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.

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

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
bigboab1916April 10, 2018 at 23:59
Bogs DolloxApril 10, 2018 at 23:48As for other clubs – have you any idea how oppressive and unacceptable the behaviour of the “Old Firm” fans is in and around our grounds. Which doesn’t even begin to address the power they exhibit behind the scenes with their financial power.
And your clubs do what sell more tickets and accept any anti social behaviour for the money. if you want to reduce the hassle, reduce the ticket allocation and there is no old firm to boot that ended in 2012, thank goodness, the only ones still one here pedalling that seem to come across as two cheeks of the same ars*.
I’m not saying anti social behaviour is acceptable because we get a bigger crowd and more money.

In fact I’m saying the opposite.

When Sevco restricted the Motherwell fans to 1,500 to get an advantage at Ibrokes it backfired because not only did we win 3-1 but Motherwell responded by restricting the Sevconians to 1,500 in the return game which is not the same thing for a Sevco away team to play in front of.

So it’s not always about the money.

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
HomunculusApril 10, 2018 at 21:08
There really are two issues at play here, both involving Rangers.
1, Will it be contrived that they miss playing Celtic when Celtic are likely to be pushing for the league win.
2, Will their financial performance in every year of their existence, their continued reliance on loans, their c£23m debt, their loss making interim financial report all be ignored in order to grant them a European licence.
The answer to both is yes in my opinion.
The next question is surely what will the clubs most affected by this situation do. Celtic are genuinely the top 6 team least affected by this. They will not lose out on a spot in Europe and will not lose out on a higher finishing spot in the league. So if the other clubs don’t do anything the SFA and SPFL will simply do what they want, and what Rangers want. 
Don’t blind yourself to the impact on Celtic. There are many on here who are disgusted by the actions of the governing body and who have withdrawn their season books (under Ronnie).

DUFC were a bit mouthy for a bit about “Rangers” behavour as I recall, as were Raith Rovers. How did that go for them?

As for other clubs – have you any idea how oppressive and unacceptable the behaviour of the “Old Firm” fans is in and around our grounds. Which doesn’t even begin to address the power they exhibit behind the scenes with their financial power.

Is the SFA captured only by Sevco and Masons? Prove it? There are many other Club Chairman on there who may not be but tow the line.

Just business as usual?

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
John ClarkApril 6, 2018 at 22:54
My understanding is that to comply with the rules the money should be in a UK escrow account now. Not ring fenced by a trust in South Africa/Or LalaLand.
King has already breached the order of the Court of Session.

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
Cluster OneApril 6, 2018 at 21:09
ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 6, 2018 at 20:12 Isn’t there a limit to the number of days per year that a non-resident can spend in the UK and remain exempt from UK income tax liability? Silly me, Dave King and income tax… ————- I have it written down somewhere,80 days i think if i remember

So one working week a month is 60 days and if he’s out of the country by Friday midnight that won’t count and will bring it down to 48.

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
John ClarkMarch 24, 2018 at 19:16
easyJamboMarch 24, 2018 at 18:42 ‘..There appears to be a bit of smoke and mirrors going on with Club 1872 (surprise, surprise)’ ______________________________ Not half!
Presumably the one and only shareholder can outvote any number of non-shareholder directors, so decisions on what happens to Club 1872’s funds are entirely up to Blair as agent  for RIFC plc. ( I think Anderson Strathearn were originally nominee shareholder, presumably for Blair/RIFCplc?) If he says ‘buy shares in RIFC plc’ he cannot be overruled.
Also, I don’t see any ‘memorandum of association’ attached to the ‘model’ Articles, saying what the company’s aims and objectives are. (Such a memorandum should be provide to Companies House, and therefore available to the public at large) I think that needs looking into.
I’m wondering if there is not an agreement/understanding that although Blair is the registered legal owner of the share, he is in fact not the beneficial owner and holds it on trust for the benefit of the wider “membership” and contributors to the company.
That’s what I would like to see in place if I was a donor to 1872 (which I’m not BTW)

SSL Certificates