bmck 117 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) The way I see it is that Murray sanctioned something that was legal with the EBT schemes because they've been used nationwide for a long time. If (and that's just an IF) they were set up wrongly for Rangers, then surely it would actually be the fault of the third party company who set them up? As with all legal action, the issue is not who is most responsible, but who is responsible enough that can also pay damages. Hence why, if you slipped and cracked a knee in Waitrose because of a wet floor or something, you would sue the company for their vicarious liability, rather than the individual who made the floor wet, even though both are culpa under law. Technically Waitrose could then sue their employee, but they're never going to recover the money. Whose fault it is, ultimately, is sadly irrelevant. Good to see you back btw! One day only I'm afraid But thanks. ETA: I think we honestly have a good chance of winning the action. David Cameron said, in Question Time today, that he would speak to HMRC about a similar thing at Portsmouth or somewhere. A political response to this I think would be wise and possible, if there are still Rangers supporting MPs. Edited February 2, 2012 by bmck 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 You can thank Murray's method of wage funding for that. Who knows about Whyte, I certainly don't. But the only thing that has us on the edge of an abyss is Sir David Murray, and the fact that he ever existed as part of that 140 years history. All the good things, and all the good times, he gave us, are infinitely undermined by the fact that he has singularly led to our possible tax doom. Great post. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 You think LBG cared what 40,000 Rangers fans thought of them in the backwaters of Scotland and how do you boycott a bank that you have no contact with. Banks only care about one thing and that's their bottom line we were a speck on their horizon. I take it you think that LBG would have covered the 10mill shortfall with no Euro money or would they have told Rangers to do what Whyte did and mortage the ST or would Jela and Davis and McGregor been sold. There is no way LBG were giving Rangers anymore money so AJs arguement that we were ok with the bank falls flat on its arse. As for every former employee coming out the woodwork when asked about Rangers if they actually told us what part they played in this mess at the same time as twisting the knife I might actually take them seriously. The consensus seems to be if your talking for Rangers your lying these days but the pricks who got us here seem to be preaching the gospel all of a sudden. Hollywood couldn't make that shit up. I agree with you and said so within RST at the time that the threatened boycott would not work. I also agree and have so stated that the real issue with the Bank was the overdraft not the Term Loan. None of us can know what LBG would have done in Dec 2011 given our European exit and no money from that source but it would have been up to the then Directors to negotiate. Lloyds big problem was the bad publicity that would have flown from withdrawing the overdraft facility entirely and/or effectively putting the Club into administration. Rangers are a Scottish institution and they would not have wanted to be tagged as the bank that brought down such an organisation. Therefore I believe that whatever their public stance the position would have ben negotiable. I also believe that that is the main reason why they were more than happy and indeed encouraged the sale, because it will not now be them who are in that unenviable position. And yes, I would have preferred to sell say Davis than mortgage 3/4 years season ticket income. From a business point of view that is a no brainer. Whilst you might question the motives and previous actions of some former Directors, it is a fact that we know a lot more now than we did this time last week. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I dont disagree with much of this BH but the type in bold doesnt necessarily hold water. I do appreciate I am selecting just one point you make but lets not forget that he is an Estonian international, not a footballing powerhouse. I know Bermudian players that have played 85 times for their country, but that doesnt mean they are worth 2 grand a week. I accept I got a bit carried away with that example but I do note that Estonia are about 50 places above Bermuda in the World Rankings! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Serious question here,why did CW take over Rangers? As a "business opportunity" exactly the same as Ellis saw it, or more correctly had it put to him. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 The way I see it is that Murray sanctioned something that was legal with the EBT schemes because they've been used nationwide for a long time. If (and that's just an IF) they were set up wrongly for Rangers, then surely it would actually be the fault of the third party company who set them up? Good to see you back btw! I am in no doubt that Rangers would have had tax lawyers and accountants professional opinion to the effect that the scheme was in use by many other clubs and considered an effective means of tax avoidance, which is of course legal; but that, as we all know does not mean that it is not open to challenge. If Rangers did not have such advice or proceeded against such advice then that is another matter. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) I am in no doubt that Rangers would have had tax lawyers and accountants professional opinion to the effect that the scheme was in use by many other clubs and considered an effective means of tax avoidance, which is of course legal; but that, as we all know does not mean that it is not open to challenge. If Rangers did not have such advice or proceeded against such advice then that is another matter. I have not yet done tax law so any comment I made there would be even less worthwhile than my defamation law article, but it is clear that there were sufficient clubs with sufficient legal and financial advice who thought this was a good idea. There are other clubs with other legal advice who didn't. The clubs who are ultimately going to be proven prudent are the ones that fall on the right side of the forthcoming decision, and the people who ultimately made the decision as to what advice to listen to are the ones going to be responsible for either being smart or being shockingly irresponsible. Advice is just advice - following the right advice is good leadership. Following bad advice when the stakes are so high is very bad leadership. Does anyone know if he used this scheme in any of his other companies? Edited February 2, 2012 by bmck 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I accept I got a bit carried away with that example but I do note that Estonia are about 50 places above Bermuda in the World Rankings! Aye but BOTH are pish 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Does anyone know if he used this scheme in any of his other companies? I think he did from what I've read over the past 6 months or so, but I'll let someone with more knowledge about the situation chime in. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 As with all legal action, the issue is not who is most responsible, but who is responsible enough that can also pay damages. Hence why, if you slipped and cracked a knee in Waitrose because of a wet floor or something, you would sue the company for their vicarious liability, rather than the individual who made the floor wet, even though both are culpa under law. Technically Waitrose could then sue their employee, but they're never going to recover the money. Whose fault it is, ultimately, is sadly irrelevant. One day only I'm afraid But thanks. ETA: I think we honestly have a good chance of winning the action. David Cameron said, in Question Time today, that he would speak to HMRC about a similar thing at Portsmouth or somewhere. A political response to this I think would be wise and possible, if there are still Rangers supporting MPs. I know you are studying law, but are you sure about this? I always thought and I know it is in Holland that a boss is always responsible for the actions of his workers even although they do something stupid to cause an accident. While I am at work my boss is responsible for all my actions. 0 Quote Link to post 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.