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 the pink palermo on Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:28 am

A mere Puppy Beckers, certainly not a full blown dog .
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
 
Posts: 27430
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: don't let it burn, don't let it fade

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:16 pm

HMRC seek to appeal Rangers tax verdict (BBC)

HM Revenue and Customs has said it will seek permission to appeal against a tax tribunal ruling in favour of Rangers' use of Employee Benefit Trusts.

The club, which is now in liquidation, used the scheme from 2001 to 2010 to make £47.65m in payments to players and staff in the form of tax-free loans.

HMRC had challenged the payments, arguing that they were illegal.

Rangers disputed the bill and a First Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) ruled the scheme did not breach tax law.

In a majority decision, the tribunal said the payments - of about £49m - were loans, not earnings, and so were not liable for income tax.
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 8878
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The dry again leafy lanes of Surrey

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby devonshire flu on Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:53 pm

Johnny Byrne's Boots wrote:
In a majority decision, the tribunal said the payments - of about £49m - were loans, not earnings, and so were not liable for income tax.


I'm no legal expert, but it shouldn't be too difficult to establish if they were loans or not. Were any of them paid back? If not, they were earnings.
User avatar
devonshire flu
 
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:06 am
Location: Kirkcaldy

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:10 pm

That's what the case was about. Two judges did indeed establish they were loans. The fact they haven't been repaid doesn't matter. The trusts making the loans may ask for their repayment and that, apparently, is good enough.
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 8878
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The dry again leafy lanes of Surrey

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Gnome on Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:37 pm

Johnny Byrne's Boots wrote:That's what the case was about. Two judges did indeed establish they were loans. The fact they haven't been repaid doesn't matter. The trusts making the loans may ask for their repayment and that, apparently, is good enough.



....although there is usually an argument of "substance over form" to be had. Despite the terms of the loans which, if they ask for repayment at all, probably say "repayable on demand". HMRC would need establish that it was 'understood' that no such demand would ever be made that understanding would become an implicit part of the contract.

It's a fallacy that everytining in a contract has to be in writing (save for certain specific types of contract) so if HMRC can persuade the appeal judges that the "understanding" existed that would be good enough to change the status of the transaction from "loans" to "pay".
User avatar
Gnome
Quite eloquent for a garden ornament
 
Posts: 13779
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:27 pm
Location: Hither Green

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:51 pm

How would HMRC view a repayment including interest, followed by another loan?
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 8878
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The dry again leafy lanes of Surrey

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Gnome on Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:26 pm

Johnny Byrne's Boots wrote:How would HMRC view a repayment including interest, followed by another loan?


They'd look at the whole thing. If the second "loan" were nothing of the sort the same thing would apply, although tax would only be payable on the payment at the time the second "loan" were made.
User avatar
Gnome
Quite eloquent for a garden ornament
 
Posts: 13779
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:27 pm
Location: Hither Green

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby sicknote on Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:27 pm

they've thrown their toys, rattle,dummy and comfort blanket out of the pram, with the cup tie at dundee utd, refusing to take their ticket allocation


if you can get on the website, then its all here

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines ... -statement
User avatar
sicknote
Plumbing the depths
 
Posts: 25127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:34 pm
Location: looking out of my secret nuclear bunker

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:47 pm

I wonder if they'll still demand their 50% of the gate money?
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 8878
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The dry again leafy lanes of Surrey

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby SammyLeeWasOffside on Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:47 pm

A statement from the Rangers Supporters' Assembly read: "The Rangers support has waited patiently for the opportunity to send a clear message to those that tried to destroy our club - starve them of their much-needed cash by boycotting this game.

Pretty pathetic really.

So their aim for the future of Rangers is to destroy every other club in Scotland.
User avatar
SammyLeeWasOffside
 
Posts: 8319
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby beckton on Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:57 am

They're still peddling the myth of being innocent victims of an evil conspiracy.

No humility from them but just sheer arrogance.
User avatar
beckton
 
Posts: 12339
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:41 pm
Location: Hanging on by my fingertips.

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby QuintonNimoy on Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:30 am

Gnome wrote:HMRC would need establish that it was 'understood' that no such demand would ever be made that understanding would become an implicit part of the contract.

It seems both extraordinary that it isn't blatantly obvious to the judges, but at the same time I don't see much chance of any party to the agreements breaking a conspiracy of silence for personal gain. Although to be willing to appeal it I suppose HMRC must be confident they can show somehting like this.
SammyLeeWasOffside wrote:So their aim for the future of Rangers is to destroy every other club in Scotland.

I'd like them to attempt to carry this through, then they'll see that no other club in football needs them.
QuintonNimoy
 
Posts: 7962
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Wembley1966 on Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:37 am

QuintonNimoy wrote:It seems both extraordinary that it isn't blatantly obvious to the judges, but at the same time I don't see much chance of any party to the agreements breaking a conspiracy of silence for personal gain. Although to be willing to appeal it I suppose HMRC must be confident they can show somehting like this.
It was blatantly obvious to one of the judges - in fact her descenting opinion was twice as many pages in the judgement as the 2 judges that thought the scheme was OK.
Also they were found guilty in about 5 of the payments made to players, which when added to the £3m they still owed for illegal use of a discounted option scheme to pay players which they admitted to and the £9m from unpaid VAT & PAYE is still a lot they owe the taxman.

QuintonNimoy wrote:I'd like them to attempt to carry this through, then they'll see that no other club in football needs them.
Other clubs are already seeing that they don't need them - SPL gates are typically up over last year with a more competitive league - half a dozen clubs in with a chance of a Champions League place.
Wembley1966
 
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:48 pm

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby screech on Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:02 am

sicknote wrote:they've thrown their toys, rattle,dummy and comfort blanket out of the pram, with the cup tie at dundee utd, refusing to take their ticket allocation


if you can get on the website, then its all here

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines ... -statement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It will be nice to see Dundee beat them and get the money from the next round to compensate any loss of gate money they fail to receive, leaving rangers even further in the ****
Rangers are slowing burning their bridges and pretty soon will realise that rangers need the other teams and not the other way around
User avatar
screech
 
Posts: 4137
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:09 pm

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby Wembley1966 on Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:17 pm

The initial statement for the share issue on AIM:

http://www.investegate.co.uk/aim/rns/sch-1--rangers-international-football-club-plc/201212050956047840S

Going to be in a new holding company - Rangers International Football Club plc - so supporters won't be buying shares in the club then!!

Shows that they've already had about £11m from institutional investors which is pretty good. Mike Ashley owns 9% of existing company. Also says that they will be playing at Ibrox and benefitting from the Murray Park training facility - so some other entity owns the properties!

I suspect that this is all a scam from Nigeria:
http://rangersinternationalfc.com/
Wembley1966
 
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:48 pm

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby York Ham(mer) on Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:22 pm

Rangers International what?? :lol:

Has anyone seen the prospectus 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 QuintonNimoy on Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:16 am

Wembley1966 wrote:I suspect that this is all a scam from Nigeria:
http://rangersinternationalfc.com/

Bandwidth limit exceeded. No expense spared then, Nigerian scammers aren't usually that cheap.
QuintonNimoy
 
Posts: 7962
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby James P on Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:34 pm

Saw some Rangers bod on SSN this morning explaining the reason for the boycott against Dundee United. Said something along the lines that the directors of this club continuously pushed for stronger punishments against Rangers and were completely unsporting! He then said he doesn't expect the current directors of a number of SPL clubs who had it in for Rangers to be still be in charge by the time they make it back to the top flight and it send a message to the new directors that such unsporting behaviour won't be tolerated!

The arrogance of this club is breathtaking.
User avatar
James P
 
Posts: 11285
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: Romford

Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

Postby York Ham(mer) on Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:24 am

There's a famous quotation: "This has to be said about Rangers, as a Scottish Football club they are a permanent embarrassment and an occasional disgrace."

They are doing their best to live up to that.
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 Wembley1966 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:16 am

Wembley1966
 
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PrawnSandwich, XIRONSX and 25 guests