Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[ribzanelli]

If EBTs are a perfectly legal way of being paid without having to pay tax, why did the players only receive some of their pay this way? Wouldn't it have been more tax efficient to receive it all through an EBT?

[williemillersmoustache]

If EBTs are a perfectly legal way of being paid without having to pay tax, why did the players only receive some of their pay this way? Wouldn't it have been more tax efficient to receive it all through an EBT?

Delicious and unarguable point there. Would:

"they had to put some shite down on the form as not even the supine, arse-licking monkeys at the SFA would believe that Peter Lovenkrands was on a wage of £0.00 pa"

be a good enough answer?

[Dons_1988]

If EBTs are a perfectly legal way of being paid without having to pay tax, why did the players only receive some of their pay this way? Wouldn't it have been more tax efficient to receive it all through an EBT?

In fairness that is a fairly simplistic way of looking at it and the reasoning is mot likely due to how HMRC approach tax avoidance. As has been discussed the use of EBT's themselves are legal but used inappropriately (as Rangers did) then it can be illegal. There also has to be an element of reasonableness to any use of tax avoidance, so using an EBT as part of an overall remuneration package could be perfectly acceptable whereby if it was all EBT's HMRC would proably be a bit annoyed.

Similarly, if you are a contractor and set up a company to ply your trade as opposed to being a sole trader, you could send yourself dividends at a lower tax rate than if you took a salary from the company. This would be acceptable occasionally but if you always paid a dividend to yourself you'd have HMRC asking you to justify it for reasons other than paying a lower rate of tax.

[strichener]

In fairness that is a fairly simplistic way of looking at it and the reasoning is mot likely due to how HMRC approach tax avoidance. As has been discussed the use of EBT's themselves are legal but used inappropriately (as Rangers did) then it can be illegal. There also has to be an element of reasonableness to any use of tax avoidance, so using an EBT as part of an overall remuneration package could be perfectly acceptable whereby if it was all EBT's HMRC would proably be a bit annoyed.

Similarly, if you are a contractor and set up a company to ply your trade as opposed to being a sole trader, you could send yourself dividends at a lower tax rate than if you took a salary from the company. This would be acceptable occasionally but if you always paid a dividend to yourself you'd have HMRC asking you to justify it for reasons other than paying a lower rate of tax.

Not any more you can't. This loophole has been closed.

As the Court ruled, the EBT is a side-issue. The income tax became due as a result of employment and the payment could have been made to an EBT, another person or entity and it would still have been liable to Income Tax.

[Ken Fitlike]

The most 'sorted' club in Scottish Football

[LordHawHaw]

The shameful aspect of this is that our Governing Bodies, and what should be an inquisitorial Fourth estate, by colluding in the myth of legitimacy of the new club, are dragging our Game into the filth with them.

That for me is the worse aspect of this whole affair, by a distance

[mythstoliveby]

That for me is the worse aspect of this whole affair, by a distance

Yes, what all this mess has shown is just how badly (almost all) people can and will behave

[johnnyc13]

Rangers as a club is synonymous with dignity and respect and it is these two essential qualities that must never be
forgotten as we strive to regain our place at the top of Scottish football. Our every-day behaviour, our actions, must
always enhance the reputation of this institution.

[johnnyc13]

[johnnyc13]

Rangers: Mike Ashley launches court action over SFA's 'fit and proper' approval of Dave King

Martin Williams, Senior News Reporter

SPORTS Direct supremo Mike Ashley has launched a judicial review of a decision by Scottish football's governing body to pass Rangers chairman Dave King as "fit and proper".

The first hearing in the action against the Scottish Football Association due to be heard at Edinburgh’s Court of Session, is scheduled for Friday, December 11.

The court action will come just two days after the bid by Mr Ashley, who also owns Newcastle United, to have Mr King thrown in jail accusing him of breaching a gagging order.

The contempt charge has been set for December 9 at London’s High Court and if convicted a sentence of 30 days in prison could be handed down by the judge.

Spoiler: click to toggle

The issue surrounds Mr King for discussing his relationship with Sports Direct during an interview in July.

Mr Ashley's gagging order stopping Rangers from blowing the lid off controversial details of contracts with his retail chain went UK wide in June.

Mr Ashley served legal papers in the case against the SFA last month calling for the judicial review of the SFA ruling made on May 19.

The SFA are expected to defend their position.

There were two hurdles within an 11-point SFA 'fit and proper person' list of 'relevant facts' for officials, office-bearers and board directors that he had to overcome.

The first in the "illustrative and not exhaustive" list concerns whether the person had been convicted in the last 10 years of an offence liable to imprisonment of two years or over. In 2013, Mr King agreed to pay £45m as a settlement after pleading guilty to breaching 41 criminal counts of South Africa's Income Tax Act surrounding non-payment.

The second concerned whether the person had been a director of a club in the five years preceding any insolvency event. Mr King and fellow would-be director Paul Murray were directors within the five years before the liquidation of RFC 2012 plc, the new name given to the original operating company Rangers Football Club plc.

The SFA Articles of Association stated the board "reserves its discretion" as to whether a person is fit and proper after "due consideration of all relevant fact which the board has in its possession and knowledge".

Mr King has consistently insisted he will prove he would pass any fit and proper person's test to take a position of importance in the boardroom, saying he has a "unique status of credibility".

The Ashley action comes as the Ibrox board sought to remove the controversial Newcastle owner’s right to a say in how the Glasgow club is run.

Rangers International Football Club plc headed by chairman Dave King has put forward a resolution calling for the removal of the voting rights of any shareholder who is involved in running another club at the annual general meeting later this month.

That action was said to be a result of Rangers being fined by the Scottish Football Association for breaching so-called dual ownership rules relating to the Sports Direct supremo.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14023188.Rangers__Mike_Ashley_launches_court_action_over_SFA_s__fit_and_proper__approval_of_Dave_King/

[johnnyc13]

Where are all the sevconians, must be a party line meeting down Ibrokes way

[Njord]

John James latest.

December could have been a busy month for our career criminal King administration. Charles Green and five others will resume their High Court trials preliminary hearing on December 8th. King will face Contempt of Court charges on December 9th. The SFA were due to defend an action by Mike Ashley in regard to King on December 11, but this has now been postponed until 4 February 2016.

Dave King would be delighted if he could postpone his Contempt charges at The High Courts of Justice until a later date in February, some time after the 22nd, as he is currently serving a suspended sentence on a three month prison term for contempt of court.

Since common sense has recently been one of the parameters for legal directives, how will the High Courts of Justice judge view the fact of Kings suspended conviction for contempt of court in South Africa on 22 February, 2013? Will he come to the conclusion that he is an incorrigible career criminal who should be 30 days? Will the judge take a withering view of his 41 convictions for tax evasion? How will the judge view Mr Kings admitted perjury and the view, expressed by three distinguished judges that King is a glib and shameless who will not hesitate to lie if it serves his best interests and should not be believed on any matter unless supported by objective evidence.

There can be no justification whatsoever for the SFA coming to the conclusion that Dave King was fit and proper. He contravenes the SFAs article 10.2, which excludes any individual sentenced to a prison sentence of two years or more. Each of Kings tax convictions carry a sentence of two years, and he is currently serving a suspended sentence of three months. Then there is his stewardship as non-executive director on a board who abnegated on his fiduciary duties to the shareholders when allowing a tax evasion conspiracy to be perpetrated. The latter is hardly surprising as King bought his shares to evade tax.

It is hard to imagine anyone less fit to be a director of football company/club than Dave King. Massimo Cellino has been banned by the English Football Association for not paying VAT on an imported Range Rover. Dave King was charged with evading £120m of tax with an £120m penalty. He eventually paid £44m in tax and a £650,000 fine, having spent 13 years and £50m lying to each and every court he entered. He even had the audacity to apply for the South African equivalent of legal aid in his guise as a golf caddie.

The SFA claimed that they instructed a solicitor to give them legal advice. We will find out if this is true, or a lie by Stewart Regan in an attempt to save face in a scandalous decision that circumvents the SFAs articles of association. What will the SFAs case be? Will they revert to The Bryson Defence by claiming that King was imperfectly deemed fit and proper?

I posit that this was yet another SFA stitch-up in their unrelenting quest to restore Rangers to the Scottish Premiership. The decision was predicated on one single choice. If King has money, as he claims, to invest in Rangers, then we cannot refuse him as another insolvency event might exclude Rangers from next years Scottish Premiership.

The fact that King was barely credible was overlooked by Regan as he sold his decision to an eight man board. Not the full eleven members of The Professional Gaming Board, where Regan would require at least five other members to support his ridiculous assertion. SFA Board Protocols section 3.15 (iv) state that responsibility for approving persons to hold position within Association Football lies with the Professional Gaming Board. They broke their own rules to arrive at their highly flawed conclusion. The PGB voted that Paul Murray was fit and proper. They were expecting to be convened for the vote on King. Stewart Regan went against established SFA precepts to force King through.

The PGB at that time consisted of Rod Petrie (Hibs), Neil Doncaster (SPFL), Ralph Topping (SPFL), Peter Lawwell (Celtic), Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen), Mike Mulraney (Alloa), Sandy Stables (Highland League), Andrew Waddell (Lowland League), Stewart Regan (SFA chief executive), Campbell Ogilvie (SFA President) and Alan McRae (first vice-president of the SFA).

The main SFA board at that time consisted of Regan, Ogilvie, McRae, Petrie, Barrie Jackson, Peter Lawwell, Ralph Topping and Tom Johnston of the Junior FA.

As a non-executive director, Barrie Jackson does not have vote. He has an advisory remit on this board. The vote was 5-2 in favour of King. There were no abstentions.

Lets have a look at the motivation of the seven men who voted.Given all we know about Campbell Ogilvie, there is no question he would back Regan. There is no question McRae would back Regan as he needed his support to be elevated from Vice President to President, when Mr Ogilvie subsequently did not seek re-election. Ralph Topping, who is chairman of the SPFL backed Regan. To not do so would create a schism in the relationship between both governing bodies. I have little doubt that the ambitious Tom Johnston backed Regan. The two dissenting voices were those of Petrie and Lawwell.

Regan went into this meeting in the full knowledge that he was guaranteed a majority. If he had convened the Professional Gaming Board, Regan would have been guaranteed the backing of Doncaster, Topping, Ogilvie and McRae. Lawwell, Petrie, Fraser and Mulraney might have voted against with the votes of Stables and Waddell deciding the majority vote.

I posit that Regan was not confident of gaining the five votes he required to impose his position on the PGB.

The last thing the SFA wanted was to be challenged in court. The SFA are not fit for purpose and they cannot justify why the PGB was not convened. There has never been any question that Dave King was unfit and improper. Those who backed King will have to justify their decision in court. If Ashley is successful Kings position as chairman will be suspended subject to review by the full PGB. This time minus the insidious influence of Ogilvie, and with any luck, the compromised Stewart Regan.

Those hoping for further consideration of the LNS decision by the SPFL board will be disappointed. Doncaster. Topping Regan and McRae are now circling their wagons to defend their risible decision to back King.

If King is imprisoned for thirty days on December 9, the folly of their decision will be in sharp relief.

Maybe I was on the money re dinde's phone call eavesdrop being Waddell

[johnnyc13]

FA statement

STATEMENT | Judicial Review

Wednesday, 11 November 2015


The Scottish FA can confirm we have received a petition for Judicial Review and will be defending it. We will make no further comment at this stage

[energyzone]

So what would be the likely income in the event of King's fit and proper ruling being overturned?

[johnnyc13]

Lots of laughter

[Jacksgranda]

So what would be the likely income in the event of King's fit and proper ruling being overturned?

"outcome", no?

[CowdenConvert]

So what would be the likely income in the event of King's fit and proper ruling being overturned?

the likely outcome would be another melt-down from Rangers fans and the life of this thread extended further.

[Ken Fitlike]

So what would be the likely income in the event of King's fit and proper ruling being overturned?

The_K would spend the night abusing diddies about the meaning of 'overturned'

[williemillersmoustache]

The_K would spend the night abusing diddies about the meaning of 'overturned'

I think you'll find that's turned-over' with an unnecessary apostrophe and theirs the wrong spelling of there, they're for him 2

[bennett]

MIKE ASHLEY is taking the SFA to court.

SunSport can reveal that the tycoon has demanded a full judicial inquiry into the decision by the beaks to pass Dave King as a fit and proper person.

The bombshell news comes just a week after the Sports Direct supremo launched a legal move to have the Gers chairman jailed.

Mike Ashley is taking the SFA to court

Mike Ashley is taking the SFA to court

The case, to be heard at Edinburgh’s Court of Session, is scheduled for a first hearing on Friday, December 11.

It could eventually lead to the original decision being overturned by the sitting judge.

Ashley is understood to have served legal papers last month calling for a review of the SFA ruling handed down on May 19.

He wants to examine the process Hampden’s hierarchy went through before clearing King.

Seething Gers fans will view the MASH Holdings v SFA case as a clear attempt to further disrupt the rebuilding process at the crisis-torn club.

King was able to take up the role of Ibrox chairman when he was passed fit and proper by the SFA.

Just two months before May’s ruling, he had led a successful bid to oust the previous regime.

However, the game’s governing body still needed time to assess the businessman’s suitability given his tax convictions in South Africa.

The fact he’d sat on the Light Blues’ board prior to their administration in 2012 was also considered by Hampden chiefs. At the time, the SFA consulted the relevant authorities in South Africa and Scotland, including the police, South African Revenue Services and HMRC, before allowing King to become chairman.

But that hasn’t satisfied Ashley, who has declared all-out war on King and his board.

The petition will already be in the hands of the SFA. Judicial reviews generally look into whether processes behind decisions made by public and private bodies are legal and fair.

It promises to be another messy affair in this never-ending saga with Ashley also dragging King through the courts.

Their feud exploded publicly last week as King insisted the costly legal fight against Sports Direct would continue.

Ashley’s lawyers then argued King breached a gagging order — obtained by the Sports Direct chief in June — in an interview with Sky Sports’ Jim White.

The latest twist comes less than a week after HMRC, at the third time of asking, won their appeal in the “Big Tax Case” and Gers’ annual report confirmed they need an additional £2.5m to survive the season.

Uncle Pete vs Uncle mikey!

Cannae wait.