MEADOWXI Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 just when you think they can't be anymore deluded... someone actually thinks that they are running at a loss out of choice. Running at a deficit to avoid paying tax....Wonder how their last tax avoidance scheme worked for them 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 9 hours ago, sugna said: The thing that gets me is how transparent and blatant his lies have been, in all areas where it's possible to check them against the known facts. Last year's panicked approach to placate and pay off Ashley was a classic: King in really big trouble after a pre-hearing damned him, and looking like being subject to a mauling on the RRL front. Then announces a much improved deal with Ashley - although the details he released were identical to the existing deal - then it was found that he had paid Ashley off, using Rangers funds - to the tune of £3m. It. Is. All. Lies. The strange thing is that a lot of them are checkable in 5 minutes, and there are no checkable non-lies to balance them out. There was something I noticed about the new strip deal with Hummel from The Rangers. Knowing how King likes to tell everyone who he got one over on Ashley there is the distribution & supply of the merchandise. There isn't one mention of the club having total control of the kit deal in his press release. Is this Ashley still having control over the clubs kit deal and Ashley still getting his cut and by what percentage? Is Ashley the sole distributor? Knowing King he would have crowed this from the rafters that the club had complete control of any kit deal and that the club would be controlling the distribution themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 52 minutes ago, hellbhoy said: There was something I noticed about the new strip deal with Hummel from The Rangers. Knowing how King likes to tell everyone who he got one over on Ashley there is the distribution & supply of the merchandise. There isn't one mention of the club having total control of the kit deal in his press release. Is this Ashley still having control over the clubs kit deal and Ashley still getting his cut and by what percentage? Is Ashley the sole distributor? Knowing King he would have crowed this from the rafters that the club had complete control of any kit deal and that the club would be controlling the distribution themselves. Amazon are doing our online retail, high street retailer is not confirmed yet .... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, bennett said: Amazon are doing our online retail, high street retailer is not confirmed yet .... Post source please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 Post source please. ........Captain Oates has just left the tent....... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 17 hours ago, bennett said: Amazon are doing our online retail, high street retailer is not confirmed yet .... Hummel tops from Amazon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Layne Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 21 hours ago, bennett said: Amazon are doing our online retail, high street retailer is not confirmed yet .... Nice 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 LULU 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 Jim Traynors stylish linguistic fingers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 https://stv.tv/sport/football/1415110-rangers-charged-by-sfa-over-2011-12-uefa-licence-issue/ Rangers charged by SFA over 2011/12 UEFA licence issue Andy Coyle 25 mins ago The Scottish FA compliance officer has served the club with a notice of complaint. Charge: Rangers face action from the Scottish FA. SNS Group Rangers have been charged by the Scottish FA with breaking the governing body's rules over a tax bill prior to being awarded a licence to play in European football in the 2011/12 season. The governing body has brought two charges against the Ibrox club, relating to their reporting of the 'Wee Tax Case' in paperwork submitted to Hampden. In September 2017, the Scottish FA instructed its compliance officer to investigate the circumstances surrounding Rangers UEFA licence application in 2011 and its own decision to grant the club permission to play in Europe. Nine months later, after reviewing documentation from the time and evidence given during the Craig Whyte trial, the Hampden official has decided that the Rangers have a case to answer over the "monitoring period" of 2010/11 and 2011/12. UEFA rules state clubs applying to play in Europe should have "no payables overdue" to tax authorities, but do allow applications to progress if amounts are in dispute. Rangers said at the time of their application in 2011 they had no overdue payables but that they were in dispute with HMRC over their liability from a Discounted Option Scheme, known as "the Wee Tax Case", which was in use from 2000 to 2002. However, in court testimony given during the Craig Whyte trial, Rangers and Murray Group directors stated the club knew the tax bill was overdue in November 2010, months before their UEFA licence application. Following the court case, the Scottish FA took legal advice from a QC before referring the matter to their compliance officer to investigate whether the governing body had acted correctly when processing the licence application. That has resulted in two separate charges, due to the change in the governing body's own disciplinary rules from Articles of Association to a Judicial Panel Protocol. The first charge relates to failing to comply with "the articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and international match calendar promulgated by the board or by a standing committee, committee or sub-committee thereof, or by FIFA or UEFA or by the Court of Arbitration for Sport". The second alleges that Rangers did not follow rules that: "All members shall:- (a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play; (b) be subject to and comply with the articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and international match calendar promulgated by the board, the Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel Protocol, a committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport; (f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith." Sanctions for the second rule breach range from a £1,000 fine up to "£5,000,000 and/or ejection from the Scottish Cup and/or exclusion from the Scottish Cup and/or any player registration restrictions and/or suspension and/or termination of membership and/or any sanction or disposal not expressly provided above". A response from Rangers is due by May 22, with a principal hearing date set for June 26. Regardless of the outcome, UEFA are unlikely to take any action over the matter, having a five-year limit on dealing with historic cases. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest Sevco will face no meaningful consequences whatsoever. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, nsr said: I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest Sevco will face no meaningful consequences whatsoever. 100% agree, only thing it should do is keep King on notice that he has to have the current stuff up to date, Think the SFA are claiming 'fool me once.............' Even though they probably knew what was happening, and next time UEFA may take less than 5 years to come down on the SFA if something similar happened again, another stable door bolted. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 It's all about the timing with sevco and the SFA well done. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 I'm sure all Rangers supporters agree that this journey has been worth it. Getting caught cheating, having to start a new club, losing to Stirling among others, not getting promoted, backing the wrong owner time and again, watching Celtic hoover up money and trophies, has all been worth it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 We salute you "RES 12" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 (edited) Who are they issuing the notice of complaint to? Sidestepping the whole 'they died' thing, did they not operate under a different club licence then and as such the current licencee/club could claim not to be liable - Of course that would open up the whole can of worms again. Edited May 15, 2018 by Richie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 Statement! Quote THE Rangers Football Club (“the Club”) was informed today by the Scottish FA (“SFA”) that, after an eight-and-a-half month investigation, the SFA will not be proceeding with a Notice of Complaint in respect of the submission made by the Club to the SFA at the end of March 2011 with regard to the issue of the Club’s UEFA licence for the following Season. The Club is unsurprised that it has now finally been accepted by the SFA that the accusations made against the Club were groundless. The Club questions whether the time, cost and expense of this investigation was justified and was a good use of the SFA’s limited resources. Disappointingly, and presumably rather than accept that the investigation was a waste of all parties’ time and resources, the Club has been served with a new revised Notice of Complaint relating to the monitoring period subsequent to the grant of the UEFA licence. This new Notice of Complaint neglects to properly capture the provisions of prior agreements made between the Club and the SFA. The Club will fiercely resist this reconstructed Notice of Complaint. Unfortunately, monies that should be available to Scottish youth and grassroots football will be diverted into another rehearsal of seven-year-old debates on the rights and wrongs of events that the SFA should have prevented at a time when doing so would have served a useful purpose. It seems that Scottish Football is, once again, being directed by individuals intent on harming the Scottish game, Rangers Football Club and its supporters by pursuing a course that has no sensible purpose or reasonable prospect of success. Quote THE Rangers Football Club Quote THE Rangers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHawHaw Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 36 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said: We salute you "RES 12" Unfortunately they have been badly served, including by Celtic. That licence debacle was a prime example, imo, of how Rangers corrupted Scottish football, anyone reading how Rangers told the SFA what to do/say surely must think its definition of corruption 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 2 hours ago, nsr said: I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest Sevco will face no meaningful consequences whatsoever. Rumours of prize money being withheld and an additional £6m fine plus possible registration suspension. 31 minutes ago, Richie said: Who are they issuing the notice of complaint to? Sidestepping the whole 'they died' thing, did they not operate under a different club licence then and as such the current licencee/club could claim not to be liable - Of course that would open up the whole can of worms again. Sevco (rfc died) statement seems to imply a breach of the five agreement. Previously all sfa/spl complaints have been to 'oldco'. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 Have we had the "clumpany" argument yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.