boss

Haha, you are of course correct. But hypocrite that she is, she did actually do a good job in roasting those companies last week.

No worries, GS. I could cure cancer and find a solution to world poverty, all before breakfast, and you'd still find an angle agin it.

It sounds like the title of a Famous Five adventure. The only question being, which one out of Doncaster, Lawwell, Thompson, Milne and Petrie should play the part of Dick. There are certainly a few candidates for Timmy the dog. As we all now know, since 1999 the SPL declared income of £231million, of which it paid about £188million to the clubs, but the SPL did not pay one penny in corporation tax. Many have been shocked by the immorality of such a set-up, and appalled by the hypocrisy of the SPLâ??s relentless hounding of Rangers. Despite some rabid comments to the contrary, at no time was it stated that £100million was de facto due by the SPL. Instead, this is a question of morality, a concept with which many of our separated brethren are seemingly unfamiliar. The most recently published balance sheet of the SPL to 31 May 2011 showed net liabilities of £196,000. In other words, its liabilities exceeded its assets by £196,000. Such a bust balance sheet can be described as being technically insolvent. Its accounts have declared net liabilities since at least 1999, and indeed its balance sheet has worsened every year (bar one). Why is this? Every year the SPL doesnâ??t just pay out its â??profitâ? to the clubs - it pays out even more than the â??profitâ? it makes. It pays out so much in fact that it makes a loss year after year. The SPL made a loss in 11 out of the last 12 years. Here is what Margaret Hodge, chairman of the PAC, stated last week in relation to Starbucks: â??I just don't believe any corporate entity would sustain losses for 15 years and stay in UK.â? She went on to say it: â??just doesn't ring true" and could only be a tax dodge. So why does the SPL deliberately make a loss each year? Accounts profit and taxable profit are not the same thing. A company might spend money which reduces its accounts profit, but which is not tax deductible and so does not reduce its taxable profit. Common examples would be entertaining, capital expenditure, and some legal fees. So the SPL could break even (i.e. pay out all its â??profitâ? to the clubs) but still have a tax charge because of, say, entertaining costs that it would not get a tax deduction for. Instead, what the SPL does is deliberately make a loss so that its taxable profit (after adjusting for non tax deductible expenses) is zero. In order for any expense to be tax deductible it needs to be incurred â??wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the tradeâ?. The â??extraâ? amounts paid out to the clubs over and above the â??profitâ?, has nothing to do with the purposes of the trade, and everything to do with â??dodgingâ? tax. And they cannot be described as â??exclusivelyâ? for the trade when they are apparently just a way to eliminate tax. There is a prima facie case that the only purpose is to create an artificial loss so that zero corporation tax is paid. This alone would give HMRC an opportunity to revisit all the payments to clubs in order to ascertain their true nature, and to see whether any rules have been breached. Remember that even a minor breach could have catastrophic consequences. People can judge for themselves whether it is morally right that the SPL can deliberately incur losses year after year so that not one penny of corporation tax get paid to fund schools, hospitals, nurses and teachers. As Margaret Hodge stated: â??I think one should boycott these companies. I do actually think that is the right thing to do.â? I agree. The SPL clubs have allowed the Fatuous Five (Dick, Dick, Dick, Dick and Dick) to decimate their income streams for many years to come.

That's a bit like saying all MPs claimed ridiculous things on their expenses, that's the way things were done, so it's okay. And we know how that turned out.

... and the answer is to allow each club to negotiate their own commercial contracts, so it works all ways for Rangers!

Indeed, the person also paid NI as well as tax, and the company paid NI too as well as VAT. The company also paid rates on the garage and, if there is any profit left after all that, will pay corporation tax as well. (But on your point, the clubs wouldn't pay tax on the dividends they would receive under that scenario, so there wouldn't be double taxation.)

The SPL isn't a not for profit organisation. It doesn't make a 'profit' but that's not the same thing.

Morning my erstwhile friend. :cheers: No, I have made the point in the article that virtually no (perhaps indeed zero) corporation tax has been paid on this money, even by the clubs. They have tax losses that mop up this 'profit' and leave no tax paid.

Some extracts from the accounts of The Scottish Premier League Limited: Income - £231million Corporation tax paid - £nil Last week Starbucks, Amazon and Google were roasted live by the Public Accounts Committee for their “immoral” tax avoidance schemes which enable these companies to trade in the UK but pay virtually no corporation tax. The PAC’s view was that these companies were “at it” and HMRC should investigate and clamp down hard. Which brings us to the SPL. Since 1999 the SPL has declared income of £231,563,000. The amounts then paid out of this income to SPL clubs have only been disclosed in the accounts since 2010, but a reasonable estimate of such amounts based on my analysis of the accounts is £188,076,000. That’s £188million received by the SPL clubs and not one penny paid in corporation tax by the SPL. How can that be so? The normal situation for a company is: it makes a profit, it pays corporation tax on that profit, then anything that is left can be paid as a dividend to the shareholders. Anyone that owns shares in a company (say, BT) will know that when you receive a dividend, you also receive a voucher that shows tax has already been paid on that dividend. The SPL does not treat these payments to the clubs (who are its shareholders) as dividends. Instead, they treat these payments as expenses and claim tax relief on these payments. So the SPL’s accounts end up showing a loss every year and no corporation tax to pay. Based on the corporation tax rates throughout the period, the corporation tax that would otherwise have been due on £188million would have been in excess of £55million. If the SPL was subsequently found to have wrongly “dodged” corporation tax, you can add interest and penalties to that and the final bill would be more than £100million. That is one hell of a lot of schools, hospitals, nurses and teachers. The hypocrisy of the SPL moralising over Rangers’ tax situation is breathtaking. On receipt of the £188million, the clubs themselves have paid virtually no corporation tax, perhaps none at all. Most clubs either make losses, or have previously made losses that they can use against current profits, so they themselves generally have no corporation tax to pay. All it would take would be for HMRC to revisit the SPL’s tax treatment (sound familiar?), change their view on the application of tax law (sound familiar?) and decide that tax should have been paid after all (sound familiar?). There but for the grace of HMRC go the SPL. Of course, we would then have the hollow excuses from the SPL: “took professional advice”, “acted within the law at the time”, “HMRC changed the goalposts”, all of which again sounds pretty damn familiar. There would be a delicious irony if such a fate befell the SPL, upon whose financial collapse HMRC sought to recover such tax from the clubs who were willing participants in the structure. As Pyramus might say: “Now die, die, die, die, die”. This mess is best summed up by the PAC chairman, Margaret Hodge when referring to the serial tax "dodging" companies: “We are not accusing you of being illegal, we are accusing you of being immoral”. Perhaps she should call Mr Doncaster to appear before the committee for a roasting.

Just to clarify, RM have had a number of letters recently from solicitors acting for Regan/SFA. Given the implications of the allegations, we're trying to verify the information before putting it back up. Pulling the thread shouldn't be taken as meaning the information isn't true.

The tweet was saved in January. The new legislation came in a few months later! And in any event, he has only 7 "favourites", and only 1 of which is questionable re the new legislation, so he doesn't "often save" anything! He has even ballsed up in trying to cover his blunder. (I await his "wrong button pressed" excuse - the button beside "favourite" is "retweet" so that won't work either!)

So, a fairly normal outcome for a CVA then...

That'll be an interesting one. Under what Article and Rule do you propose they'll try to fine us? I'm yet to be convinced that they can legally do so.

Not necessarily - paragraph 4.23 of the CVA allows Sevco to waive the condition that refers to continued participation in the Scottish Cup. Given the additional hurdles/punishments for a newco (being accepted by the SFA and SPL, 3 year Euro ban etc) Rangers would potentially lose much more by going down the newco route instead of accepting (say) a one year SC ban. On that basis, it's more likely than not that Sevco/Green would waive the condition.

The SPL started 1998/99 and we'd made no payments to EBTs prior to then. 9IAR was 1996/97.

"But David, when you said you'd supply the metal for my new house..."

The big story in respect of supporters' representation is this. The Club has gone through one of its worst times in 140 years, with its very existence endangered. The RST membership is perhaps less than 1% (one per cent) of the support that descended on Manchester, leaving aside the rest of the support worldwide. Even then, as can be seen from earlier posts in this thread, many members are disillusioned life members. Given the trauma of what we have gone through, the membership of the RST should be in the tens of thousands, with folk queuing up to join. Why are they not? Who is to blame? What, if anything, is to be done about it? And do we deserve better?

Indeed. It only took: - an internet connection - £5 (for CH downloads) - and a few hours of time to research the article. Anyone decent journalist could have done it.

Davis hasn't even been our best player this season. Not even in the top 3. Boca, McGregor, Jig, Aluko...

There's no indication that Whyte will take us private, just that he'll take us off the PLUS market listing (after a year from takeover has passed). Public/private is a separate issue from listed/unlisted. There were 16 trades in our shares in the last 4 months - a paltry 1 a week.

There are some instances already where HMRC can go after directors although this is rarely seen in practice. I agree with Bluedell's assessment that it is very unlikely the directors would be liable.

The �£20m is to be an investment, either by TRFCG or someone found by them by 2016. The rest is not specified as an investment so won't be - it'll be loans that will be repayable. The fact it doesn't state these will be be by way of investment tells us that they won't be!

Their pain is wonderful - poor Aidan...

We won't see Bain again - he is history. Given how worried Bain looked on his return to Glasgow, it remains to be seen how much of his recent 'interesting' maneuverings, aided and abetted by an ex director, come out into the public domain. In particular, would these be: 1. in compliance with the Articles of the company? 2. within PLUS Market and Takeover Panel rules during an offer period? 3. ethical? 4. legal? Just asking...