SPFL at it again, seek £250k from Gers

[andy steel 0]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25023927

 

Fair enough if it's a football debt it should be paid but this is over a year after the event. Get it sorted once and for all!

[amms 0]

I can't decide if this is mischief making or a genuine attempt. The timing is odd, why now nearly 18 months later is this being pursued again? The organisation the SPFL didn't even exist when this 'agreement' was mooted so do they even have grounds to pursue it? I notice no quotes in the article and no comment from the SPFL which means it's been an off-the-record briefing. But who by?

Could Rangers themselves have done this knowing it's one of the few things to unite the fans in anger. Perhaps even divert fans anger currently being directed closer to the club?

Was it someone at the league or law firm who wanted to do a bit of stirring? Why, what's to be gained by going public other than the mass anger of the Rangers support? If they seriously wanted this money they'd do it by stealth and behind closed doors surely?

 

Lastly perhaps it's bull-shit. A non-story on a quiet international week.

 

It says something of the state of our club that I'm inclined to believe that the club themselves are behind this.

[barca72 440]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25023927

 

Fair enough if it's a football debt it should be paid but this is over a year after the event. Get it sorted once and for all!

 

It's not a football debt, it's a fine. Here's the quote from the article :

"In February, Rangers Football Club PLC was fined £250,000 by the Lord Nimmo Smith-chaired SPL commission after it found that payments from its Employee Benefit Trust scheme were not disclosed to the football authorities.

The commission found that the company's management did not take professional advice on disclosing the payments.

The findings also stated that the current owners should not be held responsible for any breaches made by the previous company.

 

Further, LNS stipulated that the current owners should NOT pay this fine. The five way agreement only covers football debts.

 

Sorry Amms, in my opinion, this is all down to big, fat Rod. Remember the Harry Hood case has to be paid for somehow.

[amms 0]

It's not a football debt, it's a fine. Here's the quote from the article :

"In February, Rangers Football Club PLC was fined £250,000 by the Lord Nimmo Smith-chaired SPL commission after it found that payments from its Employee Benefit Trust scheme were not disclosed to the football authorities.

The commission found that the company's management did not take professional advice on disclosing the payments.

The findings also stated that the current owners should not be held responsible for any breaches made by the previous company.

 

Further, LNS stipulated that the current owners should NOT pay this fine. The five way agreement only covers football debts.

 

Sorry Amms, in my opinion, this is all down to big, fat Rod. Remember the Harry Hood case has to be paid for somehow.

 

You might be right, I'm only surmising. If a law lord has already said we're not liable then I'm not sure even McKenzie would fancy his chances of getting that money though. It could be put out there to keep the Tims happy. Did I read they'd got bad news from the Advertising Standards Authority earlier? Perhaps they needed something to keep up the obsession.

[barca72 440]

You might be right, I'm only surmising. If a law lord has already said we're not liable then I'm not sure even McKenzie would fancy his chances of getting that money though. It could be put out there to keep the Tims happy. Did I read they'd got bad news from the Advertising Standards Authority earlier? Perhaps they needed something to keep up the obsession.

 

Here's another source, if you believe anything from CF -

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/185133831/EBT-Fine-for-NewCo

[der Berliner 3,231]

A rather informative thread over on FF. By the looks of it, they have tried their luck with BDO, who have sent them packing as they have no legal means to go for the money. They have been put into the unsecured creditors pot and now look to get the money from elsewhere.

 

We ought to remember that they withheld our price money, the Davis transfer fee et al, amongst other things on the basis that we are a new company. Now the new company that is the SPFL deems it okay to pursue the new company of Rangers for fees that have been laid at the doorstep of the oldco? Any decent lawyer drives a Tiger tank through this stuff.

 

Sidenote ... it is BBCeltland whipping up this non-story, as they (sic!) assume that:

The Scottish Professional Football League board is considering pursuing Rangers for £250,000.

[ian1964 10,409]

This wouldn't have anything to do with our complaint against Lieswell is it?

[Frankie 8,145]

This has everything to do with the Lawwell complaint.

 

I hope the club tell them to stick it.

[ian1964 10,409]

A rather informative thread over on FF. By the looks of it, they have tried their luck with BDO, who have sent them packing as they have no legal means to go for the money. They have been put into the unsecured creditors pot and now look to get the money from elsewhere.

 

We ought to remember that they withheld our price money, the Davis transfer fee et al, amongst other things on the basis that we are a new company. Now the new company that is the SPFL deems it okay to pursue the new company of Rangers for fees that have been laid at the doorstep of the oldco? Any decent lawyer drives a Tiger tank through this stuff.

 

Sidenote ... it is BBCeltland whipping up this non-story, as they (sic!) assume that:

 

The SPL held back our prize money!,so does that mean because the SPL doesn't exist we cannot reclaim that money?,was that part of the reason they were so keen to change their name to SPFL?.

[Scott7 5,130]

" The timing is odd, why now nearly 18 months later is this being pursued again?"

 

Maybe they feel a bit braver now that CG is out of the way. I'm glad he's gone, but he could fairly stand up for himself.