NAWLITE APRIL 6, 2016 at 11:51 2 0 Rate This They refused – The Scottish Football Monitor

NAWLITE APRIL 6, 2016 at 11:51 2 0 Rate This They refused …

Comment on Look Back to Look Forward by Homunculus.

NAWLITE
APRIL 6, 2016 at 11:51
2 0 Rate This

They refused to answer my follow up asking how the club was separate.

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

They cannot answer it because it simply isn’t true. The club merely changed the type of entity it was. It’s all there in the history.

Four young chaps had a dream and started a football team. That team became a members club (1872) and in the fullness of time it changed into a private limited company (1899). The private limited company then went public, floated on the stock exchange and became a public limited company (2000). For absolute clarity at the time that PLC failed to obtain a CVA and was placed into (ongoing) liquidation (2012) it did have a holding company. Wavetower (as was) owned something like 85% of the shares in the PLC.

They will not answer the question because they do not like the honest answer. They are more fond of the myth Charles Green created, the separate club / company. The continuity myth is strong because it suits a lot of agendas, it being a lie is just an uncomfortable truth. There was no point at which the PLC owned the Club, it’s just nonsense.

Homunculus Also Commented

Look Back to Look Forward
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
APRIL 6, 2016 at 12:45

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

Rangers, currently in liquidation have debts of (best guess) around £120,000,000. Only a fraction, if any of that will ever be paid.

The Rangers who have existed for around 3-4 years have overspent by around £34,000,000 (so far) in that short time. They currently have debts of around £11,000,000. That’s the PLC, the subsidiary have debts of around £18,000,000 but that is to the parent company so genuinely is an internal matter, it’s really the groups debt which is important.

The overspending and building of debt is only getting worse, they are spending more than they earn and seem unable to do anything about it. As far as I can see this will continue for as long as major shareholders and supporters are willing to provide the board with more money. If they want to strengthen the squad in the summer, and everyone seems to think they will, it will have to come from borrowing, a share/rights issue or selling other assets.

It’s an incredible story, which is only really surpassed by the media’s apparent ability to totally ignore the most important parts of it. Rangers bought the championship, at the second attempt, by overspending what will probably be about £40,000,000 by the end of the season. That is not an achievement, it is madness.


Look Back to Look Forward
JOCKYBHOY
APRIL 3, 2016 at 16:51

To be honest I’m still not quite clear what the “trap” was.

He said that the new legislation would fall foul of ECHR

I asked which article.

He said Article 7 (for starters)

I said I thought Article 7 related to criminality.

Maybe it’s just me but I really don’t see the trap or how I was taken in by it.


Look Back to Look Forward
BOGS DOLLOX
APRIL 3, 2016 at 00:44
4 6 Rate This

Homuncilus – you say you are a lawyer but you immediately pounced on me – trying to devalue my opinion on the possible role of the ECHR. That was a trap – you fell into it.
Tax “schemes”/avoidance are legal at the time because the vendors of them seek leading tax counsels opinion who are willing to opine that they are legit and they will see HMRC in Court to fight the case over legal technicalities/perceived ” loopholes”.

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

1. Why would I say I was a lawyer, I am no such thing.

2. I didn’t try to “devalue your opinion on the possible role of the ECHR.” I simply asked what particular article of the ECHR would come into play. You said Article 7. I merely pointed out that Article 7 related to retrospective legislation with regards criminality. Tax avoidance, as far as I am aware is not a criminal act.

3, “Tax “schemes”/avoidance are legal at the time because the vendors of them seek leading tax counsels opinion …”. I think you will find that Parliament and the courts decide what is legal and what isn’t. The people you describe as “leading tax counsel” are highly trained and highly paid lawyers, however they are not legislators. They neither make nor enforce the law. Getting their opinion on something does not make it legal. It just gives you someone you can blame when things go wrong.

Tax avoidance is not legal. A lawyer giving an opinion that a certain scheme is not avoidance it is legitimate tax management does not change that.


Recent Comments by Homunculus

To Comply or not to Comply ?
EASYJAMBOJUNE 24, 2018 at 20:04

I’m pleased to see the courts adopting a more purposive approach to what the lawmakers intended and whether such tax schemes were operated within both the spirit and the letter of what was intended.   
=======================================

Exactly, from the Supreme Court ruling.

39. I see nothing in the wider purpose of the legislation, which taxes remuneration from employment, which excludes from the tax charge or the PAYE regime remuneration which the employee is entitled to have paid to a third party. Thus, if an employee enters into a contract or contracts with an employer which provide that he will receive a salary of £X and that as part of his remuneration the employer will also pay £Y to the employee’s spouse or aunt Agatha, I can ascertain no statutory purpose for taxing the former but not the latter. The breadth of the wording of the tax charge and the absence of any restrictive wording in the primary legislation, do not give any support for inferring an intention to exclude from the tax charge such a payment to a third party which the employer and employee have agreed as part of the employee’s entitlement. Both sums involve the payment of remuneration for the employee’s work as an employee.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
There is some quality schadenfreude going on over at follow follow where the good people there are reveling in the notion that Chris Sutton will be facing a tax bill from HMRC re his involvement in film schemes. 

Do you think they know that a chap called Steven Gerrard, born May 1980 and describing himself as a “professional footballer” is (or was) director or member of various companies / LLPs, including but not limited to.

PHOENIX FILM PARTNERS LLP (OC339129)
INSIDE TRACK PRODUCTIONS LLP (OC303045)
INSIDE TRACK 1 LLP (OC304434)
INSIDE TRACK 2 LLP (OC304622)
INGENIOUS FILM PARTNERS LLP (OC308659)
INGENIOUS FILM PARTNERS 2 LLP (OC314069)
INGENIOUS FILM PARTNERS 3 LLP (OC318988)

The following comes from separate newspaper reports and may or may not be linked to the above.

“David Beckham, Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard face bills over suspected tax avoidance scheme”

“Other clubs with high-profile investors included Liverpool – where one paid £10.4million in cash and loans”

The above information is freely available from the internet, I draw no conclusion from it. Just so we are clear former Celtic players in addition to Chris Sutton will also have been involved in such schemes. As will players from a lot of clubs across the UK and indeed all sorts of high earners who think paying tax is for the working man and not for them. 


To Comply or not to Comply ?
Apologies for the double negative in my last, it should have read.

“I assume Rangers supporters don’t understand what a bank facility is because neither their club, nor the PLC which owns it has one.”


To Comply or not to Comply ?
CROWNSTBHOY
JUNE 23, 2018 at 19:35

Something must be up.Getting really desperate now…================================

He / She is totally clueless.

“With the debt owed to Co-Op Bank …”

Celtic had net cash at bank of almost £18m at the end of June 2017. That’s before competing in the CL group stages in the 2017/2018 season. The important point being that figure is “net of bank borrowings”. Celtic bank with the Co-operative bank.

Depending on player trading, stadium improvements etc I would expect the net cash figure to be higher at the end of June this year. 

This stuff is just another Rangers’ supporters myth, which tells you all you need to know about the blogger. 

I assume Rangers supporters don’t understand what a bank facility is because neither their club, nor the PLC which owns it doesn’t have one. 

They believe a loan is an overdraft for goodness sake. 


To Comply or not to Comply ?
JOCKYBHOY
JUNE 18, 2018 at 14:12
======================================

When I read things on the Scottish Football Monitor I do it within the context of their being some link to football, unless it is obviously not. That is why I believed that BIGBOAB1916’s comment related in some way to football in the 21st century and my surprise at him comparing it to the civil rights struggle.

It would appear he was not and his comment was comparing the treatment of Catholics  in modern Scotland to the struggle in the USA for equal rights. Not really a debate I want to get involved in, well not here.


SSL Certificates