Little General

laughable. what debate?

He doesn't hold back.

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-5/ It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers’ history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club’s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club. As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations. First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances. Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club’s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue. Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs. This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied. Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs. For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.

was it not Lord Doherty that found in our favour at the UTT?

The SFA should put forward a resolution at their AGM, that no one can own shares in another club. Cashley would then be forced to sell either his Ranger's Shares or Newcastle's shares.

No one likes us we don't care? There is an online war going on, which imo we are losing, so I do care what others think.

nope, no idea who it is. you can guess all day i suppose.

no idea BH, but he should be imo.

a third party is already funding it.

it's the least the cunt can do. he should be bankrolling it all the way.

from FF:

club statement http://rangers.co.uk/news/club/club-statement-55/ WE WOULD like to correct some misleading information that has been circulating on what is described as the “Big Tax Case”. For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers have not lost the case. There is no question of any liability impacting on our Club, its history or any member of the Rangers International Football Club plc Group. The Rangers Football Club and the entities which currently own and manage it are not party to these proceedings nor do we have any say in what happens. The proceedings are a matter for those affected by them. We note that the assessments for tax which were the subject for appeal and which are referred to as the Big Tax Case relate to Murray Group Holdings Limited, Murray Group Management Limited, The Premier Group Property Limited, GM Mining Limited and RFC 2012 PLC (in liquidation).

what are the chances of BDO appealing?

that's a scandalous piece of journalism from Skeletor

Lord Carloway was bemoaning the supreme court recently. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13209826.Top_judge__UK_Supreme_Court__relatively_remote_and_far_removed_from_realities_of_Scots_Law_/ If we appealed to the Supreme Court, there is a fair possibility it would be overturned.

hence why HMRC decided to go to the court of session instead of the high court.

All of it by the looks of it.

taken from FF

This was mentioned in the annual account released today. http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/1331979-rangers-await-panel-verdict-on-outstanding-lord-nimmo-smith-ebt-fine/ Rangers are awaiting the outcome of a tribunal which will rule on whether the Ibrox club has to pay an outstanding amount of £400,000. The £250,000 fine, plus costs of £150,000, relates to a charge brought against Rangers oldco by the SPL in relation to the use of undisclosed payments to players in the form of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) over a period of 11 years. A commission set up by the SPL, headed by Lord Nimmo Smith, ruled that the league’s rules had been breached and the fine was levied against the oldco, which is now in liquidation. The Scottish Professional Football League, created as a result of the merger between the SPL and the Scottish Football League, pursued Rangers newco for payment. Rangers admit under the terms of the ‘Five Way Agreement’, which allowed them to participate in Scottish football through entry to the bottom tier, the newco would be responsible for any sanctions imposed on the oldco by Scottish football’s governing bodies. But they claim the subsequent actions of the SPFL mean they “waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause.” The SPFL dispute that accusation. As a result, the Scottish Football Association was asked to convene an Arbitral Tribunal to rule on the matter. The tribunal sat on October 29 and 30 to consider the matter but no decision was reached immediately. Members of the panel will now consider the matter and return a verdict at a later date, though no timescale has been set for a decision to be reached. The SPFL rules allow for any outstanding fines or payments due to the league to be deducted from payments that are routinely made to member clubs. The SPFL Board had already intimated to Rangers that they intended to withhold payment of the outstanding fine, prompting Rangers to take the step of asking for arbitration. News that a decision on the fine is pending comes on the same day that Rangers published their annual accounts and announced that £2.5m of additional funding would be required by the end of the season.

not the way I see it. Appeal has been allowed in favour of HMRC. they don't need to appeal again. MIH will now have to appeal (if he wishes to do so) to Supreme court which is the next step in the chain.

The way I see it is that the appeal has been allowed, therefore HMRC have indeed won.

your right Rab, it's wishful thinking on his part. The interview was given to Jim White when he was in SA, so i doubt the gagging order holds much sway there. Ashley thinks he is flexing his bingo wings towards Rangers, it seems the board will not be easily scared off.

Far from me to tell you how to spend your money, personally I don't buy anything from SD and Ashley's other companies. My grandson will son be three years old and I would like to buy him one but I won't.

accounts must have been signed off, which is good news.

Thanks for that Scott. How many on the list were regular penalty takers? Also,I often wondered how many the older players would have scored if they had European football as well.