Jump to content

 

 

D'Artagnan

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,590

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by D'Artagnan

  1. D'Artagnan
    “We can’t speak for Mike Ashley. SD has a football priority going forward and affiliation with 5 different clubs: Oldham, Sheffield Wednesday, Portsmouth, Newcastle and Rangers (was this correct?). Their model is taking over as many retail operations in football clubs and putting them ‘into the SD machine’ for ongoing retail revenues. I believe they can help Rangers sell more shirts overseas than we could ever have done on our own.” (Derek Llambias : Rangers Fan Board Meeting Q & A Wednesday 11.02.2015) The latest Rangers Fans Board Minutes have caused a particular furore, most notably Mr. Llambias’ opening comments where he savaged the Fans Board for their previous conduct and emphatically laid down the “Llambias Law” for the future. Which is quite peculiar considering he was entirely responsible for the previous failings – having provided the fans board with the wrong date for the EGM, and given them permission to go public with that date, Mr Llambias was “too busy” to make the effort to contact them in order to alert them to his previous mistake. It was the ultimate act of contempt towards a group of bears, giving of their own time, freely, to improve things for both club and support. Mr Llambias won’t need repeat his previous warnings to Newcastle fans – we not only understand but can see for ourselves “Just how fecking horrible” he can be. It’s a pity much of the focus and debate from aforesaid minutes centred on the publishing of a “not for minutes” comment by Barry Leach. The real gem is the response from Mr Llambias at the top of this article. It explains much of the motivation and expectation behind Sports Direct growing influence within our club. Rangers FC, “the most successful club in the world”, are now just another addition to the growing portfolio of football clubs acquired by Sports Direct for the purpose of printing money via shirt sales. We are now one of the cogs, along with several other clubs, in the conveyor belt which prints money for the “SD machine”. With no disrespect intended to our fellow “cogs” perhaps we should cherish that title “the most successful club in the world” while we can, I have a suspicion it may not be that enduring under the Sports Direct regime, as none of our fellow “cogs” have a list of trophy honours comparable to ours. If the EGM does not rid our club of the Sports Direct influence, then we had better prepare ourselves for a considerable downsizing in ambition. http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/alan-shearer-launches-blistering-attack-8390806 Contrary to those who would have you believe otherwise, Mike Ashley hasn’t caught “Rangersitis” nor has our beloved club managed to reveal a previously hidden altruistic side to his nature, his taking on the SFA over the ownership wrangle is not motivated by an inner desire to restore Rangers to former glory, it is quite simply to make money. And making money is something Mike Ashley is particularly good at. There is absolutely nothing wrong in cherishing a hope or a desire that despite his previous very public and less than wholesome business conduct, somehow and for some reason Ashley will treat Rangers differently. Perhaps the employees at USC thought the same. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-powerbroker-mike-ashley-appoints-4943555 Duff and Phelps again – these guys sure get around. Of course the argument persists “that for Ashley to make money Rangers have to be successful”. Would any of you class Oldham, Sheffield Wednesday etc. as “successful”? Furthermore given the nuts and bolts of the Rangers Retail deal, and its considerable bias towards Sports Direct, the requirements of that margin of success is not such a necessity as some would have you believe. Yes they need to sell shirts to make money – but they do that already with clubs whose ambition, expectations and success benchmarks are a lot less than what we have at Rangers. The evidence is there staring you right in the face in the form of actions, statements and previous history. I’m convinced the “SD machine” and its visions and expectations for our cub are entirely different from that which we as Rangers supporters harbour. On the 4th March do the decent thing for our club and “rage against the machine”.
  2. D'Artagnan
    Well we are all entitled to our opinions Anchorman. I think he, like all others vying for control of our club, had up to the recent interview been woefully short in spelling out his plans for the club to fans.
  3. D'Artagnan
    Perhaps he has at long last listened to some "coal face" advice.
  4. D'Artagnan
    Im glad you unbeievers still revel in the biblical characters Andrew - it has opened the oportunity for me to raise something which will probably result in pelters coming my way. Totally aside from the boardroom power struggle - is there any others out there concerned about the lack of ethical sporting standards in this proposed deal ?
  5. D'Artagnan
    I think you will be right. Even before the referendum he was getting pelters from fans of both the Dundee clubs for his clear bias towards Celtic and his failure to speak out against them and continually defend the unacceptable. His case wasnt helped when a person, who shall remain nameless, revealed his staffing costs in the comments section of one of the Dundee papers - staffing costs which reveal this back bench MP claims more than even his own party leader, who of course happens to be the leader of the opposition.
  6. D'Artagnan
    I do - its just disappointing that they are ignored hence why the warnings you refer to are, as you say, frequent. But there was another issue underlying all this which has been cleared up via PM
  7. D'Artagnan
    Its worse than that then RPB - my Labour MP is Jim McGovern. You might recognise the name.... http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/913
  8. D'Artagnan
    Private me on twitter or here if you like
  9. D'Artagnan
    I think you will find SBA that some of us have defended him - please feel free to confirm with him. Furthermore you may not realise it - but thats exactly what Im doing here
  10. D'Artagnan
    Firstly I have private messgaed the moderator concerned regarding the reasons for such concern & implications. Secondly if you cannot see the potential minefield for FS in this - then thats disappointing.
  11. D'Artagnan
    Really ? Perhaps you should check a little harder then SB - go and have a search on RM for the thread I started re the unacceptable abuse of Mark DIngwall. When you find it you can tender your apology at your leisure. Or have a litte listen in the Rangerschat archives where I raised the issues of criticism of bears who are not present and thus unable to defend themselves from such critcism. Furthermore this used to be a forum which raised itself above such unedifying conduct. Sadly that is not the case now.
  12. D'Artagnan
    RPB The constituents of those MSP's are still subject to the rulings/workings and authority of HMRC. If there are serious questions being asked of that organisation is it not their duty to raise such concerns in the Scottish parliament ?
  13. D'Artagnan
    And you dont see the potential of some of this either ? Tell you what - never mind
  14. D'Artagnan
    Well Andrew a similar line of argument was proposed by some of the author's In Born Under a Union Flag. Perhaps had there been a more vociferous criticism, a genuine desire by Holyrood MP's to get some answers, particularly from HMRC, then your argument would have some merit. As it stands to date - while Westminster MP's at leats conducted some kind of enquiry http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18706453 Holyrood appears to have done nothing.
  15. D'Artagnan
    Bluedell I should not need to "justify" to you, as a moderator, posts which clearly go way beyond any justifiable criticism of process and into the terrority of character assassination of fellow Rangers supporters in the absence of supporting evidence.
  16. D'Artagnan
    Well said FS. STB is absolutely right, there is some considerable nonsense being posted on here, clearly from a position of ignorance and assumption. Furthermore the framing of some of the questions have put FS in a particularly difficult position. Some should think before they commit their intolerant views of other Bears into a public domain.
  17. D'Artagnan
    Id love to see the actual wording of the indictment aganst those subsequently arrested.
  18. D'Artagnan
    Well it depends what you mean by "The club in its present form is finished" Do I think it will go under if Ashley somehow survives the AGM ? No I dont - I think we will see him secure further assets and rights in return for loans until they set up a similar model to that which exists at Newcastle. That will not be of benefit for our club in the long term in my opinion and as at Newcastle we will be indebted to Ashley until he decides to call it a day and sell up at profit
  19. D'Artagnan
    I never asked you to agree with all of it or any of it for that matter, I dont think its a matter of "pride" to express disappointment at King's strategy , more a matter of consistency. Im not asking him to "come and save" us - that ship sailed long ago as Ive alluded to in the blog. What Im suggesting is that in my opinion he is the best on offer on what has become a particularly diminished choice of options. PS even putting FINALLY in capital letters does not alter the fact that the penny dropped quite some considerable time ago.
  20. D'Artagnan
    To be honest bud I think within the bigger picture its pretty immaterial. There was sufficient debt within the non payment of PAYE & VAT to allow them to exercise their power of veto
  21. D'Artagnan
    This link here Rab suggests that was not the case http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/new...kets-by-gbp73m The STV one contradicts it. Thats why I spoke of the confusion - some of which is clearly genuine, while other parts are clear misdirection
  22. D'Artagnan
    Im not convinced of that Rab - as I point out there are two sources of info on this which appear to contradict each other as to whether HMRC were primary or secondary creditor
  23. D'Artagnan
    FOREWORD: The author would like to thank the author of The Football Tax Havens Blog for the provision of some of the information used in this article. There is one thing I can say with some certainty regarding the HMRC enquiry into Rangers Football Club and that is that it has left a legacy of confusion, contradiction, misdirection ( some of which may either be deliberate or as a consequence of gross negligence) and of course, last but not least, accusation. The fact that some of the key players involved in the whole process now face criminal prosecution should confirm, for even the casual onlooker, that all has not been above board. Allow me to illustrate courtesy of these two links, which contain contradictory information, but nonetheless, were written in good faith by the respective authors. http://sport.stv.tv/blog/203241-rang...ions-answered/ http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/new...kets-by-gbp73m The former link written by Mike Farrell for STV attributes HMRC as the largest single creditor at the time of rejection of the CVA whilst the second link written by Rachael Singh for AccountancyAge suggests at the time HMRC vetoed the proposed the CVA they were in fact the second largest single creditor. What we do know is that at some point Duff & Phelps added the outstanding potential estimated liability regarding EBT’s to the overall bill due to HMRC. A potential bill which never came to fruition due to the rulings of various Tax Tribunals in favour of Rangers. What is both concerning and alarming is that such “confusion” appears to extend to high level executives within HMRC itself as this Public Accounts Committee Q & A demonstrates. http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevi...ral/11443.html In question 54/55, tendered by Anne McGuire MP, Mr Jim Harra – Director General Business Tax HMRC, moves to correct Ms McGuire regarding her apparent “misapprehension” by responding as follows: “It has been in the media. This dispute on employee benefit trusts was not the reason why Rangers went into liquidation. It was for non-payment of their standard pay-as-you-earn and VAT obligations.” No Mr Harra that is not entirely accurate either. That is the reason that Rangers went into administration. The reason Rangers went into liquidation is because, as either the primary or secondary creditor, HMRC the organisation you represent, vetoed the proposal for a CVA. It is really asking too much of HMRC officials, particularly high ranking ones to provide accurate information in response to questions from Members of Parliament who sit on a Public Accounts Committee? Furthermore, just to add some added spice to this bubbling pot of confusion and accusation, the reasons for such refusal are themselves subject to considerable speculation. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/q...0639n.24716091 http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...probe.24725771 In the questions aforementioned Ms McGuire also raises the subject of pre-litigation settlement. It is perhaps worth highlighting at this point that Rangers were not the first football club to fall foul of HMRC. In 2005 during Ray Parlour’s divorce proceedings it was revealed that during season 2000/01 Parlour paid tax at a rate of only 22% courtesy of an off shore benefit trust operated by Arsenal. HMRC reacted to this information billing Arsenal for £12 million which they settled in full. While the differing circumstances of each case make a side by side comparison impractical, it does raise the question of why HMRC waited 5 years to pursue Rangers in respect of an EBT payment scheme previously declared in annual accounts) Returning to the subject of settlement Mr Harra responds: “In terms of when we decide to litigate, we have a published litigation and settlements strategy that states we will settle only for what we believe we are due under the law. If we believe that we have a greater than evens chance of getting more by litigating than what we can get by settling, generally speaking that is what we will do: we will litigate. We are proud of the success record that we have in litigation. In avoidance cases, we win about 80% of all the cases that we litigate, but that does mean we are not successful in 20% of them. We are disappointed by the upper-tier tribunal decision in the Rangers case. It is still something that can be the subject of appeal, so I cannot go into too much detail about the litigation itself, but, as I said, we have a very good track record and we may not have reached the end of the line on this one.” Of course such litigation is at public taxpayer’s expense. Perhaps Ms McGuire would care to ask HMRC at the next Q & A why a government agency whose remit is to bring people to account for failing to keep meticulous financial records, cannot themselves keep accurate records with regard to their own operating costs. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...-case.26228807 So in summary we have HMRC continuing to pursue Rangers FC (Oldco) at public expense, having refused an offer of an earlier settlement, in the belief they will be “getting more by litigating than we can by settling” despite the fact HMRC themselves forced the company they are pursuing into liquidation. Perhaps Ms McGuire would care to ask what financial settlement HMRC hope to achieve from a liquidated company. The more you add up the sums the less it makes logical or financial sense, in fact it only serves to add credibility to the accusation that HMRC’s rejection of a CVA was to ensure an investigation into Rangers directors and owners. If the circumstances aforesaid have caused you to utter the words “scandalous” then you may want to re-think your choice of words. In the Rangers Tax Case HMRC considered that the appointment of EBT funds on to a sub-fund or sub-trust for the benefit of a particular employee and/or their family gave rise to a PAYE charge. HMRC were also of the opinion that loans provided from these sub-funds were not loans, but were akin to a bonus available without any chance of repayment and, therefore, again subject to PAYE. What lifts this above even “scandalous” is such arguments have been challenged unsuccessfully before in the cases of Dextra Accessories ([2005] STC 1111) and Sempra Metals ([2007] STC 1559), yet HMRC continue to put forward this argument, at the tax payers expense of course Sometimes “scandalous” is just not enough.
  24. D'Artagnan
    I put this out yesterday CB via twitter and directed it to Anne McGuire MP - the same individual asking the pertinent questions It is only part of a package of information I received from a "mutual friend" of all of us. Certain parts of the information require further investigation and research before I commit my findings to blog. I can categorically say that the latest information will further add to the catalogue of inconcistency and mis-direction which HMRC stand accused of.
  25. D'Artagnan
    If my words appear on an SNP or Scottish Socialist brochure Andrew... ;-))
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.