Leggat - SPL DEMAND THAT RANGERS PAY HARPER MACLEOD AND LORD NIMMO SMITH

[ian1964 10,416]

Exclusive: SPL confirm Nimmo Smith inquiry legal costs demand from Rangers/Sevco

 

The Scottish Premier League has confirmed that it is seeking legal costs claimed to exceed £500,000 for the costs of the Lord Nimmo Smith inquiry from the legal entity that is Rangers.

 

The commission was set up to investigate the use of employee benefit trusts, and ultimately decided that the entity did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the player payment arrangements, and that no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed.

 

The entity was found to have contravened disclosure rules, and a fine of £250,000 was imposed. The SPL is now seeking the legal costs of the inquiry from the legal entity that is Rangers.

 

The claims came to light in a blog posting widely circulated via social media channels.

 

The Scottish Premier League confirmed to The Firm that the blog’s payment claim was correct, although it did not verify whether the amount claimed was accurate.

 

“There has been a routine application for costs given that the case was successfully pursued by the SPL,” a spokesman for the SPL told The Firm this afternoon.

 

The SPL set up the commission to investigate financial, contractual and other arrangements between Rangers and its players between November 2000 and May 2011.

 

Harper Macleod, who represent the SPL would not confirm or deny the claims. In a statement issued via its PR and Communications Manager, Harper Macleod told The Firm: “We do not comment on legal issues relating to any of our clients.”

 

http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/3160/Exclusive%3A_SPL_confirm_Nimmo_Smith_inquiry_legal_costs_demand_from_Rangers_Sevco_.html

[the gunslinger 3,366]

we should have appealed just to run up costs.

[GovanAllan 0]

So they make a baws of it by not understanding their own rules, and then want us to pay for it.

 

Get it in a proper court Charlie and lets get a laugh.

[Guest alfiebass]

It's not a surprise really.

 

We effectively lost the case so SPL will chance their arm in trying to get us to pay the expenses. I'd fancy even if that was realistic then it would be the oldco that was liable - not the newco.

 

Surely if you invoice a company for goods and services they did not receive or request it could be deemed as a fraudulent act. What is the punishment if an organisation makes a fraudulent claim and what's the possible punishment for any legal organisation who takes part in what they knew would be deemed a fraudulent act?

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

As I see it the SPL may face cash demands from at least three sources:-

 

1) Rangers prize money from last season. Whether payable to oldco or newco it is rumoured to be around £1.7m. Has it been paid ?

2) This Harper McLeod bill for the EBT investigation £500,000

3) The legal action supposedly being brought by Harry Hood's Lisini for £1.7m from last week.

 

Is this why CG has allegedly accused the SPL of being 'technically insolvent'. I'm no accountant but I don't think the SPL has a prayer of paying these plus whatever else it might owe

[the gunslinger 3,366]

the SPL has been technically insolvent for years.

[ian1964 10,416]

The Scottish Premier League has made a claim against Rangers for £500,000 in legal costs following its inquiry into undeclared player payments.

 

However the SPL would not say whether the costs are being pursued against Rangers' oldco, the newco or both parties.

 

An SPL spokesman told STV: "There has been a routine application for costs given that the case was successfully pursued by the SPL."

 

The commission, chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith, was set up to investigate rule breaches by the club between 2000 and 2011 relating to their failure to disclose payments made to players for playing activities, as is required under SPL regulations.

 

The inquiry focused on payments made by RFC 2012 plc ("oldco"), which is now in liquidation. Rangers' assets, including Ibrox, Murray Park and its membership of the Scottish FA, were bought by Charles Green's new company ("newco"), which trades as The Rangers Football Club Limited.

 

The newco was represented during the case but, in the verdict, it was stated that "...there is no allegation that the current owner and operator of the club, The Rangers Football Club Limited (Newco), contravened the SPL Rules or could be held responsible for any breach by Oldco."

 

The newco agreed as part of a five-way agreement with the oldco, SPL, Scottish Football League and Scottish FA that it would pay all outstanding debt to clubs from transfers undertaken by the oldco. STV understands there was no provision in the agreement for any other football debt to be honoured by the newco.

 

Lord Nimmo Smith fined the oldco £250,000 when it delivered its verdict on February 28 but did not strip Rangers of five SPL titles because no sporting advantage was gained.

 

A claim against the oldco is unlikely to recoup any money for the SPL with the company in liquidation.

 

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/219817-scottish-premier-league-seeks-500000-in-legal-costs-from-rangers/

[chilledbear 16]

RANGERS Football Club has released the folllowing statement in relation to costs for the recent SPL Commiission:

 

"This matter has been dragged out long enough and we had thought Lord Nimmo Smith's verdict would have been an end to it. Attempting to stretch it out even further does nothing to help the image of a game torn by dissension and engulfed in turmoil.

'It is important to remember that Lord Nimmo Smith apportioned no blame against Rangers FC and thus no sanctions were imposed on this Club. It is inconceivable, therefore, as well as ridiculous that the SPL should even think about pursuing this Club for costs against what was widely regarded as an ill-conceived and unwise course of action by them in the first place."

[craig 5,198]

It is a touch ingenious to suggest that "the case was successfully pursued by the SPL".

 

They were successful in merely that some MINOR administrative errors took place. They were wholly unsuccessful in trying to find that RFC were gaining an unfair sporting advantage and that RFC were guilty of side contracts and contradicting the SPL's rules.

 

In terms of %age, they were probably about 5% successful and 95% unsuccessful.

 

No way should RFC have to pay these legal costs. This is not the same as heading into arbitration whereby you cannot resolve an issue - this was a witch-hunt by one party against Rangers - why Rangers should pay their legal costs when Rangers were predominantly successful is beyond me.

[Mountain Bear 0]

Sounds like the SPL are getting a bit desperate. Armageddon anyone?