0
    0

    Comment on In Whose Interests by Corrupt official.

    Cluster One 6th November 2019 at 22:11 

    Corrupt official 6th November 2019 at 19:57 A discussion also took place about the SFL. Both ND and RM asserted that the SFL’s record keeping was poor and would not provide much for an inquiry.

    ————————————————————–

        Cheers for the memory refresher C1.

    Something just struck me which I must have ducked at the time.

        If SFL records are so poor regarding the secondment of another club's titles onto a new club, that they would be of zero use, then equally, the same applies in reverse.

        There is nothing to say that they did.

        

    Corrupt official Also Commented

    In Whose Interests
    John Clark 12th November 2019 at 07:52

    Corrupt official 12th November 2019 at 04:31 ',,, In law, that was also registered into Sevco "ownership", after a long unexplained delay. '

    +++++++++++++

       I posted about this some time ago, expressing the view that Sport Scotland seemed suddenly to realise that the legal entity to which they had given a good few quid of our money had ceased to exist except as an entity in liquidation, and therefore that thee was no legal obligation on TRFC Ltd to pay any heed to the conditions that had been imposed.

     ————————————–

      I recall your post John,which was really what got me thinking. (Initially I just thought, "Dirty sleekit Barstewards). 

        I think we all agree that Sevco would have welshed on the funding agreement with Sports Scotland if they had the chance. The numerous on-going court cases of contract dodging tends to support that belief. However, Sports Scotland appear to have won a lollipop in this episode.

        It may be a similar legal scenario that crossed over, and bound CFC PLC, to the old IP arrangement with the deid club, to the new club.  Given that Sevco are not above monetising plastic ducks, CFC PLC may be the only obstacle preventing a raft of "O** F*** tat lining the shelves of their pop-up stores. 

        I'm not saying it is, nor isn't, but it certainly looks like it is not an IP that CFC PLC intend to capitalise from,via its use.

        I am as wary as the next man regarding CFC PLC involvement in dubious activity, but will not be holding my breath expecting an explanation from them………..

         And yet that is all they have to do to avoid being tarred.

         CFC PLC are too quiet on too many fronts for my liking. Silence naturally breeds suspicion, and in a game where there is very little trust left, (if any), a dangerous game to play. 

         There is very clearly not going to be any, "benefit of doubt", given, and quite understandably so. 


    In Whose Interests
         For some reason 50% ownership of the IP ended up in the hands of Sevco. How much say CFC PLC had in that is anybody's guess. However, willingly or not, CFC PLC found what can only be described as a "partnership" thrust upon them.

        Registered just a year ago, it would appear it was not just a straight forward transfer procedure that occurred upon the death of Rangers (I.L.), but a drawn out affair. 

        For CFC, voluntarily relinquishing their 50% share, presenting Sevco with the opportunity of 100% ownership would not be an option. The puzzle lies in why CFC lawyers have not, or were unable, to have the previous agreement expunged.

        I guess it was a similar scenario to that faced by Sports Scotland, (I think they were called) over the Murray Park funding grant, which was also the ownership of Rangers(I.L.).

       In law, that was also registered into Sevco "ownership", after a long unexplained delay.    

        

        


    In Whose Interests
    al62 6th November 2019 at 17:21

           I see John James is suggesting a crowdfunded judicial review of Doncaster’s conferring of old Rangers’ titles on the new Ibrox club. Feel sure folks on here will have considered already (?) but worth a punt ?

      ———————————————————

         I have a vague recollection that it was amply rewarded David Longmuir, (he of the mega dodgy bonus), who bore the responsibility for the new club's claim on the titles of the deid club. 

        I can't quite recall if that was deffo, or rumour.???


    Recent Comments by Corrupt official

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    John Clark 17th November 2019 at 15:53 

    Allyjambo 17th November 2019 at 15:25!.. '

     "the Big Lie simply must be defeated and the truth proclaimed"

    —————————-

        Of all the squirrels regularly released through-out this blatantly plugged lie, this is the largest deflection whopper of them all. 

         Anger amongst their fans as sure as night follows day, would be the emotion that arose when the shock and disbelief abated…..They have a unique way of demanding answers, and to be fair, every right to ask, WTF happened to their club, and who effin' did it. 

        That was all averted by giving the thumbs up to anyone who wanted to set up a kiddy-on club…

    And I mean anyone……..Without that kiddy-on club to hide behind, they were sunk. 

       Wee Craigie, and Charlie Chuckles, and Duff & Phelps, and Mick Ashley, and Imran, and Stockbridge, and Octopus et al weren't even on the scene when their club was done in.

        The fans of Rangers(I.L.), would be asking a whole different set of questions, of a whole different set of suspects. 

        It would appear that having "#Gaunfurra55", to shout at Timmy, is more important to some, than unmasking those really responsible for slaying their club……Because you can't have both !

        Considering that without doubt, every bluenose on the planet, watched their club fold like Tommy Cooper, "Live", on the telly, youtube, newsreels, SMSM, phones, etc……….As deflections go,  it's a cracker !

        

        

        


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    When Rangers plunged over a cliff in 2012, one of Scotland's cultural institutions was humiliated. And someone had to pay. Duff & Phelps administrators David Whitehouse and Paul Clark were hastily detained and, as it turned out, wrongly prosecuted by the Lord Advocate – and now want millions as compensation.

         Craig Whyte was placed on trial on charges of fraud, but found not guilty. Now it's HMRC in the dock for the reported 'multi-million pound blunder' which led to the club's implosion. The Times newspaper claims £50million could be wiped from the final tax bill owed by the Ibrox oldco to Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs because Hector claimed too much money in the first place. The final tax bill could turn out to be no higher than £20m. The key word here is could. HMRC has dropped a pointless £24m penalty charge, but released a rare public statement saying they won the Rangers row and 'did not miscalculate anything'. Even so, a grossed-up, amended claim of £48m in respect of the big tax case is still in dispute. If an appeal succeeds next year, the final figure could finish up as low as £20m.

         But the could aspect of this is the nub of this whole oddly-timed business. Rangers fans argue that an accurate big-tax-case bill of £20m eight years ago could have saved their club a hell of a lot of heartache and humiliation. It could have persuaded a reputable buyer to step in and buy the club before Whyte got his grubby hands on the assets for a pound and stopped paying tax and national insurance, thereby driving the oldco towards administration then liquidation. When Whyte bought Rangers, no one knew for sure how much the big-tax-case bill would actually be. Speculation raged over tens of millions, but the actual figure of £94m didn't come out publicly until Duff & Phelps issued a report to creditors in October 2012. All people had to go on before that was guesswork. And because no one of sound mind or reputation would have taken that gamble, the only people prepared to risk it were chancers. During Whyte's trial, Sir David Murray's right-hand man Mike McGill described some of the wide boys interested in buying Rangers. Most you wouldn't trust with a five-year-old's piggy bank.       Two characters connected to an unnamed English football manager bore a letter promising funding of 50m Euros from a Belgian bank which looked the real deal, but later proved to be fraudulent. Also sniffing around was a Lithuanian banking institution with alleged links to organised crime and money laundering. Could someone decent and reputable have emerged from the chaos and led Rangers safely to the other side? Maybe. But that's a bit like saying the Titanic would have made it to New York had she struck a smaller iceberg. It's hypothetical, nobody knows for sure.

           The fact is that HMRC could have arrived at the projected figure of £20m for the big-tax case nine years ago and stuck it on a billboard in Glasgow Central Station for everyone to see. It wouldn't have changed the fact that, when you throw in an £18m bank debt and the £2.8m for the 'wee-tax case', plus a commitment to spend £1.7m improving the stadium, the price of saving Rangers would still have been £40m minimum. And the notion of captains of industry queuing up to buy a struggling Scottish football club at the height of the global banking crisis for that kind of money is optimistic. Ally McCoist spoke for the club's supporters when he insisted HMRC took Rangers down for no good reason.

           No one is defending the UK taxman. Hector is big and unpleasant enough to look out for himself. Yet, right from the start of this sorry, angry saga there has been a curious reluctance to point fingers at the actual architect of the Rangers downfall. Sir David Murray triggered an unsustainable footballing arms race.. And the EBT scam was the mechanism used to fire the bullets. If fans want to land a punch on HMRC or anyone else over the final tax bill, then that's fine. Take a swing. But there should never be a free pass for the man who brought the mess to the front door of Ibrox in the first place. The man who sold the club to Craig Whyte for a pound to salvage his own MIH business empire was Sir David Murray. With no mis-use of EBTs, there's no HMRC. It really is that simple

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7691653/The-person-blame-Rangers-plunging-cliff-2012-Sir-David-Murray.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ito=1490&ns_campaign=1490


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
      BDO are gradually ticking the boxes and must be well down the line towards completing their task. That of Liquidating Rangers(I.L.)!. Some creditors have been given new buttons for a shirt. Negotiations drawing to a close, and court-cases concluding and tailing off.  That, and the dwindling money-pot, will soon have them saying, "Our work here is done.?" 

        Their affairs dealt with, I imagine the final report will be fairly damning and highly public. The very last words that Rangers can ever mutter, in any official capacity, in any form, ever again, will be delivered via BDO.

        I doubt they words will be, "The tax-man did it and ran away".    


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    StevieBC 14th November 2019 at 22:06 

    StevieBC 14th November 2019 at 15:36 This HMRC story has been cranked up to BS Level '11'. Headline from The ET; "Rangers vs HMRC: Ex-players and staff 'have EBT penalties wiped over incorrect tax bill…"

    ======

    No 'journalist' name is attributed to this nonsense. It's based "on a source" who is supposedly an accountant but "uninvolved"…

    ================

    Well, well, well… Mibbees The ET does have a bit of shame after all? I've just checked the above ET article for Comments: it is no longer available on their site, and disappeared into the ether.

    ——————————————–

         The Sun also had a, "now you see it now you don't", stab at it Stevie……This was a bit more rational.

    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/4955264/rangers-hmrc-tax-case-ebt-expert/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1573767128


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
        Now that is "offishul" it wasn't big Peter that topped Rangers, but actually "Her Maj", will her portrait still have pride of place in the bloo-room?….

        It's no wonder they didn't pay her after what she did. angry. ..

    Maybe Minty will send back his knighthood in protest…..Coupled with an indignant dignified open letter, its the very least he could do.. laugh. He can lead-off the march to Buck Palace with it on a wee cushion….. I'm sure the sodjers will let him in. mail .

        Jeezo they're bonkers.!