Club statement

[BrahimHemdani 1]

While again I agree with you, I find it hard to see where they would stand in some of the fights for compensation or whatever. They can't show loss for some of the stuff that happened to the Oldco or that the Newco is deserving of anything - and in fact the board of the Newco rather than having loss have actually gained from a lot of what happened, much of it scandalously so.

 

In simple terms I can imagine them complaining to say HMRC and being told, "What's it got to do with you?"

 

The problem with the separating of club and company to preserve our history is that it also muddies the waters for this kind of stuff. The new company has no concrete grounds for complaint against HMRC, while the club and fans do.

 

I still agree with your point that the terms of the 5 way agreement should be vigorously appealed against as they were forced upon us under duress and this would now look incredibly onerous in a court of law without the ill judged, perceived justification of tax evasion and competitive advantage.

 

I believe we are owed transfer money, prize money and a far larger slice of the TV money. The illegal transfer ban now also looks totally inappropriate but playing devils advocate, it hasn't made a great impact in our promotion back to the top, and it gave the board and excuse to save money without flack from the fans. Perhaps it could be argued that we had to sign in haste which meant we overpaid some players and are due compensation there.

 

I think our biggest problem in any demands is the non-payment of tax by Whyte and the actual administration and newco scenario did happen. I think the SFA can wash their hands of liability there and just say they applied their very fluid rules correctly in their eyes.

 

Thinking more, I think there is a case to be made against members of the SPL for the vote on our share, as this was not done fairly - especially with the pressure applied by Celtic based on what is now known as a fabrication. But like the EBTs "discretionary" loophole, they can argue its legitimacy by using subjectivity of intention.

 

So the only fight I can see that the board have a good standpoint for winning, is the 5 way agreement and punishments thereof.

 

It seems to me that this is a well argued summary of the position.

 

Breifly as I said at http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?64186-Now-official-HMRC-appeal-dismissed/page7 #69 ............

 

HMRC will have well documented opinion to show that they were right to pursue the BTC and equally that they were right not to accept the settlement offer per se, as well as the case had wide ranging implications; and there can be no argument that they were right to pursue the PAYE/NIC that led directly to the administration.

 

The SFA for their part will say that they dealt with the situation as it was presented to them at the time.

 

We would be wasting our time and a great deal of money trying to prove that the Revenue's action was in some way vexatious but there may well be scope for a negotiated settlement with the SFA/SPL. However, the problem there is that the SFA don't have that money and they are not going to order the Clubs to pay us back transfer fees that they were owed by oldco. Redistributing prize money or TV money also is problematical.

Sadly the loss of prestige and income at home and in Europe also is irrecoverable.

Edited July 13, 2014 by BrahimHemdani

[RANGERRAB 3,741]

I do wonder if any of the oldco shareholders will now pursue a claim against the ten clubs who voted Rangers out the SPL (Kilmarnock abstained at the time).

What were their reasons for voting us out? It cant be oldco/newco as Hibz did that in 1991 and weren't relegated after their original parent company went bust..

I maintain it was all due to this fictitious EBT tax bill which had now proved to be non existent.There was a belief Rangers owed over £100m and went bust as a result. That has now been proven to be completely wrong.

[der Berliner 3,808]

It would be good to have a Fact vs Fiction file with relevant back-up links, a file that also unravels the deeds done by Whyte, the SFA, SPL et al.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I do wonder if any of the oldco shareholders will now pursue a claim against the ten clubs who voted Rangers out the SPL (Kilmarnock abstained at the time).

What were their reasons for voting us out? It cant be oldco/newco as Hibz did that in 1991 and weren't relegated after their original parent company went bust..

I maintain it was all due to this fictitious EBT tax bill which had now proved to be non existent.There was a belief Rangers owed over £100m and went bust as a result. That has now been proven to be completely wrong.

 

The liquidators have already settled the claim against Collyer Bristow for "Breach of undertaking, breach of trust, deceit/conspiracy, admin and liquidation costs, claimant's costs, interest." but it seems unlikely they will be able to collect the £24m. So where would oldco shareholders (like me) get the money to pursue anyone else?

 

The fact that the HMRC have substantially lost the EBT case or even that the SPL Clubs based their decision on a misconception of the reason for administration/liquidation cannot be held against them unless it would be possible to prove that they did not act in good faith i.e. on a reasonable judgement based on the information before them at the time.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Our company were liquidated. Frankly we were lucky to be allowed back in and extremely lucky they transfered our membership and history instead of making us start again.

[der Berliner 3,808]

Our company were liquidated. Frankly we were lucky to be allowed back in and extremely lucky they transfered our membership and history instead of making us start again.

 

Factually wrong and all action taken was unprecedented and highly questionable, even under SFA and SPL guidelines. Unless I am mistaken, they essentially used one low-key, rather vaguely written paragraph in the rules to level punishment at the club - not the culprit - that was not warranted nor required. It's like saying the US of A "were in their rights to h-bomb Nagasaki, just to check whether the Japanese had understood Hiroshima and because it was war". Like I said before, it was like people wanting to punish the Costa Concordia, passengers and crew for the deeds of less than a handful of people on the bridge.

 

And just to make that clear, not least in respect to recent developments, neither the club nor the oldco have been liquidated. Whether oldco will or will not be liquidated is anyone's guess. So far, the patient is in coma and whether he dies or not remains to be seen. So better stick to the facts and don't join up with mhedia propaganda.

[der Berliner 3,808]

The liquidators have already settled the claim against Collyer Bristow for "Breach of undertaking, breach of trust, deceit/conspiracy, admin and liquidation costs, claimant's costs, interest." but it seems unlikely they will be able to collect the £24m. So where would oldco shareholders (like me) get the money to pursue anyone else?

 

The fact that the HMRC have substantially lost the EBT case or even that the SPL Clubs based their decision on a misconception of the reason for administration/liquidation cannot be held against them unless it would be possible to prove that they did not act in good faith i.e. on a reasonable judgement based on the information before them at the time.

 

Strangely enough, there is not tax case blogger or shadowy insider chap who has access to all the meetings up and down the country that decided our fate.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

What's factually wrong about it?

[der Berliner 3,808]

What's factually wrong about it?

 

Check the second paragraph.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Check the second paragraph.

 

I know you like disagreeing with everything I say but you should try to pick your battles.