed at the meeting and as we all know Partick is a village on the banks of the Clyde. For my own part I do not believe the club will confirm Ellis funding, for when it fails to materialise what then, also if the funds are in escrow and Murray wants the Ellis deal, why hasn't it been done ? So for the sake of clarity and peoples sanity, it is time for the club to enlighten us, or do the club see us the same way as mushrooms.

You are obviously another who needs to read the assembly statement. You really should refrain from putting words into posters mouths, a trait which you seem to posess in abundance, you will of course show me where I said anything about AJ should know.

If anyone is talking crap it is you , the meeting was about Rangers the statement was about funding being "proved" to purchase the buying of Rangers, why do you bring MIH into it, after all Rangers is a stand alone company, Minty told us so,....you sure you're an expert....

Thanks Frankie, my point to a greater extent, is that information is being fed through sources beholden to Murray's favour, will it ever change.

I do believe you are prevaricating....