Jump to content

 

 

boabie

  • Posts

    3,928
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by boabie

  1. LNS verdict: "Rangers FC is now owned and operated by Newco, which bears no responsibility for the matters for which we are concerned"

    LNS verdict: "in these circumstances the financial penalty lies only upon Oldco and does not affect Rangers FC under its new ownership"

     

    My understanding is the excuse used for the fine at subject is, Rangers broke the articles of association and were fined for that. Not for what LNS was looking at - even though it amounted to the same thing.

  2. Aha, this clears the matter up. flagge.gif

     

    And here was me thinking this was already dealt with. But maybe the club will put out a statement and clears this up.

     

    Am I right with the assumption that should this money being paid, the SPL/SPFL accept that we are the same club de jure too?

     

    The SPL/SPFL/SFA are waiting to see how the big tax case appeal goes. I have no doubt title stripping will be back on the menu should we lose.

  3. This article from the time shows how these snakes operate. -

     

    " Green is angry that his newco Rangers were required to settle football debts by the SFA but did not get £240,000 from Uefa for player participation at Euro 2012.

    Green signed a five-way agreement in order to secure Rangers' SFA membership, accepting the SFA and some SPL conditions. But he interpreted Nimmo Smith's report as evidence supporting his own view that Rangers should have remained as an SPL club and not been subjected to a vote to reapply for membership, which was unsuccessful.

    "Lord Nimmo Smith has said that Rangers FC is a recognisable entity which continued in existence notwithstanding the change in ownership," said Green.

    "He also stated that Rangers FC, the club, includes its owner and operator. The Commission has, in effect, ruled that Rangers and its history did not die on 14 June despite reports to the contrary. This means that Rangers FC and its owner, ie me and my consortium, remained a member of the SPL even after the change of ownership.

    "The bemusing part is that no-one at the SPL or SFA appeared to realise that. The SPL made the club [including its owner and operator] reapply to be a member of a league that the Commission says it was in already. If the Commission is right then the change of ownership was frankly irrelevant to SPL status. Nevertheless, we duly applied and that application was rejected."

    Green said the SFA told him Rangers Football Club had "never in its long existence" been a member of the governing body, despite the club having a framed and mounted certificate of membership signed by former SFA secretary Jim Farry.

     

    "So taking the Commission's reasoning and our newly-acquired framed membership certificate, you would have thought, not unreasonably, that Rangers FC and its owners were in the Scottish football family. You would have thought Wrong. No, we were told. We needed to apply for oldco's membership!

    "That recognisable entity, Rangers FC then reappeared suddenly when the SFA demanded that we pay oldco's debts despite there being no legal obligation to do so. The SPL then wanted Rangers FC and its new owners to admit guilt in relation toover EBT breaches that had never been framed and accept five stripped titles.

    "Rangers FC suddenly vanished again when UEFA informed the SFA that Rangers FC were due in excess of €300,000 [around £240,000] for player participation in the Euro 2012 qualifiers, the SFA have refused to confirm that the monies are due to Rangers FC despite obligations placed on them from UEFA that these monies should be distributed to member clubs.

    "If the Commission is correct about this recog- nisable entity, then the SPL and SFA must be wrong in making that entity apply to join bodies it was already in.

    "In our view, the Commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith has been placed in an invidious position by the SPL. The establishment of the Commission is the most striking example of the chaotic way the fate of Rangers has been handled by the football authorities.

    "We believe that most people would not think it right that a football authority that was willing to horse-trade league titles and cups for league status, should then embark on the course of action it has chosen in setting up a Commission. There is no clearer case of moving the goalposts."

     

    The SFA declined to comment on Green's statement last night. No-one was available from the SPL. "

  4. " Rangers Sign A Player Who Broke Celtic Top Scorer’s Record; Good Deal?

     

    Rangers have taken Livingston teenager Matthew Knox on a trial, according to The Daily Record. The 16-year-old striker is very highly-rated and Rangers did well to hand him a trial. Knox boasts the record for Livingston’s youngest ever player when he featured against St Mirren last year on the Boxing Day. The youngster just turned sixteen four days before his professional debut. He helped his team clinching a 4-1 win against St Mirren.

    The wonderkid trained with the first team of the Gers ahead of their Scottish Championship game against Queen of the South at Ibrox on Saturday. The highly rated youngster has blistering pace and jaw-dropping technique. With terrific vision, the promising forward can find his teammates in a tight area. For a kid who is just 16, Knox is matured and composed on the ball. "

     

    http://the4thofficial.net/2016/03/rangers-sign-a-player-who-broke-celtic-top-scorers-record-good-deal/?

  5. " Former England footballer Adam Johnson was arrested on suspicion of possessing animal pornography on his laptop, it can be revealed.

     

    Reporting restrictions have been lifted on allegations about the ex-Sunderland star’s perverted behaviour after he was jailed for six years for engaging in sexual activity with a besotted 15-year-old fan.

     

    He was also taking medication used to treat sexually-transmitted infections at the time of his arrest last year.

     

    Durham Police confirmed he has now been released from his bail in relation to the pornography and no further action will be taken.

     

    It has also been reported that Johnson, 28, had allegedly browsed a website called “Nice Young Teens”, which featured explicit but not unlawful images. "

     

     

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/adam-johnson-footballer-was-arrested-on-suspicion-of-possessing-extreme-animal-pornography-a3211431.html

  6. The sovereignty of Parliament is fine. The tyranny of Parliament is not so good. Ashley makes a good point about "grandstanding". Watch one of the Committee hearings on the telly and you'll see what I mean.

     

    I actually like watching them Scott. I love how they cut people off and go straight to the point demanding factual answers. I only wish parliament was the same itself.

  7. I was watching the Dispatches tv programme last night, available online, which was about Cadbury. The companays CEO was summoned to appear before a parliamentary committee to answer questions about broken promises and job losses. So far she has refused - there didn't seem to be any demands to have her locked up in the Tower.

  8. Is it that much of a stretch BD ?

     

    Remember this is the same group of fans who were allegedly bombarded with all sorts at the last game between the teams at Ibrox. So much so that they Club official confirmed they have made a complaint to Police Scotland, a complaint which later was denied by Police Scotland.

     

    It wouldn't surprise me if they changed the words and used "fenian" with the intent that Morton fans singing would be thought to be Rangers fans singing, which is fairly easily done over the radio waves - and in parochial Scotland we know that a very compliant media would immediately paint us as being bigoted sectarians.

     

    It was only a couple of games ago that the tarred one swore he heard the famine song being sang by our fans.

  9. Statute should be based on common sense in the first place but that is not always the case. The law is the law and you can't have judges making their own version of the law.

     

    As was famously stated , " This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

  10. I realise that butI have yet to hear anyone explain in what way they were not adhered to. They certainly seemed ok at the FTTT & UTTT but only since the three stooges came up with their 'common sense' has there been anything to the contrary.

     

    The three stooges seemed to imply that common sense should take precedence over statute. Fortunately in this country that's not how things work. Imo their decision will get overturned.

  11. Their contract was with Rangers and not Murray so I can't see that there's any way that they could come after him.

     

    There was always the possibility that HMRC could go after those whop benefited, even before yesterday's announcement.

     

    The EBT's were administered via MIH if my memory is not failing me. MIH put money into a trust which then loaned to employees including Rangers staff. I'll stand corrected if wrong BD.

  12. if the EBT's were proved to comply with the law at the time HMRC will get nothing

     

    HMRC are saying that though there was some latitude in the wording of the rules at the time, Murrays companies crossed the line while using the scheme. Murray told them about what he was doing at the time but HMRC retrospectively decided to take action. Their positition is the scheme Rangers used was never at any time "legal". The only way HMRC will get nothing is if the supreme court decide Murray acted appropriately.Even then it looks like the announcement made at the budget yesterday will see the individuals who benefited from the scheme made personally liable for any taxes due. That could lead to them chasing Murray to pay imo.

  13. NB: Isn't it the case that tax etc. is being paid for these cases, they would essentially be dropped? Given that it is ruled upon only now (or then), wouldn't it be able to contest any other fees and penalties involved - as EBTs were legal up to now (or then). So only the "raw" tax has to be paid? Just asking.

     

    My understanding is that HMRC are pushing for the tax, interest and penalties to be paid.

×
×
  • 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.