Smugas June 21, 2017 at 10:45       Exactly.  For the financial – The Scottish Football Monitor

Smugas June 21, 2017 at 10:45       Exactly.  For the financial …

Comment on Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns by Bogs Dollox.

Smugas
June 21, 2017 at 10:45      
Exactly.  For the financial assistance charge to fall as it did I understand the key distinction is the Ticketus monies had to go to Rangers (on the Friday) who then lent it to CW/Wavetower (on the Monday) who lent it back to Rangers who used it to repay the HBoS debt.  HBoS used said repayment to release the Floating charge to CW.  Ordinarily, but banned by Finacial Assistance rules Ticketus would have given the money directly to CW who used it to repay HBoS and essentially buy the Floating Charge without involving Rangers per se. 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Channelling the money from Ticketus to Wavetower(CW) was not banned by Financial Assistance rules. The asset against which the advance was being made (i.e. the seats at Ibrox) was owned by Rangers. Therefore, the advance went to Rangers. Rangers then lent the money on to Wavetower.

In a seperate transaction Wavetower were assigned (there was no release) the floating charge held by HBOS in return for Wavetower paying off the Rangers loan to HBOS.

Therefore, within Wavetower two things exist. A floating charge over the assets of Rangers together with a loan to Rangers and a loan from Rangers. The two are legally distinct notwithstanding the fact that they are of equal value and in accounting terms can be “netted off” against each other.

So why do it, if on the face of it, the assets of Wavetower are not increased? Is the answer not that the floating charge has greater value than the loan to Rangers because it is enforceable against ALL of the Rangers assets?

Bogs Dollox Also Commented

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
Eternal Optimist
July 7, 2017 at 10:46
       
According to the media (yes, I know…) it appears that it’s only Celtic fans who want honours stripped.  If I hear that again I’ll scream !!! So I’ll be writing to my club today for their view on the matter and asking what action they’re planning, and would encourage fans of all other clubs out there to do the same.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Agreed it isn’t just Celtic fans who want to see the biggest sporting scandal in British history investigated properly.

Would it be possible for you to paste up your letter on here and that way lazy people like me can copy it and send it to their club? 


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
oddjobJuly 7, 2017 at 08:48 

Also, it is the responsibility of each individual to make an and declaration of all income to HMRC. It may well be that many of the individuals involved in this case submitted “incorrect” declatations.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You raise an interesting point. I wonder what professional advice the EBT recipients received from their own professional advisors at the time.
If those advisors were given the full facts I suspect they would have advised the payments into the EBT were probably taxable. Therefore, I suspect many of them knowingly made false declarations.


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 27, 2017 at 10:59       Rate This 
HIGHLANDERJUNE 27, 2017 at 07:57==============================
Just in case anyone doesn’t know about the Pacific Shelf thing. 
Pacific Shelf 595 is a company set up by Fergus McCann in order to keep the name The Celtic Football And Athletic Company Limited. It was incorporated in October 1994, purely for that purpose. The name change was in December 1994.
Celtic PLC was incorporated in April 1897, the company was originally called The Celtic Football And Athletic Company Limited. It changed it’s name to Celtic PLC in December 1994.
Basically Fergus changed the name of the original The Celtic Football And Athletic Company Limited to Celtic PLC. He also bought an off the shelf company at the same time, and changed it’s name to The Celtic Football And Athletic Company Limited. He felt that keeping that name, and the heritage was important. This avoids anyone else using that name. 
========================================

Yes, Yes but which one is the Holding Company?


Recent Comments by Bogs Dollox

To Comply or not to Comply ?
shugJuly 18, 2018 at 13:58
Fans of Scotland’s shame at it again on social media.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Deflection is a bit of an art. If only people would just ignore them.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
upthehoopsJuly 9, 2018 at 09:32
What a country this is when a convicted tax evading criminal effectively calls the shots on who should and who shouldn’t hold a position of authority, and all to keep the neanderthals among his support onside. 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Which is exactly the reason why Maclennan has to stay put and tough it out. Hopefully supported by all the other clubs.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
The latest offering from Nick, apart from being offensive, is just straightforward trolling. I trust the Mods will do the necessary.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
TheLawMan2July 1, 2018 at 14:21
BOGS DOLLOXJULY 1, 2018 at 14:09 What there will be is correspondence or calls from HMRC asking why the tax hasn’t been paid per the agreement and threatening to issue the Determinations. _____________________________________________________________________
Given the number of leaked documents that have made it into the public, have you seen any of these letters and when were they issued ?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The info released by Charlotte Fakes was digital but you seem concerned about a letter that may or may not have been seen by the public. HMRC will have copies though even if Sevco doesn’t and when the fraud trial kicks off I expect the letter(s) will be amongst the prosecution documents.

Remember I also said it may have been a telephone call(s) and I’m pretty sure, given the gravity of the situation, HMRC will have made a file note of the conversation.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
Do you have evidence, or even reason to believe, that in the nine days between 22/3 and 31/3 Rangers negotiated time to pay after 31/3?

================
There won’t be any. They broke that agreement hence HMRC lost patience and issued the Regulation 80 Determinations. 

What there will be is correspondence or calls from HMRC asking why the tax hasn’t been paid per the agreement and threatening to issue the Determinations.


SSL Certificates