30% interest! Nice one, Newco Rangers, you’ve got yourself a deal there. Suggestions that your business plan has been, and remains, unsustainable and extravagant are patently absurd when you can borrow at the kind of rates a Zimbabwean pimp would get at the height of the ZWD’s recent hyper-inflation episode, although it’s probably worth noting that Zimbabwean businesses are currently borrowing at slightly less than half of what Laxey are charging Newco, solvent ones, anyway.
An administration would be a severe embarrassment to the Newco, less than two years after its incorporation, but in many ways it would be a boon, allowing the club to offload all the high earners and establish a breakeven trading platform.
It is utterly incomprehensible why they have not called in the admins, which itself shines a light on management processes inside the club. No one seems to be asking, “What next?” Getting deeper into hock with a hedge fund is ruinous. Notions that if the loan is turned into shares would be a soft landing for the club are absurd. This is a hedge fund. A HEDGE FUND!! The more shares they have, the more exposure they have, the higher return they will demand.
Need some new players, tough, pay my money. Ticket sales down, that’s disappointing, cut back and pay my money. Got some maintenance work to do, I don’t care, pay my money then see what’s left.
Keep your eye on the sale and leaseback plan, although not until September. They should commission a brass statue of a Newco season ticket holder, touching his toes, with the motto ‘Brace yourself’ below.
The only question left is who will be the complicit front man for season ticket sales this year?
Most people are only beginning to realise the consequences of the events of 2012, or what it means to be a zombie club, walking around, not quite the same as before, with various groups randomly gorging on you. Nothing will ever be as it was. Ever. They should’ve listened, before high-fiving Sir David Murray, then Craig Whyte, then Charles Green. It’s not like we didn’t tell them.
If you’re in the football business, rule number 1 is: Pay your bills. Every other rule, value and aspiration cannot be met without this rule.
Many thanks to everyone who submitted questions for last week’s Celtic Forum. The minutes have been published, and are available here.
If you would like to read the new CQN Magazine, GO HERE to read properly, and for FREE, the graphic below is just a taster.
[calameo code=0003901710a55b5798f06 lang=en page=1 hidelinks=1 width=100% height=500]
860 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- ...
- 23
- »
sftb
And there begs the question.
HH
http://www.sconews.co.uk/news/12774/cardinal-o%E2%80%99brien-presents-papal-knighthood-at-red-mass/
No comment!
I think The Bishop might have been a better idea.
Quite an interesting report on today’s UTT from a TSFM regular who attended.
Nothing of any great substance to report from today’s UTTT hearing.
I was there for 9.30 , but the kick-off wasn’t till 10.00. That gave time for a little bit of socialising: I didn’t meet the Grant Russell chap from STV, but only a chap from the ‘Sun’, and a director from Murray Group, and Mr Thornhill (QC for the respondents,i.e the MG),who came to make himself known to me and another TSFM person.
A big surprise to me was that it was not Lord Bishopp presiding, but Lord Docherty ( which, of course, kept the business within the Scottish house)
Apparently, the respondents had appealed against the time allocation set by Judge Bishopp, and it was reduced from 20 to 10 days, and Judge Bishopp stood down for some reason.
At kick-off, there were ,besides Judge Docherty and the clerical officer, there were 15 persons in the Tribunal room.
On the left, Roderick Thomson QC for HMRC,supported by 6 other lawyers(none of whom actually sat beside him,but behind).
On the right, Andrew Thornhill QC for the respondents, supported by 2 other lawyers (one of whom sat beside him, the other one behind). Behind them was the Finance Director of the Murray group, the chap from the ‘Sun’, and me and a lurker.
On my left were two young women one of whom was there, she told me, as part of her training, as newly qualified and in her first job in a solicitor’s office as a qualified solicitor.
The other took copious notes and was probably a lawyer as well. (Mind you, so did I take copious notes,and I’m no lawyer!) She did not turn up for the second half.
The 17th person must have been Russell of STV, but he was sitting beside the lawyers behind Thomson,QC, so I had clocked him as a lawyer.
Lord Docherty reminded counsel that the names of the HMRC officers who gave evidence at the FTTT should not be disclosed, nor should the names of 3 witnesses who had given evidence on the basis of anonymity. Mr Thomson said he would try to remember that if or when he had occasion to mention their testimony in the course of the hearing.
Mr Thomson invited His lordship
– to overturn the decision of the First Tier Tax Tribunal and uphold HMRC’s assessments. He added that he would later have something to say about ‘unreasonable comments’ made by the FTTT.
or, if His Lordship was not minded to make any additional findings of fact, then to remit the case to a fresh Tribunal.
He gave a very short summary of the background. To wit, that the FTTT had heard evidence for 17 days,
and that the evidence bundles shows that much of the documentation was provided by the MG, and that there had been extensive reference to that documentation.
Put very simply, the MG had argued a) that for earnings to be taxable, there had to be ABSOLUTE legal title to
them, and that under the EBT Trust scheme there was no such absolute title. Payments made under them were something other than bonuses or emoluments and that the recipients of loans had had been no ‘unreserved disposal’ of the money that was on offer as loans.
and b) that the Trust scheme had not been shown to be a sham.
Mr Thomson said that HMRC’s view was that the evidence showed that there had been an underlying tacit agreement between the parties involved that loans would not ever be recalled, that interest due would be rolled up, until death, when the interest and repayment would be able to be offset against inheritance tax.
He said that the idea that the idea that payments under the Trust arrangements were something ‘other’ than taxable earnings was merely an assertion by the MG that did not reflect reality.
The rest of the day was spent by Mr Thomson ripping the FTTT’s whole approach to their hearing apart, and using quite harsh words their failure of duty to examine the evidence, make complete findings of fact, and apply the principles of the Ramsay case and a couple of other relevant cases properly, if at all.
he referred to the minority report of DR Poon as showing how many findings of fact were there to be made, which the majority had missed, and how their understanding and application of the Ramsay and other relevant cases had been erroneous and actually missed the very point of those cases.
He went on to say that the FTTT majority had failed to address the submissions made by HMRC, and that a pattern emerged of the FTTT simply accepting the MG’s submission, and of failing to make findings of fact to support arguments
There was not merely understandable error in law, but deeply flawed submissions by the Majority, wholesale faiure to exercise their judicial duty.
And so on all day till 4.00 pm, with frequent references to the legal authorities and the true interpretation of the case which is, that while there may be all the legal documentation to show that there was a proper, valid Trust, it was necessary to look at whether people in fact worked the Trust properly.
The Trust may be perfectly legal and not a sham, but the Trustees could ( and in this case, did, act beyond their powers) by making loans to people who were not entitled to such under the trust, making loans without requiring evidence of security or requiring repayment or interest payments -and all involved knew this to be the case. And, of course, the Trustees who began to ask for security etc were dismissed and another more compliant lot were brought in.
—–
That all sounds as dry as dust, but I actually quite enjoyed the day, And I’ll be back tomorrow. I still have 18 pages of notes to decipher: I can write legibly, and I can write fast: but not both at the same time!
Is he Lord Docherty, or Lord Doherty, or are their two of them ?
HH
Confused
There is no lord Docherty in Scotland, but having not been in court it is my guess that it was lord Raymond Doherty.
I’ve nothing to base this on,
( as with most of my opinions) but my fear is that we’ll think they are going to be convicted for something,
and between the jigs an’ the reels
it will transpire
that the beaks were never looking to have the huns over in the first place……….LNS all over again…..
Nothing less than Sircumcision will suffice.
HH
Tooting Tim
Are you around mate?
Bamboo,
Thanks for reminding me of what I knew about gays in Russia.
Russia didn’t stop the US from bombing Syria, unless it was by getting Assad to agree to chemical “disarmament”: the lack of support from US allies, e.g. the decision by the UK Parliament was more important.
The US is unquestionably the No 1 power at present, but I’m not sure that Prez Obama is bothered enough about that to mete out punishment to those who want to change the situation.
Only an ignoramus would have been surprised by Russia’s decision to shelter Snowden: I don’t think that US policymakers got where they are through ignorance. However, I’m sorry that the student body of the University where I studied & where my youngest son now studies has elected that narcissist Rector.
!!Bada Bing!!
20:31 on
24 February, 2014
Auldheid et al-does the new hearing have powers to make individuals pay back the “loans”(sic)? Would stop the likes of Rae and Captain Unbookable ,bleating every week about what state the huns are in,and how did it ever get to this? A wee look in the mirror would tell them.
===================
I cannot answer with certainty but I recall Alex Thomson saying that liquidation allowed BDO to pursue individuals for any debt owed.
Now whether that meant the old Directors or ebt recipients I’m not sure but if HMRC win then that puts the recipients of ebts in the frame as liability to HMRC would be established.
The public purse has been raided over a number of years by spivs turning tax avoidance into tax evasion by using the provisions in ways not intended.
Hopefully their time is up and the tax payers gets what they are owed.
From kerrydale street
Make of this what you will regarding Lord Bishop to Docherty in UTT http://t.co/dZdM2hwC9p
setting free the bears supports res. 12 & oscar knox
20:35 on 24 February, 2014I see that Lord Docherty is a former pupil of St. Joseph’s College, Dumfries.Follow Follow will be pleased.
Can we expect a Collumesque performance?
Calling into question a man with the name Docherty.
Hang yer heads.
:-)
……..and I’m guessing
This Dear Green Place
will not escape the sleekit attention
of various Sleekits
as scoddish stakeholders wrestle with the bigger agenda
of managing the fall-out from the ranjurs predicament.
Aye.
setting free the bears supports res. 12 & oscar knox
20:33 on 24 February, 2014
On what grounds would the Murray Group’s lawyers win a reduction from a 20 day tribunal to a 10 day tribunal?
Just a guess:
* To ensure HMRC don’t get a chance to expand their arguments;
* Because they thought HMRC would have planned on 20 days:
* To save money on legal fees. They are on a fixed fee. :-)
bankiebhoy1,
No sporting advantage was gained. Doncha know.
bankiebhoy1
20:43 on
24 February, 2014
I’ve nothing to base this on,
( as with most of my opinions) but my fear is that we’ll think they are going to be convicted for something,
and between the jigs an’ the reels
it will transpire
that the beaks were never looking to have the huns over in the first place……….LNS all over again…..
======================
Evidence from CF shows LNS commissioning was misled and the whole process will consequently be discredited.
It will all come out.
TM
Cheers.
I was only going by what yer man posted from the court today.
HH
auldheid-thanks for reply,as a taxpayer all we want is a level playing field.:))
It was Lord Doherty. TSFM reporter apologised later for misspelling.
tom molach-basically HMRC now have half the time to prove their case? HH
Auldheid…………
Fingers ‘n’ toes all
crossed.
( nothing less than Sircumcision will suffice)
HH.
Tom Molach-http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/34/518/The-Hon-Lord-Doherty-(J-Raymond-Doherty
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/34/518/The-Hon-Lord-Doherty-(J-Raymond-Doherty
..
Sum sums on sevco
To get the 30 mil fat salary needs for his war chest at £300 a season book pop that equates to 100k fans
Which equates to 5% of their 500 mill fans worldwide
Based on these figures a 30 mill cash injection is not pie in the sky or stake bakery
Disclaimer
Market target figures could be on the optimistic side
thindimebhoy
20:56 on 24 February, 2014
“Which equates to 5% of their 500 mill fans worldwide”
Don’t be daft. That’s not the way to look at it.
Their recent survey went out to 1.2m “fans”.
We are the peepil they will come to for the next funding request.
Get ready to pledge your allegiance again.
Aulheid
Is it remotely possible that LNS was quite happy to be misled.
I’ve been called worse than Docherty …….you get used to it lol!
DohertyCSC
Will any outcome of tax case make one whit of difference to THEIR present plight.
!!bada bing!!
20:52 on 24 February, 2014
auldheid-thanks for reply,as a taxpayer all we want is a level playing field.:))
…………..
Evening Celts
BB I think the level playing field boat has sailed, I’m looking for a levelled Iborcs (thumbs up)
HH
Vmhan – :)
quonno
21:07 on 24 February, 2014
nothing remote about it when you consider how the board reacted to resolution 12
HH
I dare say something very “crafty”
will be in the mix too.
Fair’n’square.
Aye.
2-1 Hull,game on
Vmhan – YNWA Wee Oscar
21:10 on
24 February, 2014
!!bada bing!!
20:52 on 24 February, 2014
auldheid-thanks for reply,as a taxpayer all we want is a level playing field.:))
…………..
Evening Celts
BB I think the level playing field boat has sailed, I’m looking for a levelled Iborcs (thumbs up)
HH
As a Tim I simply want THEM stripped of THEIR ill gotten gains.
Any tims in Swindon?
SFTB the other reason for sdm lawyers to argue for a 10 day rather than the planned 20 day hearing is that time is of the essence, the clock is ticking…,… Tic tok :>)
V