Comment on Whose assets are they anyway? by neepheid.
John Clark 28th October 2015 at 6:42 pm #redlichtie 28th October 2015 at 6:09 pm # ‘…..Scottish Football could do with some crystal balls… _____ Some flesh and blood ones would be sufficient!
Cast Brass would be best- the stuff Dave King’s neck is made of.
Whose assets are they anyway?
Statement from King
Thursday, 12 November 2015, 16:30by Rangers Football ClubShare:
It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers’ history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club’s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club.
As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations.
First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances.
Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club’s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue.
Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs.
This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied.
Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs.
For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.
Final paragraph- they just love the bluster and threats, don’t they? No statement complete without a threat.
Whose assets are they anyway?
Danish and Essex- This might interest both of you- tons of other memories on that site.
Apologies for going totally OT, non Glaswegians and all those under about 40, please ignore.
zerotolerance1903 11th November 2015 at 11:38 am #Can anyone clarify a couple of pedantic points for me?1. Were Sevco Scotland and Rangers plc members of, or affiliated with, the SFA at the same time? I seem to recall this being the case circa June/July 2012 i.e. Sevco Scotland were (provisionally) admitted to SFL Div 3 whilst Rangers were still an SFA member Club.2. What rules or restrictions were in place within the SPL regarding sale or transfer of a Club’s share in the SPL? Was this ever transferred from Oldco to Newco or did it go from Oldco to Dundee after newco was not admitted to the SPL?3. What were the rules in relation to transfer of SFA membership? Did newco ultimately get transferred oldco’s SFA membership or did they get a new one? If a transfer what happened to the provisional membership?
I’ve just noticed this comment, last one on the previous page, so easily missed! You are asking questions that were thoroughly dissected on here back in August 2012, which is a fair time ago, but I’ll offer my answers as best I can from memory. I’m sure any mistakes will be rapidly corrected by those with better functioning memories.
1. There was a short period during which Sevco were associate? members of the SFA, while the RFC membership was still held by RFC PLC as was.This was because the membership could only be transferred with SFA consent, and the SFA were “locking horns” with Charles Green regarding terms and conditions of transfer(the five way agreement). I believe the Brechin game was played shortly before the full RFC membership was transferred to Sevco.
2. The SPL share went from Oldco to Dundee. That was part of the 5 way agreement. I’m not sure on the SPL rules on share transfers.
3. SFA memberships could only be transferred with the express consent of the SFA. Once the 5 way agreement was signed, and the SPL share transferred to Dundee as part of that, then the SFA consented to the transfer of the RFC share from Duff & Phelps to Sevco. I believe that the transfer took place in the week following the Brechin match. I have no idea what happened to the associate or provisional membership under which Sevco played Brechin- I assume it either expired or reverted to the SFA, but that’s just guesswork. I don’t remember the point being raised before.
And another troubling point- player registrations. How did that work for the Brechin game? I have no idea, by the way.
I hope that helps.
It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Here is a fuller address for Ibrox Park Holdings- https://opencorporates.com/statements/121234211
Ibrox Park Holdings LimitedAddress2nd Floor, 625 Kings Road North PointCountry CodeHK
It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
For those interested in Ibrox Park Holdings, this link may help- http://www.bizdb.co.nz/company/9429033711843/
The link is to a NZ company, Youtap Ltd, which has Ibrox Park Holdings as one of its shareholders, with a Hong Kong address.
Shares Allocation #19 Number of Shares: 194806OtherIbrox Park Holdings LimitedNorth Point
Hong Kong SAR China10 May 2013 –
The Vice Closes
It seems that Broadfoot’s amateur hour PR ploy of leaking a 5 year old confidential letter from Celtic to the SFA has spectacularly backfired. Now it’s all out in the open- and having first broken confidence themselves, the SFA cannot complain about that.
Celtic’s 5 year restraint, in keeping their dealings with the SFA confidential, cost them a lot, not just my season ticket money, but doubtless the money of a few others besides, plus, and more importantly, the erosion by many others of their faith in the club they have loved all their lives.
Now Regan is staring at the abyss. As I posted yesterday, even the leaking of Celtic’s 2012 letter would, in itself, finish him in any normal association. Can he now do anything other than resign? He faces pressure from the SPFL for an enquiry. He faces a Judicial Review which could extend to all shenanigans going back 10 years and more.
Even his own Compliance Officer, who I assume is a solicitor with something to lose professionally, will shortly be opening a few rusty old filing cabinets in Ogilvie’s old room. I was going to say look under the carpet, but that really is a stretch for an internal enquiry.
On a personal level, I can now resume my relationship with CFC, happy in the knowledge that my club were not ignoring the corruption, but challenging it in a professional manner. That feels very good indeed, believe me.
The Vice Closes
If it is correct that Celtic’s 5 year old letter to the SFA was leaked to The Times by the SFA’s former employee and current PR guru, Mr Broadfoot, presumably as the opening shot in a “divide and rule” campaign, then the SFA have some serious questions to answer.
Is that how a competent governing body treats one of its members? A leak of private correspondence? Really? Celtic should kick up such a stooshie about this leak that the instigator (and you can be sure that Broadfoot is only carrying out instructions) is identified and booted out of Scottish football.
There are clearly individuals within the SFA who think that they can act as they like with total impunity. They have learned nothing from the Farry episode. It’s time they were taught a lesson once and for all.
Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
DarkbeforedawnJuly 9, 2017 at 15:55
The Rangers Tax Case was seen as a test study into EBTs in football, and many media outlets think this is the tip of the iceberg, particularly in England. Surely the SFA should consult with their cross border counterparts on what actions may be taken? Arsenal have already settled an EBT case for their title winning year, so if we are applying the logic Rangers should have titles stripped because they were using illegal means of paying their players, surely Arsenals league titled should be taken away? And what if a number of other big fish in England are found guilty?
All English clubs involved either already have, or very soon will, reach settlements with HMRC. Nobody is going to court, because they aren’t stupid enough or arrogant enough to assume that they can win in the face of the facts, just because of who they are.
It was open to Rangers to correct matters by being open and honest with HMRC, and paying up, but firstly they didn’t see why they should, and secondly, they had no way of paying.
The fact that Rangers evaded more tax than they could subsequently repay just highlights the industrial scale of what went on at that club.
If the English clubs involved took it a step further, as Rangers did, and concealed EBT payments from the FA, or had undisclosed side letters as part of players’ contracts, then of course the FA should take action.
The footballing offence is not tax evasion as such, but false reporting to the SFA of payments to players, and failure to lodge correct player contract details with the SFA.
What the SC judgement blows away totally is the “no sporting advantage” reasoning of LNS. Other clubs could not save on PAYE by using the EBT payment method. That is now an established fact.
I’m pretty sure that industrial scale tax evasion could, in fact probably should, also lead to footballing charges along the lines of “bringing the game into disrepute”, but it will be snowing hard in hell the day that the SFA take that line with any club playing out of Ibrox.