Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns

Avatar By

The King statement is aimed at reassuring the fan base.  His …

Comment on Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns by Den.

The King statement is aimed at reassuring the fan base. 
His explanation of why the EBTs conferred no benefit on Rangers is testament to his lack of business knowledge and/or scruples.
Without going on at length.
Rangers were part of Murray Group.
Rangers were constantly spending more than they brought in.
Murray Group funded Rangers’ deficit 
Murray Group funded itself through trading profits and through massive borrowing.
If Rangers avoided taxes Murray Group had to provide less funding.
Funding Murray Group as whole became harder when real banking criteria were applied
Murray Group could no longer fund Rangers
Rangers ran out of money
Murray Group ran out of money.
If it was not for the EBTs Rangers would have had to miss out on some of the players and losing out on some titles; or if they paid the full amount would have run out of money years earlier, thereby missing out on the titles won in those years.
They gained titles whatever way you look at it.
Murray Group did levy Management charges on Rangers but that is common enough and at the end of the day they provided the funding to keep Rangers spending money that they were not earning.
The fact that Murray Group was supported by a Bank in contravention of banking principles is another matter.
I expect that all Directors of Oldco will be given the right to put their own version of events on the Rangers Site.

Den Also Commented

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
EASYJAMBO
JULY 17, 2017 at 02:18
Thank you for the information.  

HOMUNCULUS
JULY 17, 2017 at 08:51
I stand corrected on calling the transaction a loan. 

The fans were not supposed to know that they were buying from anyone other than the club. 

There was lot of deception and that was a key one.


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
It would be good to have the details of the Ticketus arrangements.
I always thought of the Ticketus loan being to Wavetower (wrong). The loan was based on future season tickets which would be issued by Rangers, Ticketus would probably have structured the Contract to be with Rangers FC, not some vehicle owned by a wee fly man. 
Wavetower had a need for the money to clear the Lloyds loan. Lloyds had a floating charge on the assets of Rangers which Whyte wanted transferred to Wavetower.
Since he had control of Rangers FC Whyte created a loan to Wavetower from Rangers, transferring the loaned funds. This time there was no floating charge, just intra Company indebtedness.
It makes sense to most of us to offset the loans but in this case Wavetower had a floating charge on the assets of Rangers (or believed they had). If you were going to put Rangers into Admin or liquidation that floating charge would allow you to take everything up to the value of your loan and stuff the pennies in the pound guys who had no security. Such thoughts would be uppermost in the mind of Whyte and Co. 
It was in Whyte’s interest to preserve the Floating charge as it was potentially an asset (worth money to him/ Wavetower). I guess that the floating charge is what is being passed around.
Whyte tried to keep the Ticketus deal under wraps and I suspect that most people at Rangers were kept in the dark.
It may be unrelated but I have a memory of leaks from Charlotte fakes showing that Ticketus people needed invoices from Rangers and the senior guys in the Whyte team provide one or two which were rejected by Ticketus. Eventually someone at Ticketus did it and provided it to the Rangers people. it struck me as odd that they didn’t go to the Accounts Department to get the invoice done. 
Also the Rangers’ Financial Controller was visited by HMRC about an invoice which he said was “Cut and Paste” and had not come from their Accounts Department. That amounts to false accounting.


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
DARKBEFOREDAWNJULY 9, 2017 at 15:55

“Surely the SFA should consult with their cross border counterparts on what actions may be taken?”

I don’t believe the SFA should necessarily consult with the FA. They are separate Associations.
The case of Rangers registering players and knowingly withholding key information needs to settled in Scotland and quickly.
If any of the teams you mentioned deliberately broke the FA rules in the same manner as Rangers and retained their titles i think that it would encourage others to ignore the rules. 

I should have added above, what about the image rights tax cases?

What about them ? What have they to do with the topic of title stripping for deliberate, breach of the SFA registration rules. 

Again major teams including Chelsea have been found to have abused the tax system in order to minimise their bills.

See above.

How can we possibly punish every team for financial irregularities?

We are not discussing stripping titles for financial irregularities, but deliberate cheating by knowingly registering false information.

It’s not the same as deliberate cheating the sort we witnessed in Italy a decade ago?

Their deliberate cheating was indeed different.
Your posts are big on questions. How about sharing some thoughts and opinions ?


Recent Comments by Den

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
I thought that the Celtic run would end soon, not today though and definitely not in that manner. 
Hopefully Hearts kick on from this and get a bit of consistency. They must get huge confidence from their display today.
I have to go to work tomorrow and face the Hearts fans though, it will be tough ! 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
The press are still reporting the decision by McInnes to fulfill the generous contract that he freely entered into less than one year ago as a surprise, the more hysterical are portraying it as some kind of betrayal.
His only previous statement had stated his desire to carry on the job he had. That was referred to as a “claim” in one report I read. it was a statement.
i was not surprised that McInnes stayed but was surprised at some sports hacks outlining how he could take the job even though his employer had refused permission to even engage in discussion.
Their suggestion was not to get Sevco to meet the contractual requirements to instigate talks (which may not have led to an appointment). The solution was for McInnes to resign and let Aberdeen sue him or Sevco. 
Apart from being about the daftest course of action he could take, it is clearly unethical and that it was suggested without any comment as to the ethics says a lot about those writing it.
Had he resigned without having a deal sown up with Sevco it would be a “Ratner” moment. If he had a deal with Sevco it would be unenforceable as it would be entered into illegally, therfore if Pep or Jose became available he could be dumped without recourse.
Of course if he signed up and escaped the lawsuit everything would be rosy for up to one year, then he would be resigned.
Some party or parties in this episode were acting disgracefully. Milne, McInnes and Aberdeen football Club got most of the flak for acting with honesty. 


Who Is Conning Whom?
The applications they received up to now have been publicly rejected, next step in the search was to approach people who were under Contract.
This targetted search threw up McInnes who is, apparently not up to the job; it would appear from the statement that they consider him a bit of feartie.   
So, back to the start !
I am glad that McInnes has honoured his contract and the spirit of the statements made by himself and Milne last week. Suggests he is a man of some character.
By the way; Sevco, MASSIVE,  by what measure ?  


Who Is Conning Whom?
Well McInnes has made the sane decision.
We await Ibrox Plan B. Which will be to approach McInnes again before Plan C. Appoint Murty to end of season.
The media coverage has been disgraceful and has undoubtedly impacted aberdeen Football Club. Any other team being party to this would have the book thrown at them. 


Enough is enough
Upthehoops.
In the public sector the Public Body is responsible for determing whether  the contractor working through a company is a genuine contractor.
If the are found to be a “disguised employee” they will have tax and NI deducted. If the employer fails to make the correct deductions they are liable.
I expect it will be extended to the Private Sector in the next couple of years.


About the author

Avatar