Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 10:17pm

PauloMN wrote: »

Wow. You think there's no issue at all then with the EBT payments? All fine, and nothing for Rangers FC to answer for?

Mind you, you thought aul Craigy was going to silence the BBC with a massive lawsuit, that didn't exactly happen!

They weren't illegal at the time of use and that's a fact.

The double contracts, if proven, were clearly illegal though and that could have huge implications.

And that second part is getting tiresome and predictable.

Tell me, if EBT's are so clearly illegal why has it taken so long to conclude the BTC ?

Dempsey · 23-05-2012 10:19pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Maybe you should have a word with Dempsey, he seems to think so.

And that second part is getting tiresome and predictable.

Deflect Deflect Deflect

*YAWN*

EDIT

Because of the scale of the tax evasion

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 10:20pm

Yeah, maybe you should go to bed indeed.

edit:

Statement from D&P:

JOINT administrators Duff and Phelps made the following statement:
Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "The allegations made in tonight's programme against Duff and Phelps are untrue, a distortion of the facts and highly defamatory. Discussions are already underway with our solicitors with a view to bringing legal proceedings against the BBC.
"We are also hugely disappointed with the irresponsible comments made by Mr Roger Isaacs who is clearly not in possession of the facts.
"We made a number of offers to assist the BBC in order they would not make the fundamental errors broadcast this evening and for some inexplicable reason the reporter Mark Daly declined these.
"We had also hoped to give interviews stating our case on camera but received strong legal advice against this course of action, bearing in mind the legal proceedings Duff and Phelps have raised against Collyer Bristow. The BBC were informed in writing from our solicitors.
"We did however provide the BBC with lengthy written statements stating our position and we are publishing these on the Rangers website.
"In broad terms Mr Daly failed miserably to understand the difference between working capital arrangements for the Club and acquisition funding."
David Grier, said: "I categorically deny that at the time of the Craig Whyte takeover of Rangers, I had any knowledge that funds from Ticketus were being used to acquire the Club. This accusation is wrong, highly defamatory and betrays a lack of understanding of the facts.
"Neither I nor any of my colleagues at MCR provided any professional assistance to Liberty, Wavetower or Craig Whyte, in raising funds, performing financial due diligence, structuring or agreeing the terms of the purchase of the Club from the Murray Group.
"Financial due diligence and other work was provided by Saffery Champness, a firm of chartered accountants who specialise in this area and our primary role was to provide assistance to Liberty Capital in negotiating a settlement and assignment of the debt due to Lloyds Bank.
"The reality is that when my concerns about the use of Ticketus funding crystallised over the summer of 2011, I took immediate steps to raise these concerns with controlling directors of Rangers and HMRC.
"The email referred to in tonight's programme to Ticketus dated 19 April 2011 mentions the possibility of raising funds for working capital but does not provide any information of quantum or terms of such a proposal. To suggest this email establishes an awareness of Ticketus providing acquisition funding is absurd and ridiculous.
"Once we discovered the full extent of the funding relationship between Ticketus, Liberty Capital and the club, we took immediate steps to raise our concern with controlling directors of Rangers and HMRC."
Mr Clark said the administrators would not comment on the BBC's EBT allegations while the first tier tax tribunal was still active.

Link to the mentioned statements:

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2786614

Roll on the 'Whyte would sue them too' bollocks :pac:

For the record, I don't buy that, especially the part about Grier.
Fairly certain he was perfectly aware of the Ticketus deal.

Dempsey · 23-05-2012 10:29pm

Whyte pulled this "saving face" stunt after the last investigation. You falling for it again?

Old Gill · 23-05-2012 10:35pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Well, that was that then.

I don't know what evidence they provided that wasn't already out there, but the way it was brought really doesn't help the credibility of that documentary.

New evidence on double contracts which of already in public domain you'd question why split are so slow enforcing their rules and strip titles and demote the cheating club

bobmalooka · 23-05-2012 10:36pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Yeah, maybe you should go to bed indeed.

I honestly dont know what goes on in your head Jelle.

You are incapable of looking at any matter objectively and instead it boils down to denying, deflecting and belittling away every single piece of news regarding Rangers dodgy dealings.

You said earlier that if someone is right once does that make them right every time. Well if you argue blindly against every single thing that has been right so far what does that make you?

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 10:36pm

For the record, I don't buy that

Dempsey · 23-05-2012 10:39pm

Well done on your ninja edit, why cant you just include the first time? I never seen someone to edit their posts so often and so quickly after posting

PauloMN · 23-05-2012 10:40pm

I categorically deny that at the time of the Craig Whyte takeover of Rangers, I had any knowledge that funds from Ticketus were being used to acquire the Club.

There simply isn't a LOL icon worthy of that!!!! :eek:

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 10:42pm

bobmalooka wrote: »

I honestly dont know what goes on in your head Jelle.

You are incapable of looking at any matter objectively and instead it boils down to denying, deflecting and belittling away every single piece of news regarding Rangers dodgy dealings.

You said earlier that if someone is right once does that make them right every time. Well if you argue blindly against every single thing that has been right so far what does that make you?

I'm not saying that what was claimed today was false or a lie, I'm saying that it's nothing we didn't know already.

Not to mention that I thought the whole program (as opposed to the first one) seemed like it was edited by a bunch of 12 year olds.

And that was apparently taken by some on here as denial, which it's not.
But there's also nothing wrong with asking them to back up their claims, some of the things (like the side letters) were mentioned but never shown.

Dempsey: Maybe you should ease up on the F5 button, frantically waiting for me to respond is getting a tad discomforting.

edit: Old Gill, they never provided any evidence about dual contracts.

bobmalooka · 23-05-2012 10:43pm

When Rangers win all these defamation suits against the BBC they'll surely have enough money to pay their debts.

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 10:45pm

bobmalooka wrote: »

When Rangers win all these defamation suits against the BBC they'll surely have enough money to pay their debts.

Wait until we win the one against Collyer Bristow

Old Gill · 23-05-2012 10:46pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

bobmalooka wrote: »

I honestly dont know what goes on in your head Jelle.

You are incapable of looking at any matter objectively and instead it boils down to denying, deflecting and belittling away every single piece of news regarding Rangers dodgy dealings.

You said earlier that if someone is right once does that make them right every time. Well if you argue blindly against every single thing that has been right so far what does that make you?

I'm not saying that what was claimed today was false or a lie, I'm saying that it's nothing we didn't know already.

Not to mention that I thought the whole program (as opposed to the first one) seemed like it was edited by a bunch of 12 year olds.

And that was apparently taken by some on here as denial, which it's not.
But there's also nothing wrong with asking them to back up their claims, some of the things (like the side letters) were mentioned but never shown.

Dempsey: Maybe you should ease up on the F5 button, frantically waiting for me to respond is getting a tad discomforting.

edit: Old Gill, they never provided any evidence about dual contracts.

They did have proof of dual contracts

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 10:48pm

Old Gill wrote: »

They did have proof of dual contracts

They went on about those EBT's and side letters sent to players (see the link posted earlier in this thread), but nothing about dual contracts.

Those are two separate issues.

Dempsey · 23-05-2012 10:50pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Dempsey: Maybe you should ease up on the F5 button, frantically waiting for me to respond is getting a tad discomforting.

I'm playing football manager and watching a film here, dont flatter yourself! :P

bobmalooka · 23-05-2012 10:53pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I'm not saying that what was claimed today was false or a lie, I'm saying that it's nothing we didn't know already.

Not to mention that I thought the whole program (as opposed to the first one) seemed like it was edited by a bunch of 12 year olds.

And that was apparently taken by some on here as denial, which it's not.
But there's also nothing wrong with asking them to back up their claims, some of the things (like the side letters) were mentioned but never shown.

Dempsey: Maybe you should ease up on the F5 button, frantically waiting for me to respond is getting a tad discomforting.

edit: Old Gill, they never provided any evidence about dual contracts.

Well to be fair most of us would be far more up to date on these matters than the target audience for tonights programme.

Tonights posts from you have been more deflecting than denying (editing not up to your standards because the BBC decided to spend more time on their findings rather than providing us their sources and copies of their evidence), you seem to always want to find ways to discredit anyone reporting on Rangers dodgy dealings. Why??

bobmalooka · 23-05-2012 10:58pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Wait until we win the one against Collyer Bristow

I know it'll give duff and duffer £25million to hand over to Whyte when ye get liquidated.

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 10:58pm

bobmalooka wrote: »

Well to be fair most of us would be far more up to date on these matters than the target audience for tonights programme.

Tonights posts from you have been more deflecting than denying (editing not up to your standards because the BBC decided to spend more time on their findings rather than providing us their sources and copies of their evidence), you seem to always want to find ways to discredit anyone reporting on Rangers dodgy dealings. Why??

I've already shown that, if given evidence, I'm willing to accept certain things that happened (like Whyte, the first BBC documentary,...) and say I was wrong.

But until that is the case (and face it, in the matter of the dual contracts and side letters it's far from) I will question anything that is being said about Rangers in a negative way.

I'm sure you would do the exact same thing.

For example it could very well be that D&P were involved from the start (which is something that was alluded to in the docu today), but so far it's only been proven that David Grier was aware to some extent (which has been admitted by himself).

And until someone comes out with clear proof that D&P were involved I will choose to back them in their efforts to save the club.

Being fooled once doesn't mean you have to indiscriminately scrutinize everything and everyone, a bit of good faith now and again isn't bad.

Which is what several people on FF are doing now, asking for D&P to be removed etc.

Old Gill · 23-05-2012 10:59pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Old Gill wrote: »

They did have proof of dual contracts

They went on about those EBT's and side letters sent to players (see the link posted earlier in this thread), but nothing about dual contracts.

Those are two separate issues.

Its same issue.. and will be enough to strip titles if the rules are applied.

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 11:00pm

Old Gill wrote: »

Its same issue.. and will be enough to strip titles if the rules are applied.

Tell me, what titles would that be then ? :rolleyes:

cruiserweight · 23-05-2012 11:02pm

Newsnight Scotland starting now, with the Rangers story being the lead one

Old Gill · 23-05-2012 11:09pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Old Gill wrote: »

Its same issue.. and will be enough to strip titles if the rules are applied.

Tell me, what titles would that be then ? :rolleyes:

Any games with ineligible players warrants a 3-0 defeat. So 2003 2005 2008 for sure and possibly couple others. But bury your head in sand if you like.

Dempsey · 23-05-2012 11:14pm

Old Gill wrote: »

Any games with ineligible players warrants a 3-0 defeat. So 2003 2005 2008 for sure and possibly couple others. But bury your head in sand if you like.

Dont forget the cups Gill!

bobbysands81 · 23-05-2012 11:14pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Well, that was that then.

I don't know what evidence they provided that wasn't already out there, but the way it was brought really doesn't help the credibility of that documentary.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

That part I missed (turned it off due to the sheer amateurism of it), but is this about David Grier ?

Because that's not exactly new.

This documentary could actually finish you guys off completely... and still you just don't get it.

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 11:17pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

This documentary could actually finish you guys off completely... and still you just don't get it.

Oh behave, if anything would finish us off then it's stuff that's already out in the open.

Like I said: This documentary has provided no new information.

cruiserweight · 23-05-2012 11:18pm

SPL have issued a statement about their investigation, seems to imply they don't have all of the docements they need http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18183076

bobbysands81 · 23-05-2012 11:18pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

They weren't illegal at the time of use and that's a fact.

The double contracts, if proven, were clearly illegal though and that could have huge implications.

And that second part is getting tiresome and predictable.

Tell me, if EBT's are so clearly illegal why has it taken so long to conclude the BTC ?

Eh, the EBTs have been found to be illegal, you guys are appealing it.

bobbysands81 · 23-05-2012 11:23pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Oh behave, if anything would finish us off then it's stuff that's already out in the open.

Like I said: This documentary has provided no new information.

Nope, this documentary could literally kill your club.

Answer me this... what happens RFC if HMRC petition the courts to remove Duff and Phelps thus delaying any takeover? How many legal challenges would follow if that happened? Your well is dry, you have no money, even delaying things by one week could see you liquidated.

How will your investors react to the programme?

Will SPL clubs change their minds (under pressure from their fans) about a NewCo joining SPL?

But hey none of that matters as it was all lies edited by 12 year olds who RFC are going to sue. How long will that legal actin take? Will your club still be around at the end of it?

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 11:25pm

If HMRC haven't petitioned to remove D&P by now I don't think they will any time soon.
And I think they would have plenty of opportunities to do that, D&P have behaved erratically with the whole take-over process (TBK claiming they moved the goalposts all the time etc.)

As I said, the stuff about David Grier was out in the open already, if HMRC have thought D&P were at it they would have stepped in a long time ago.

Imo.

bobbysands81 · 23-05-2012 11:28pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

If HMRC haven't petitioned to remove D&P by now I don't think they will any time soon.
And I think they would have plenty of opportunities to do that, D&P have behaved erratically with the whole take-over process (TBK claiming they moved the goalposts all the time etc.)

As I said, the stuff about David Grier was out in the open already, if HMRC have thought D&P were at it they would have stepped in a long time ago.

Imo.

So you happy that nothing new or untoward was reported in the documentary?

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 11:30pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

So you happy that nothing new or untoward was reported in the documentary?

I just don't think this warranted an hour long documentary.

The club is still in big trouble but I doubt this will have any positive or negative impact.

Dempsey · 23-05-2012 11:31pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

If HMRC haven't petitioned to remove D&P by now I don't think they will any time soon.

As I said, the stuff about David Grier was out in the open already, if HMRC have thought D&P were at it they would have stepped in a long time ago.

Imo.

TBH, why would they bother at this stage?

bobbysands81 · 23-05-2012 11:32pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I just don't think this warranted an hour long documentary.

The club is still in big trouble but I doubt this will have any positive or negative impact.

That's lovely, now please answer the questions I put to you.

bobbysands81 · 23-05-2012 11:34pm

Courtesy of 'Celtic Research' of the Twitter.

Today's documents show that Billy Dodds earned £190,000 by way of EBTs.

On 2nd March this year he seems to deny it.

http://soundcloud.com/celticresearch/ebt-dodds/s-ItEEn

Dempsey · 23-05-2012 11:36pm

Billy Dodds is too thick to know if he got an EBT or not. His agent probably bought himself a yacht with Billy's EBT!

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 11:37pm

I already did, but here you go.

What would happen if HMRC choose to get rid of D&P ?

Not a clue, but that's speculation as there are no signs of it happening.
Most likely new admins will be appointed and it starts all over, severely impacting the future of club since money is running out fast.

But again, speculation.

Same with how possible investors would react, how the **** should I know that ?

bobbysands81 · 23-05-2012 11:40pm

Dempsey wrote: »

Billy Dodds is too thick to know if he got an EBT or not. His agent probably bought himself a yacht with Billy's EBT!

He says he was only paid his wages. There you go, there's the proof then that EBTs were considered contractual payments by someone who was actually paid them.

Savage Tyrant · 23-05-2012 11:42pm

What are EBT's exactly and why are they constantly referred to as "loans" if they don't need to be paid back?

Barry Ferguson 2.5 million?
Alex McLeish 1.7 million?

Tidy loans if you can get them without paying back.

And Souness getting a 30,000 "sub" 10 years after leaving the club, while employed at another?

Nah, nothing dodgy going on there at all!!

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 11:44pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

He says he was only paid his wages. There you go, there's the proof then that EBTs were considered contractual payments by someone who was actually paid them.

He said he had no clue and he just got his wages.
That doesn't mean he was aware of any EBT scheme.

I agree with Dempsey, Dodds is a bit thick, I'm sure he just got money weekly/monthly and never questioned it.

Notice also how his is one of the names where the BBC claim to have no side letter.

Dempsey · 23-05-2012 11:45pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

He says he was only paid his wages. There you go, there's the proof then that EBTs were considered contractual payments by someone who was actually paid them.

Seriously though, there could have been agents ripping off players when they got wind of this sort of deal, it wouldnt surprise me. Like their directors, the players would have done **** all except probably change agent.

Savage Tyrant · 23-05-2012 11:47pm

Brilliant!!

bobbysands81 · 23-05-2012 11:49pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I agree with Dempsey, Dodds is a bit thick, I'm sure he just got money weekly/monthly and never questioned it.

...and if that's the case then you've lost your appeal in the Big Tax Case!!!

bobbysands81 · 23-05-2012 11:51pm

Dempsey wrote: »

Seriously though, there could have been agents ripping off players when they got wind of this sort of deal, it wouldnt surprise me. Like their directors, the players would have done **** all except probably change agent.

Monies went to players, not agents.

Jelle1880 · 23-05-2012 11:52pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

...and if that's the case then you've lost your appeal in the Big Tax Case!!!

Or it means Dodds was never paid through any EBT scheme.
But your guess (because that's what it is, right ?) is as good as mine.

And before you use that BBC page as evidence: I'd love to see those side letters first.
And in the case of Dodds I'd love to see the evidence they have to come up to £190.000.

Dempsey · 23-05-2012 11:58pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Monies went to players, not agents.

You think an agent couldnt provide different bank details on the paperwork for a money transfer that isnt suppose to exist and cover his tracks? When you have people like 'Arry Redknapp in football who cant fill out a teamsheet but have a bank account in Monaco in the name of his dead dog then anything like is possible. I'm not saying it happened but I wouldnt rule out the possibility of a player being scammed by their agent.

bobbysands81 · 24-05-2012 12:33am

What do you make of this Jelle? You honestly saying you knew about all this already?

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/

There is so much material to wade through as a result of the excellent BBC documentary, Rangers – The men who sold the jerseys. Much of it is of only passing interest to us, although we will examine it in more detail in the days to come, one part, however, concerns Celtic and Celtic fans more any anyone else in Scotland.

BBC have evidence that the following players had side letters contracting payment to Employee Benefit Trusts:

Alex Rae, Arthur Numan, Barry Ferguson, Carlos Cuellar, Christian Nerlinger, Craig More, Dado Prso, Dan Eggen, Egil Ostenstad, Fernando Ricksen, Gavin Rae, Gregory Vignal, Jean-Alain Boumsong, Jerome Bonnissel, Julien Rodriguez, Kris Boyd, Lorenzo Amoruso, Kevin Muscat, Libor Sionko, Marvin Andrews, Michael Ball, Mikel Arteta, Michael Mols, Nacho Novo, Paolo Vanoli, Pedro Mendes, Neil McCann, Olivier Bernard, Peter Lovenkrands, Ronald De Boer, Sasa Papac, Ronald Waterreus, Sotirios Kyrgiakos, Stefan Klos, Steven Davis, Steven Thompson, Thomas Buffel and Zurab Khizanishvilli

Scottish FA registration procedures are clear:

Rule 2.2.1

Unless lodged in accordance with Procedures Rule 2.13 a Non-Recreational [professional] Contract Player Registration Form will not be valid unless it is accompanied by the contract entered into between the club concerned and the player stating all the terms and conditions in conformity with the Procedures Rule 4.

“Will not be valid” being the key point.

The SFA’s Articles of Association also say:

Furthermore, all payments, whether made by the club or otherwise, which are to be made to a player solely relating to his playing activities must be fully recorded within the relevant written agreement with the player prior to submission to this Association and/or the recognised football body of which his club is in membership.

Article 98 states:

A club making payment of any kind to a player, either amateur or professional, must obtain from the player a written receipt for the same showing details of the payment, and any club under the jurisdiction of the Association must produce such receipts to the Association when called upon to do so. For a player registered by means of a Full Professional Form, a club must produce on request receipts for the wages paid to him in terms of his agreement lodged with the Association.

Documentary evidence exists that Rangers played 38 players with invalid registrations between 2000 and 2010 (the last year financial information is available for Rangers) . Results from all games involving these players, which is all games Rangers have played since 2000, are void.

I am sure the BBC will forward all evidence to the SFA and SPL for investigation.

You were cheated out of five league championships. Fortunately, evidence exists and the history books will be rewritten.

The SFA and SPL must immediately take action. A statement must be made this morning reflecting the gravity of the situation and reassuring fans that our game’s administrators are able to deal with this matter.

12-in-a-row! Who would have thought it!

Just a quick comment on Juninho. Juninho had an EBT for a short period while he was at Celtic. He had no side letters or contracts from Celtic and tax was paid on money paid into the EBT. ‘Nothing to see here’.

Jelle1880 · 24-05-2012 12:41am

Yes, everybody was aware that certain players supposedly were partly paid by EBT's and had side letters about that, the BBC already mentioned that before they broadcasted this.

Don't pretend you don't take a look at RTC now and again

I'm still waiting for those side letters to be shown to the SFA though, and to the public if possible.

Dempsey · 24-05-2012 1:45am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18185328

Former Rangers director Paul Murray has called for a probe of Duff & Phelps' handling of the football club's period in administration.

"Some serious allegations in this programme seem to be backed up by documentary evidence,"

"And I really feel that there has to be an investigation as a matter of urgency by the regulatory bodies."

"For Rangers fans to have confidence in the process over the last three months, this has to be investigated as a matter of urgency,"

"The problem from the club's point of view is that we don't have much time."

"In their wisdom, they have given Charles Green's consortium preferred bidder status and I do not want to do anything to adversely effect the club," said Murray.

"I was involved as a director and been involved in trying to buy the club with others, but first and foremost I am a fan and want to see the club in safe hands.

"Duff and Phelps have been quite clear that the club will run out of money at the end of the month.

"But tonight's programme, if substantiated, suggests a lot of question marks over that process over the past three months.

"That process has taken a long time and a lot of people have questioned why it has taken a long time."

"I am a qualified chartered accountant and some elements of the process have bemused me," he said.

"Why were Duff and Phelps appointed in the first place? I wonder why one of the four largest accountancy firms were not appointed.

"Why was Craig Whyte so keen to get Duff and Phelps appointed?

"And Duff and Phelps have to answer questions over David Grier's involvement in this."

I just pulled what Murray said and some of the questions he's only asking now in public were being asked the morning Whyte pre-empted HMRC on filing for administration.

The question now is, what actually puts the final nail in Rangers coffin because if D&P have breached regulations and are put through the wringer by the Insolvency Practitioners Association then they would probably have to go through the preferred bidder process again

:pac:

bobbysands81 · 24-05-2012 1:45am

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Yes, everybody was aware that certain players supposedly were partly paid by EBT's and had side letters about that, the BBC already mentioned that before they broadcasted this.

Don't pretend you don't take a look at RTC now and again

I'm still waiting for those side letters to be shown to the SFA though, and to the public if possible.

24 hours ago I thought such letters existed and that there was dual contracts.

Now the BBC have said they have proof that these exist and they have made astounding accusations to back it up. I believe that the BBC are right... and if they're not then I look forward to the court cases.

bobbysands81 · 24-05-2012 1:48am

Dempsey wrote: »

The question now is, what actually puts the final nail in Rangers coffin because if D&P have breached regulations and are put through the wringer by the Insolvency Practitioners Association then they would probably have to go through the preferred bidder process again

Precisely the point I put to Jelle earlier.

Paul Murray was a director whilst these EBTs were being paid, he's got some cheek making these statements about Duff and Phelps considering his role in all this guff.

Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

Comments