Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

RoryMac · 20-11-2012 5:05pm

It's pretty confusing at the moment as to what the full facts are on the outcome but the main thing is Rangers have won their appeal on the EBT's with them being classed as loans rather than payments.

Eirebear · 20-11-2012 5:11pm

**** You David Murray, **** You Craig Whyte, **** You Stewart Regan, **** You Neil Doncaster, **** You Phil Mac Giolla Bhain, **** You Alex Thomson.
**** Every single one of you who played a part in this farce, **** every simgle person who brought my club to it's knees with your ego, your lies, your misinformation and your political meddling.

**** you all.

Jelle1880 · 20-11-2012 5:12pm

STV.

Neil Patey, Ernst & Young, said: "By a majority of two to one, the tribunal has decided that the EBTs were loans and not taxable as remuneration so there is no additional tax to pay. Rangers have won the case."

I sincerely hope Rangers will now claim damages from all those guilty.

Eirebear · 20-11-2012 5:18pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

STV.

Neil Patey, Ernst & Young, said: "By a majority of two to one, the tribunal has decided that the EBTs were loans and not taxable as remuneration so there is no additional tax to pay. Rangers have won the case."

I sincerely hope Rangers will now claim damages from all those guilty.

haha! I was trying to figure out you're reasoning pre-edit!

nordydan · 20-11-2012 5:21pm

Eirebear wrote: »

**** You David Murray, **** You Craig Whyte, **** You Stewart Regan, **** You Neil Doncaster, **** You Phil Mac Giolla Bhain, **** You Alex Thomson.
**** Every single one of you who played a part in this farce, **** every simgle person who brought my club to it's knees with your ego, your lies, your misinformation and your political meddling.

**** you all.

No doubt this is a good news for Rangers, but are you seriously trying to claim that one club using EBT while the other 11 have to pay PAYE is a fair way to run a league?

Jelle1880 · 20-11-2012 5:22pm

Eirebear wrote: »

haha! I was trying to figure out you're reasoning pre-edit!

Nah, leave them alone, poor sods

Eirebear · 20-11-2012 5:24pm

nordydan wrote: »

No doubt this is a good news for Rangers, but are you seriously trying to claim that one club using EBT while the other 11 have to pay PAYE is a fair way to run a league?

Well that's still to be decided isnt it - but the simple fact of the matter is, Rangers didn't work outside of the law, which has been accused by all corners in the last few years.
And if that's the case, its quite simple - there was nothing stopping ANY other team doing similar.

RoryMac · 20-11-2012 5:31pm

nordydan wrote: »

No doubt this is a good news for Rangers, but are you seriously trying to claim that one club using EBT while the other 11 have to pay PAYE is a fair way to run a league?

I think it would have been good news for Rangers if this verdict was announced a year ago, not so much now...

awec · 20-11-2012 5:32pm

I can't get my head around this at all. This entire saga has been one headwrecker after another.

nordydan · 20-11-2012 5:36pm

Eirebear wrote: »

Well that's still to be decided isnt it - but the simple fact of the matter is, Rangers didn't work outside of the law, which has been accused by all corners in the last few years.
And if that's the case, its quite simple - there was nothing stopping ANY other team doing similar.

I understand what you are saying. But does that mean HMRC should be chasing after Ronald de Boer, Stefan Klos etc? Not quite up to speed on this

awec · 20-11-2012 5:39pm

nordydan wrote: »

I understand what you are saying. But does that mean HMRC should be chasing after Ronald de Boer, Stefan Klos etc? Not quite up to speed on this

But would this also open Murray Holdings up to action from these players who would have been assured that relevant and correct taxes were being paid on their behalf?

Pompey Magnus · 20-11-2012 5:40pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

However, if that IS true I can see quite a few courtcases coming up.

I assume if there are court cases it would need to be brought by the liquidators of Rangers, as Charles Green's The Rangers is a separate entity from the one which this judgement affects?

Edit: Not getting into the "different club" argument btw, just in terms of registered companies.

Eirebear · 20-11-2012 5:43pm

nordydan wrote: »

I understand what you are saying. But does that mean HMRC should be chasing after Ronald de Boer, Stefan Klos etc? Not quite up to speed on this

I'm not sure - this is the sticking point for me too - if it is the case we could see a lot of counterclaims against Rangers by those individuals.

Dempsey · 20-11-2012 5:45pm

Eirebear wrote: »

Well that's still to be decided isnt it - but the simple fact of the matter is, Rangers didn't work outside of the law, which has been accused by all corners in the last few years.
And if that's the case, its quite simple - there was nothing stopping ANY other team doing similar.

Ye still are on the hook for dual contracts and AFAIK HMRC can appeal this decision as many times as they like if they arent happy with the verdict.

Why do ye care what is happening with the old company anyways? :pac:

awec · 20-11-2012 5:46pm

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I assume if there are court cases it would need to be brought by the liquidators of Rangers, as Charles Green's The Rangers is a separate entity from the one which this judgement affects?

Edit: Not getting into the "different club" argument btw, just in terms of registered companies.

I would agree, this is Murray Holdings, not the club that plays in Div3 currently.

RoryMac · 20-11-2012 5:52pm

Dempsey wrote: »

Ye still are on the hook for dual contracts and AFAIK HMRC can appeal this decision as many times as they like if they arent happy with the verdict.

I for one have absolutely no interest in seeing any appeal and re-hash of this sh1te dragging on for another year.

Eirebear · 20-11-2012 5:52pm

Dempsey wrote: »

Ye still are on the hook for dual contracts and AFAIK HMRC can appeal this decision as many times as they like if they arent happy with the verdict.

Why do ye care what is happening with the old company anyways? :pac:

Let's just call it reason to despise cCraig Whyte even more.

Dempsey · 20-11-2012 6:54pm

RoryMac wrote: »

I for one have absolutely no interest in seeing any appeal and re-hash of this sh1te dragging on for another year.

Ive no interest either but HMRC will appeal if they have another angle that they can win. HMRC dont like tax avoidance schemes and dont forget have bigger axes to grind

RoryMac · 20-11-2012 7:26pm

Dempsey wrote: »

Ive no interest either but HMRC will appeal if they have another angle that they can win. HMRC dont like tax avoidance schemes and dont forget have bigger axes to grind

I saw some suggestions that the ruling opens up the possibility of HMRC going after the individuals who benefited from the EBT's, not sure how true that is?

jack presley · 20-11-2012 7:29pm

RoryMac wrote: »

I saw some suggestions that the ruling opens up the possibility of HMRC going after the individuals who benefited from the EBT's, not sure how true that is?

From BBC's website

"BBC Scotland's business correspondent David Henderson said the implications of the tax ruling were that "all those footballers who were playing for Rangers, happily being paid using these EBTs, may well get a letter in the post soon, saying 'give the money back to the liquidators, for onward transfer to the creditors'."

A Dub in Glasgo · 20-11-2012 7:51pm

So the recipents of the loans watched from the inside and sidelines as Rangers scrambled for money and were eventually put into liquidation and they did nothing to pay back their loans to Rangers and save them!

Why weren't these people called out earlier?

Peppa Pig · 20-11-2012 8:04pm

Rangers didn't win fully. It was accepted that some players had tax due on their EBTs, just not enough to warrant dismissal of the appeal.
Looks to me like the liquidators will have to pay tax on those (obviously won't happen) and the majority of the players will have to pay their loans back or pay the tax on it.

I fail to see how people can be sued for damages. The taxman sent a bill, Rangers contested it and won most of the appeal. In the meantime a little man called Craig Whyte came in, stopped paying the bills and ran out of cash and had to go into administration. Hardly the revenue's fault.

The report is incredible reading, have only read bits of it but Mr Ipswich was some boyo. Club captain and all round bad apple. Sounds like Ferguson, demanding exhorbitant money before he'd play a scheduled game.

Peppa Pig · 20-11-2012 8:05pm

jack presley wrote: »

From BBC's website

"BBC Scotland's business correspondent David Henderson said the implications of the tax ruling were that "all those footballers who were playing for Rangers, happily being paid using these EBTs, may well get a letter in the post soon, saying 'give the money back to the liquidators, for onward transfer to the creditors'."

They owe the liquidators nothing, its the trust they owe the loans to.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 20-11-2012 8:30pm

I think there is also a School of thought that these EBT's were classed as loans so no tax is due on them. To be fair my brain is fried reading that

Dempsey · 20-11-2012 8:43pm

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I think there is also a School of thought that these EBT's were classed as loans so no tax is due on them. To be fair my brain is fried reading that

what you call a loan that you dont have to pay back?

i used to ask my father for 'a loan' when i was young. he knew he wasnt getting it back!

this is far from over tbh, legal wranglings to go on indefinately at this stage!

A Dub in Glasgo · 20-11-2012 8:43pm

So Rangers fans need to ask the question of their former players and employees about why they stood and watched as Rangers ran out of cash, went into administration and then liquidated

Peppa Pig · 20-11-2012 8:43pm

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I think there is also a School of thought that these EBT's were classed as loans so no tax is due on them. To be fair my brain is fried reading that

Correct - but a loan must be paid back, so a lot of players will need to start paying them back or the revenue will be looking for the tax.
I think its in the report that it was agreed that 35 players had side letters, so tax is due on them. None of these were lodged with the SFA so all those contracts were not valid.

Its fairly messy all right

jack presley · 20-11-2012 8:45pm

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Correct - but a loan must be paid back, so a lot of players will need to start paying them back or the revenue will be looking for the tax.
I think its in the report that it was agreed that 35 players had side letters, so tax is due on them. None of these were lodged with the SFA so all those contracts were not valid.

Its fairly messy all right

And is there any interest to be paid on the loans?

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 20-11-2012 8:47pm

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Correct - but a loan must be paid back, so a lot of players will need to start paying them back or the revenue will be looking for the tax.
I think its in the report that it was agreed that 35 players had side letters, so tax is due on them. None of these were lodged with the SFA so all those contracts were not valid.

Its fairly messy all right

If they were loans its not a side contract or rather it could be viewed that way

Peppa Pig · 20-11-2012 9:15pm

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

If they were loans its not a side contract or rather it could be viewed that way

Yes, but 35 (not sure of that number but its mentioned in the report) were not loans, they were salary.

Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Comments