Football

.. and further to add, since there's an obvious lack of awareness of the facts ... I strongly recommend you Rangers lads read this .

Summary of Findings-in-Fact
166. The salient findings-in-fact are summarised as follows:
(i) The Appellants implemented the trust scheme in 2001 with the understanding
that it was for the purposes of avoiding PAYE and NIC.
10 (ii) Baxendale Walker was the architect of the scheme and this type of scheme
was the reason behind the Langley Report of 2003 commissioned by the Law
Society. The Appellants continued to seek the advice of Baxendale Walker
during his period of suspension and after he was struck off by the Law
Society. The Jersey courts had been hearing cases on Baxendale Walker15
advised trusts.
(iii) HMRC opened enquiry into the use of the MGRT in January 2004. The
progress of the enquiry was protracted and chequered due to key documents
being withheld or actively concealed.
(iv) The impasse in obtaining information was broken in the autumn of 2007 by a
20 separate enquiry conducted by the City of London Police into Rangers,
which had resulted in information being made available to HMRC for the
first time, such as the side-letters, from the seized documents related to
MGRT.
(v) It would appear that the side-letters were actively concealed in the course of
25 HMRC’s investigation because they answered the central question raised by
the enquiry regarding the basis of determining the amounts to be contributed
to the main Trust and the sub-trusts. The side-letters also evidence the
existence of some form of contractual agreement between the employer and
the employees.
30 (vi) Mr Red was an incredible witness. It would appear that he was obstructive in
his conduct during the HMRC’s enquiry, and obscurantist in the way he gave
evidence on what could be called a ‘virtual reality’, one that conformed to his
own understanding of how the trust scheme should have functioned to stay
within the bounds of legitimacy as a tax-saving scheme. It would also appear
35 that he tried to influence Mrs Crimson (and possibly Mr Scarlet) in their
giving of evidence.
(vii) The auditors of Rangers did not express an opinion on the efficacy of the
trust scheme and relied on the information given to them by the management;
there appeared to be a lack of candour from the management towards the
40 auditors over the remuneration trust payments, for example, in respect of the
nature of Mr Purple’s loan advanced on the occasion of his employment
being terminated.
120
(viii) The trustees’ functions in reality were passive and perfunctory and consisted
primarily in the processing of loan requests without any exercise of
discretionary powers.
(ix) The loan requests were prepared by the Appellants and signed by the
employees and served as ‘instructions’ to the trustees in 5 allocating the funds
arriving in the main Trust into the respective sub-trusts for remitting into the
personal bank accounts of the employees.
(x) Loans were invariably granted; the trustees acted ‘in breach of trust’ in
granting loans without the exercise of discretionary powers; the trustees have
10 been indemnified by the Appellants to act in breach; the scheme depended on
the trustees to advance loans in breach of trust to achieve its purpose.
(xi) There was control of the trustees by the Appellants in the power of
appointment and removal, in the direction of how the main trust
contributions should be allocated, in the interest rate to be set for the loans, in
15 the way that loans should be processed, and in setting the terms and
conditions for these loans to be advanced to the employees of the Appellants.
(xii) Mrs Crimson was an ineffectual witness. Her ineffectualness, ironically, was
an effective testimony of the subservient position of her role as a trustee and
representative of the trustee company. The trustees acted as a ‘cipher’ in the
20 scheme, and their role was to process the trust payments as directed by the
Appellants, and to act in accordance to the wishes of the
protector/employees.
(xiii) The loan structure was criticised by Jersey Financial Services Commission as
not being ‘commercial’; it was designed not to be commercial to achieve its
25 purpose; no security was ever requested; no interests ever required to be
paid; no expectations of repayment from employees; no intentions of
enforcement for repayment by the trustees.
(xiv) For bonus payments to ordinary employees, there appeared to be a ‘choice’
between having the bonus paid via the trust or the payroll; there was
30 ‘consent’ from the employees if the trust route was chosen; and there was the
understanding that if the trust route was not chosen, the bonus would be paid
through payroll.
(xv) For salary increase to ordinary employees, there appeared to be an agreement
of an increase, and in cases where the trust mechanism was used, ‘what was
35 to be done’ was to address the salary increase as a discretionary bonus for
processing through the trust mechanism.
(xvi) For bonus payments to the footballing employees, there appeared to be a
schedule agreed for the start of each season and lodged with SFA as a matter
of normal practice. The bonus entitlement should be the same for each
40 player in the team squad in accordance with the schedule agreed. It would
appear that the bonus and appearance money for players with a sub-trust had
been paid via the trust mechanism while other players without a sub-trust
received their entitlement through payroll.

It's damning stuff .... no surprises the appeal was not granted unanimously ... which leaves the question of which Judges were bribed and which refused.......

It's actually stagggering that the press reported this as NOT GUILTY .... when in effect it's akin to being found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder........

MG3 wrote: We were recovering with debt down to £18m

... best let the BBC in on that ..... they're under the delusion that it's a wee bit more:

BBC:

The total amount of money owed to unsecured creditors is listed as over £55m. The Glasgow club also owes football debts totalling £3.5m to 14 different clubs including Manchester City, Chelsea, Celtic, Dundee United, Orebro and Rapid Vienna.

RANGERS CVA KEY FACTS
•Rangers administrators' CVA offers 8-9p in the pound (best case scenario)
•Administrators fees: £5.5m
•Football debts: £3.5m
•HMRC owed: £21.5m
•Ticketus owed: £26.7m
•Total owed to unsecured creditors: £55m

Fees are also due to the Scottish Premier League, the Scottish Football League and the SFA amounting to £37,448.

Among the other amounts listed in the 60-page document include £8,341 to St Andrew's First Aid and £17.28 to the Sports Turf Research Institute. Strathclyde Police is owed £51,882 and £238 is due to Glasgow Taxis Ltd.

mogatrons wrote:

MG3 wrote: We were recovering with debt down to £18m

... best let the BBC in on that ..... they're under the delusion that it's a wee bit more:

I didn't say at the end. £18m when Whyte bought from Murray.

Hope Hearts get on well with their FTT for swindling tax :lol:

Gotta go, got a training course in Edinburgh at 9am

And BBC - say no more......

MG3 wrote:

mogatrons wrote:

MG3 wrote: We were recovering with debt down to £18m

... best let the BBC in on that ..... they're under the delusion that it's a wee bit more:

I didn't say at the end. £18m when Whyte bought from Murray.

...

Whyte paid the Lloyds debt off (£18m) with the money from Ticketus (£26.7m), and used the change to fund his purchase of the club (£5m) and in doing so bought Rangers a few more months of life when nobody else would.

The clubs debt was much greater than £18million when Murray offloaded it ... this is universally accepted by all but the deluded. The HMRC liability was estimated at somewhere between £20m and £40m when Murray sold up (to avoid the tax case ... if you hadn't already guessed. :lol: ) ... on top of footballing liabilities of over £4m.... and annual losses of around £4m ... as demonstrated when the books were opened under administration.


Casting Whyte as the main villain and Murray as an innocent victim is laughable, and is used as a refuge from the truth by diehards in denial.

jeff youre muddying the waters here by adding on whytes debts were , when sold to whyte the club had bank debt of 18 million , not insubstantial but perfectly manageable for a club of rangers size and reducing by millions year on year due to selling all our best players and not replacing them .

Suddenly hmrc decide we owe them 40million + penalties (now proved to be wrong), the bank who murray is now well in debt to through his other businesses (to the point that rangers debt is only a drop in the ocean ) is forced to sell

Whyte is the only game in town at this time so under duress the club has to be sold to him We now know he was a total fantasist and literally only had the pound he used to buy the club , somehow he was able to mortgage the clubs assets (ie the future season ticket sales ) and use that money to show proof of funding to lloyds .

during the transfer of ownership rangers themselves brought to the attention of hmrc the wee tax case of 2 million , it was agreed whyte would pay this ......he didnt , he didnt in fact seem to pay any bills in his one season in charge , where has the income from that year gone ? wheres all the ticket money gone ? wheres all the incoming transfer money gone ? the tv money etc ? .

Youre making out "we" walked away from this scot free jeff , the reallity is our reputation is in tatters , we're in the 3rd division and grateful for it , we cant sign a player until 2014 , we cant play in europe for at least 4 years , we are paying our historic football debts yet any money owed is being pilfered away by the spl , we've lost all our best players for nothing etc etc .and still the witchhunt continues

HMRC now have serious questions to answer , they drove us under , cost people their jobs ,cost many thousands of people (myself included ) their investment in rangers , blatantly disregarded all confidentiality laws and spent 5 million of your and my money jeff to recoup the grand sum of nothing !

Lessons need to be learned here surely its not beyond the realms of possibility to assign a full time tax inspector to any business with an annual liability of 1 million or more to make sure this never happens again ? hearts are getting their erchies felt over the unpaid paye and tax , why werent rangers during whytes reign , why were the debts allowed to build up with us and not with you , these inconsistencies in applying the laws need to be sorted .

Now , youre stament about being found guilty of manslaughter rather then murder is all a bit dramatic jeff , heres the reality , for a business with a 50 million turnover a tax liability of 100 million plus is a problem , an actual liabilty in the region of 2 million is not , sadly due to the way hmrc went about their businesss they wont even be getting that , maybe you could complain to your mp jeff :lol: .

In summary . "we" screwed up and have been punished very harshly for it but accusations of robbing the public purse to pay for players we couldnt afford seem a bit hypocritical coming from someone whos club cant pay either their wages or taxes :whistle:

cjj wrote: The only sports I like are shooting and things with engines in, but even then, I find being a spectator boring.

Clive, you may be onto something here, I'm confident there are plenty of people like myself who would pay good money for a day in the country shooting footballers.

Without becoming involved in this fascinating debate, can I ask for a clarification?
There weren't really people called Mrs Crimson and Mr Scarlet involved were there?
If these are pseudonyms who chose them?
...because they might as well have used Mrs Guilty and Mr Untrustworthy,:bust:

Yeah Andy, it's HMRCs' fault that Rangers weren't paying their taxes .... :dry: :slapme:

Oh, and they're not accusations Andy ... they're facts.

Rangers have been found GUILTY of tax evasion ... the final amount is moot. They're GUILTY.

Remember investigations into tax evasion and financial irregularities were initiated way back in 2004 ... that's how far this mess goes back.

Rangers were finally shown to be in contravention of UEFA and SFA rules on liquidity, and therefore were CHEATING when they bought players they could not afford .... this specific act is against UEFA and SFA rules, and carries the sanction of removal from the respective organisations and competitions.

How long they were at it is in dispute ... but it's not unreasonable to suspect it goes back to 2004, if not before.





I'm not making out you walked away from this Scot free .... far from it. Your punishments have been, on the whole, just ....

....some have been severe ( the fact that the new club appears to still be liable for debts of the old club after liquidation seems harsh )...

.... and others have been mild ( the fact the new club was fast-tracked back into the league setup, leapfrogging other worthy candidates and bypassing the normal application scrutiny, and being allowed to retain contracts from the old club setup.)

Yes, on the whole to the neutral, Rangers seem to have been treated fairly, in comparison to say, Airdrie or Livingston.

No doubt the bigwigs at the SPL and the SFA have much to be ashamed about in their handling of the whole affair (terms like pi$$ up in a brewery spring to mind ... :nonod: ) ... No-one came out of the debacle with any credit, aside from those who insisted that Rangers should be treated like Airdrie and Livingston were previously.....
.... but responsibility for some aspects being harsh and others mild lies at the foot of those blazers in charge of Scottish football who came up with this fudge.

No Andy, ... no-one in Scottish football is making out you walked away from this Scot free ......

..... they're just tired of you lot living in denial, and not accepting your teams guilt.


..... as the posts on this thread prove.


When ex-Glasgow Rangers fans, who are now The Rangers fans, finally accept their old club cheated, got caught, and died because of it, all the other fans in Scottish football will no longer need to challenge the lies, and threads like this will finally drop off discussion forums.

Why is Scotland always so angry?

Is it the food?

Is it the climate?

Sheefag wrote: Clive, you may be onto something here, I'm confident there are plenty of people like myself who would pay good money for a day in the country shooting footballers.

Pulllllll.

I say old bean. I think I just bagged myself a Rooney.

I think the main problem would be knowing whether you had actually hit one. I can just see it now, a single shot goes out and 20 footballers drop to the ground clutching their leg.

cjj wrote:

Sheefag wrote: Clive, you may be onto something here, I'm confident there are plenty of people like myself who would pay good money for a day in the country shooting footballers.

Pulllllll.

I say old bean. I think I just bagged myself a Rooney.

I think the main problem would be knowing whether you had actually hit one. I can just see it now, a single shot goes out and 20 footballers drop to the ground clutching their leg.

Regardless of ammunition expenditure, there would be nary a millimeter drop in the genepool, you may however receive a community action trust award.

cjj wrote:

Sheefag wrote: Clive, you may be onto something here, I'm confident there are plenty of people like myself who would pay good money for a day in the country shooting footballers.

Pulllllll.

I say old bean. I think I just bagged myself a Rooney.

I think the main problem would be knowing whether you had actually hit one. I can just see it now, a single shot goes out and 20 footballers drop to the ground clutching their leg.

genius ... :rofl: