Rangers FC Thread

[surfbum]

Rangers administrators play down talk of deal with HMRC over debt



Rangers will make creditors the pence-in-the-pound offer aimed at exiting administration — meaning would-be owner Charles Green will have to hand over a £3million down-payment on Ibrox.

And administrators Duff & Phelps are confident that, 15 weeks after the club was plunged into the abyss, the taxman will play ball in order to end the insolvency saga.

As Duff & Phelps prepare to resume court proceedings against the SFA over the one-year transfer embargo imposed for bringing the game into disrepute, and the SPL ready themselves for yet another mass meeting on newco proposals, Monday’s Company Voluntary Arrangement offer marks the first serious step towards wiping out the club’s crippling debts.
Main man: Charles Green is set to complete his takeover of Rangers

Main man: Charles Green is set to complete his takeover of Rangers


A final decision from creditors isn’t expected until the middle of June but, already, Ibrox insiders are briefing that the main player, Her Majesty’s Revenue (HMRC) and Customs, have been heavily involved in the detail of the CVA.

The tax authorities have played an advisory role in the construction of a deal that offers different amounts to a variety of creditors and are said to be relaxed about the impact of the so-called ‘Big Tax Case’ on the proportional pay-out received by the Revenue.

A source told Sportsmail: ‘The decision with regard to HMRC will be taken at a very high level. But the mood music has been good.’

Administrator Paul Clark said: ‘Getting the CVA proposal will be a major milestone and it’s likely that will happen and be out the door on Monday.

‘Clearly, we put the proposal together speaking to the various principal stakeholders and we very much hope they will view the proposals favourably.

‘We hope HMRC will vote in favour because it’s the best deal for the creditors but, until we get to June 13, we cannot be certain on that. We would not be taking this course if we thought it was complete folly.
‘We have now brought the club to a point of sale where everybody wanted it to be, through a CVA process, which is what the Rangers fans wanted.’
Open for business? Rangers have been in administration since February

Open for business? Rangers have been in administration since February

The CVA letter will trigger a £3m payment from prospective owner Green, who still refuses to name more than a handful of the investors involved in his mystery consortium and has even kept some secret from the administrators.

Clark revealed: ‘I have not met or spoken with all of them. We have seen a number of identities and we have been verbally advised of others.

‘I cannot say we have seen the full list of everyone who will invest but I don’t understand how that can be likened to a Craig Whyte situation. He (Whyte) had full control of 85 per cent of the business. But it is different if there is a group of investors.

‘There are a number of backers we have already seen, some of whom we have seen their details in writing.

‘I do not think Charles Green has ever suggested to us that he would be the controlling force.

‘He will strive to have 10 per cent or 15 per cent of the maximum, which would suggest there will be nine or 10 investors.’

Clark also admitted that Duff & Phelps had not seen all of Green’s money yet, although the administrator played down the prospect of a late withdrawal.

He added: ‘If Charles Green did not proceed at all? We have thought about the what-ifs but we regard that as a remote prospect, so I am not going to talk about any Plan B.

‘On Monday, we expect to be hitting the streets with a Charles Green-sponsored CVA proposal.

‘We have not had all of their monies in yet but that is where we are looking to proceed.
Enlarge Rangers in crisis

‘We would not have got to such an advanced stage if we did not feel there was more than a strong possibility of the CVA being approved.’

While the CVA proposals go out, the Rangers legal team will prepare to return to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Tuesday, seeking to overturn the 12-month registration embargo imposed by an independent panel and upheld by an appeal panel, both appointed under the SFA’s new disciplinary process agreed by all member clubs. Taking football matters through the civil courts will put Rangers at loggerheads with FIFA, whose sanctions prohibit cases being heard anywhere other than the Court of Arbitration for Sport — with sanctions recommended against any club breaking this agreement.

Despite the possibility of the SFA being forced to punish Rangers, though, Clark admitted he had not been aware of the football-specific restrictions on court action.

He said: ‘I do not know if any of my team of lawyers were specifically aware of that. I was not aware of it.

‘I do know that FIFA have a position where they look at the activities of individual associations.

‘We are exploring all of the points on the transfer ban.’

Meanwhile, SPL clubs will meet again at Hampden on Wednesday to discuss financial fair-play proposals.

Special attention will be paid to the price of re-admitting any club who takes the newco route of administration, still an option for Rangers if the CVA is not accepted by creditors.

SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster has repeatedly tried to tread the line between promising that Rangers will receive no special treatment and bracing a lot of angry supporters of other clubs for the prospect of the Ibrox side being re-admitted without any punishment.

‘There are all sorts of different twists and turns which could arise and I will not predict what might or might not happen,’ said Doncaster.

Read more: Rangers in crisis: No HMRC agreement | Mail Online

 

[surfbum]

Time in admininstration.

Rangers 4 months : 14 February to present.

Morton 8 months : 15 December 2000 to 8 August 2001

Clydebank 7 months : 23 December 2000 to 9 July 2001 Became Airdrie United

Motherwell 2 years : 24 April 2002 - 20 April 2004

Dundee 9 months : 25 November 2003 - 6 August 2004

Livingston 15 months: 3 February 2004 - 13 May 2005*

Gretna 6 months : 10 March 2008 - 8 August 2008 Liquidated



*In July 2009 Livingstone again went into administration but with immediate liquidation pending. Achieved a quick buyout in August to prevented oblivion.

Liquidation/admin period 3 weeks.

 

[RAB - P]

Administrators' Statement

Mon, May 28, 2012

Duff and Phelps, the administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement this evening.

Paul Clark, Joint Administrator, said: "A formal notice of the CVA meetings will be sent to all creditors and shareholders of the Club tomorrow providing further details of the CVA process.

"The proposal will offer the best return for all stakeholders given the position the Club is in. If approved by the creditors, the CVA proposal will rescue the Company and finally enable it to exit administration.

"Details of the CVA proposal have been finalised today and there has been additional consultation with certain stakeholders. We had hoped the results of this consultation would have enabled us to publish the proposal today but administrative alterations mean the document will be published tomorrow. Rangers supporters should be reassured the CVA process is on track. The creditors' meeting to consider, and hopefully approve, the CVA will be held on Thursday 14 June."

 

[RAB - P]

Rangers win Court of Session appeal against Scottish FA signing ban

A ban on signing players imposed on Rangers by the Scottish Football Association has been overturned by the Court of Session.

At a hearing on Tuesday, the judge ruled a registration embargo was not a sanction available to the governing body to impose upon a club which had brought the game into disrepute.

The matter will now be heard again by the Scottish FA's appeals tribunal, which has been informed it must apply only the punishments listed as available to it in the organisation's protocol.

Rule 66 allows for a maximum fine of £100,000 to be imposed, as well as ejection from the Scottish Cup, a suspension, expulsion from participation in the game and/or termination of SFA membership.

Despite the ruling, Rangers are still unable to sign players as they are under a separate registration embargo imposed by the Scottish Premier League for being in administration.

Rangers were also awarded expenses by the court. A statement from the Scottish FA is expected later on Tuesday.

 

[RAB - P]

Rangers administrators Duff & Phelps issue CVA offer

Duff and Phelps, the Administrators of Rangers Football Club, will today publish their proposal for a Company Voluntary Arrangement.

A formal notice of the CVA meetings is being sent to all creditors and shareholders of the Club providing further details of the CVA process.

Paul Clark, Joint Administrator, said: "This proposal offers the best return for all stakeholders given the position the Club is in. If approved by the creditors, the CVA proposal will rescue the Club and finally enable the Company to exit Administration.

"Since our appointment, it has been our principal objective to propose a CVA, which is the preferred solution to what has been a catastrophic period for the Club. That view is shared by everyone with Rangers' interests, and those of Scottish football, at heart.

"For some time, the prospect of presenting a CVA proposal with a realistic chance of success appeared remote however, we are delighted now to put forward a solution which we think will take things forward as originally envisaged.

"We should remember there are many stakeholders who have suffered financial losses as a result of Rangers being placed into Administration. Regrettably, there is no solution available that allows these parties to recover their losses in full.

"However, after a very intensive bidding process for the Club we can now say that the offer being put forward as part of the CVA is the best solution available to creditors and we hope they will approve the proposal.

"Having issued the proposal, it is now a matter for the creditors to consider what is on offer and it is their decision entirely as to whether the terms of the CVA are acceptable."

Charles Green, who is leading a consortium to purchase Rangers, said: "Today is an extremely important milestone for Rangers to begin the journey back to where the Club belongs - as a leading sporting institution that can hold its head high both on the field and off it.

"I have great sympathy with creditors, particularly small local businesses in the community around Ibrox, who have suffered in the lead up to Administration. However, I fervently hope that creditors will form the view that the best interests of everyone will be served by Rangers continuing as the successful Club it is and recovering as a business in the forthcoming seasons.

"The consortium I am leading can only do so much to heal the wounds of the past, but we can do something about the future and that is where our main focus must lie. I hope creditors will approve this proposal and we can begin the task of rebuilding Rangers in earnest."

The CVA proposal will be published on the club's website today with notification of the statutory meetings of creditors and shareholders being sent to approximately 400 trade creditors, over 6,000 fans holding debentures and all shareholders within the Club.

The overall amount of money being made available for the CVA pot from the Green consortium is £8.5million. The Administrators intend to make a distribution to creditors as soon as they can should the CVA proposal be approved.

The overall costs of the administration process will be deducted from the funds available. All costs and charges incurred in the administration and the CVA are proper expenses at levels which are in keeping with best practice guidelines set by insolvency practitioners' regulatory bodies. All of the Administrators' own costs are subject to approval by creditors.

The final amount available to creditors could be in excess of £25 million, depending on the outcome of litigation. The precise amount will not be known for some months.

At this stage, there are two outstanding issues that will have an affect on the quantum of funds which can be distributed to creditors.

The first matter is litigation brought by the Administrators against the former lawyers for Rangers, Collyer Bristow. Should that be successful, further funds will be made available to creditors.

The second is the outcome of the HMRC first tier tax tribunal. Should the tribunal find against Rangers that will increase the quantum of HMRC's claim on funds available to creditors, thus diluting the settlement available for all other creditors.

The proposal will be considered at a meeting of creditors to be held at Ibrox on June 14.

The Administrators will, immediately after that creditors' meeting, convene a meeting of shareholders who will be asked to formally endorse the outcome of the creditors' meeting.

The shareholder meeting is a formality under insolvency legislation and will deal only with a single resolution on whether the shareholders endorse the outcome of the creditors' meeting. Charles Green's consortium, which should by then have an 85% shareholding in the Club, will vote in favour should the CVA proposal be approved by creditors.

Ibrox debenture holders can only attend and vote as creditors at the creditors' meeting on June 14 if they surrender their debenture. Should they wish to do so, they will be able to apply to attend the creditors' meeting and further details will be provided to all debenture holders.

Should the CVA proposal be approved, there then follows a 28-day period during which certain interested parties can make application to the Court for the CVA decision to be reviewed. Once that period has elapsed the Administrators will make immediate plans to conclude their involvement and the Club will exit Administration.

Duff & Phelps will continue to fulfil a role as the Supervisors of the CVA in attempting to maximise the level of return to creditors from the on-going litigation against Collyer Bristow.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/c9/b3/0,,5~177097,00.pdf

 

[J]

Rangers win Court of Session appeal against Scottish FA signing ban

A ban on signing players imposed on Rangers by the Scottish Football Association has been overturned by the Court of Session.

At a hearing on Tuesday, the judge ruled a registration embargo was not a sanction available to the governing body to impose upon a club which had brought the game into disrepute.

The matter will now be heard again by the Scottish FA's appeals tribunal, which has been informed it must apply only the punishments listed as available to it in the organisation's protocol.

Rule 66 allows for a maximum fine of £100,000 to be imposed, as well as ejection from the Scottish Cup, a suspension, expulsion from participation in the game and/or termination of SFA membership.

Despite the ruling, Rangers are still unable to sign players as they are under a separate registration embargo imposed by the Scottish Premier League for being in administration.

Rangers were also awarded expenses by the court. A statement from the Scottish FA is expected later on Tuesday.

great news f@k the sfa and the rest
the erskin bridge will be full tonight.

 

[phezo]

JUSTICE IS DONE


:Clap:

 

[surfbum]

A Scottish FA spokesperson said:

“We are surprised by today’s verdict at the Court of Session, especially since the original sanction against Rangers FC was imposed by an independent panel chaired by a leading QC and upheld by an Appellate Tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court Judge.

“We will now consider our position with our legal advisers before making any further comment.”

 

[surfbum]

is it not strange that most celtic fans only post about rangers?
they hate rangers more than they like celtic, sad bigoted life they must lead.
i would say to any celtic fan looking at this, get a life and love celtic forget about rangers you know it makes sence lol

 

[surfbum]

just shows that the sfa are not fit for purpose
the SFA used the 1996 Policy when they should have used the updated 1997 Policy
Against rangers

The 1996 Policy for dealing with discipline issues like ours allowed free range of actions.
The SFA then updated this policy document in 1997, which listed the following actions; Expulsion via membership withdrawal, a fine or a ban from a tournament (Scottish Cup).

 

[surfbum]

If you’re going to take a swing at the biggest guy in the place, make sure he doesn’t get back up.

Ignore it once and you might get away with a slap.

Twice? Well, just ask the SFA how it feels.

In the last year, they’ve now called out the TWO biggest dudes in Scottish football’s saloon.

And both times, they’ve proved they couldn’t punch their way through a wet sheet of lavvy roll.

Thirteen months ago, they were taking on Celtic to make Neil Lennon serve an eight-match ban, only for QC Paul McBride to drive the team bus through their case and have it reduced to two four-games bans running concurrently.

Now, they’ve tried to stick Rangers with a season-long transfer embargo as punishment for Craig Whyte not paying nine months’ worth of tax.

Only for fist to whoosh past chin and their target to stand there sneering: “Is that your best shot?” Those five words have been the last a whole lot of plastic hardmen have heard before the birdies start tweeting around their napper.

And in football terms, that’s what’s about to happen to the SFA.

After yesterday’s courtroom ruling that the embargo wasn’t worth the paper it was typed on, they’re going to get their blazers pulled up over their heads and their breeks pulled down. Then they’re going to get the metaphorical doing of a lifetime.

I was about to write that you can imagine how revved up the ranks of angry Bluenoses will be right now.

But with the speed of social networking, by the time you read this they’ll already have made plans to march on Hampden again and give the beaks even bigger pelters than they did last time. That first protest was to demand what they saw as fairness. The next will be the noisiest possible vote of no confidence in the people charged with running our game.

It’s surely a vote few followers of ANY club would go against in the current climate, because after this latest twist in the Rangers saga it’s hard to retain much faith in Stewart Regan and his administration.

There was a time when the SFA got stick for dragging their feet when it came to big decisions. Remember when wee Berti Vogts was making us a laughing stock and somehow it took them nine months after a 4-0 humping in Cardiff to bin him?

It was this kind of shilly-shallying that finally brought about an end to the old-school committee system and saw Regan airlifted in to modernise the whole shooting match.

His vow was that from that day on, they WOULD make the decisions that had to be made. And he’s been as good as his word.

Only trouble is, it seems they’re now making decisions SO fast they don’t think them through long enough to make them stick. They took on the referees, forced them into a strike and are now losing good men hand over fist. They took on Celtic over Lennon and the late McBride nutmegged them with a beach-ball in a phone box.

The Parkhead lawyer left them without a name, declaring that their bid to ban Lennon for eight games was a non-starter because “anyone who can read could see what the rules were”.

He told the Hampden mandarins to “grow up and start acting responsibly” and labelled them “institutionally dysfunctional”.

His words rings as true today as they did last April.

Because now they’ve taken on Rangers. And it’s cringe-makingly obvious that they didn’t brief the independent panel appointed to investigate the Whyte fiasco on what sanctions they could impose.

How must those fellas be feeling this morning? They’ve been taking appalling abuse for weeks after Ally McCoist forced the blazers into removing their anonymity — and now, just when they’re starting to disappear back into shadows, their lives get turned upside down again.

As for kicking Rangers out of football? Aye right.

Listen, if the SFA wanted to banish Rangers for the scandal of their financial meltdown, they should have had the balls to do it from the off. Instead, though, they ended up with some mish-mash of punishments that were plainly their attempt at looking tough-ish without actually putting he tackities on.

So what are they telling us now? That because they’ve lost Round One, they’re now going wait till the other guy’s back is turned and malky him with a pool cue?

That’s not being tough. That’s being vindictive.

It’s one thing increasing a ban on a manager or player who steps out of line then lodges a spurious appeal.

But when a club’s opposition to a ruling is vindicated in a court of law, to then bluster about the possibility of coming back with an even heavier sentence only serves to shred what remains of their credibility. Rangers SHOULD be punished. Craig Whyte SHOULD never be involved in football again. David Murray — he’s no more due the Sir part than Fred Goodwin was — CAN’T be allowed to get away with masterminding years of reckless over-spending and tax avoidance.

But for the love of God, someone please work out for absolutely certain who they can do what to and how.

And until that’s carved in stone and signed off by the men in powdery wigs, let’s not hear another damn word from the SFA.

If this lot walk away from this mess with their jobs intact, they’ll have done well. They’d also do well to remember that before taking their next gallus pill.

Read more: SFA can’t put up fight or defend themselves | The Sun |Home Scotland|Scottish Sport|SPL

 

[phezo]

everytime i meet my neighbour who has the celtic illness i dont get greeted with hello, its a "oh rangers are in a bad way", "have you heard the latest". he is thriving on it. GET A LIFE. All yous tics out there GET A LIFE. WE ARE THE PEOPLE.

 

[J]

I'm fortunate I don't have any in my street what so ever lol

 

[J]

Regan and Lawwell: Resign Now - NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE Petition

 

[surfbum]

Rangers fans chief's blast after court ruling



By CHRIS JACK



FURIOUS Rangers fans today demanded SFA chief executive Stewart Regan resign in the wake of yesterday's dramatic Court of Session judgment.




Supporters Trust spokesman Mark Dingwall said the Hampden boss' position was "untenable" after it was ruled the governing body had no power to hand down a 12-month transfer embargo to the Ibrox club.

Rangers were heavily censured by an independent three-man panel after being found guilty of a series of rule breaches while disgraced chairman Craig Whyte was in control.After the decision was upheld by an appeal panel, Rangers went to court, with Lord Glennie ruling in favour of the Glasgow giants yesterday afternoon.

Fifa have already voiced their concerns over the club taking the SFA to court, but Dingwall believes it is the Hampden hierarchy that the game's governing body should be upset at as Regan comes under mounting pressure.

He said: "Mr Regan was the leading advocate of changing the SFA procedures.

"We were told that what had gone before was essentially useless and unfit for purpose and that he was the man to change it. Guess what? The first real test of his system and it has failed, it has collapsed.

"It is not just the credibility of the system, it is the credibility of the man who hoisted the system on Scottish football that has been called into question.

"This has been deeply unpleasant for Rangers, but it has been a disaster for the SFA. It has held the SFA up to ridicule and I think Mr Regan's position is untenable.

"He presented himself as a competent reformer, he promised a lot but, in the end, he has delivered a shambles."

The SFA said they will evaluate the situation. A spokesman said: "We are surprised by the verdict especially since the original sanction was imposed by an independent panel chaired by a leading QC and upheld by an Appellate Tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court Judge."

Rangers fans chief's blast after court ruling | Evening Times

 

[surfbum]

Please note the following quote in reference to the saga of Neil Lennon's eight match ban. This quote is taken directly from the SFA website:

"We have discussed the matter with Celtic Football Club and they accept that Neil Lennon was guilty of misconduct."

"However, with regard to the timing of the suspension we must accept that if our rules cannot be enforced in a court of law then they cannot be imposed and it is foolish to waste money defending such a point."

"We acknowledge that our rules do need updating and I have proposed to our board that we commission a complete re write of the disciplinary procedures from a legal perspective to address this whole matter."

"Whilst we have an obligation to ensure that our rules can be legally enforced, nevertheless it is important for the future of Scottish football that we do not allow our disciplinary procedures to be used as a costly legal playground."

Stewart Regan - 1st April 2011

 

[surfbum]

from hear
Rangers owner Craig Whyte admits using £24m season ticket cash to fund takeover | Scotland | News | STV
Tax cases

In the statement released on Tuesday, the owner, who has not returned to Ibrox since flying to London the night administrators were appointed, said that part of this was in relation to the "wee tax case" against HMRC.

It centres on a tax bill of £2.8m that the club had agreed to pay HMRC before Mr Whyte took over, but is now in dispute.

In his statement, the Rangers owner said: "It is simply not true to say that Rangers or I have reneged on paying these liabilities since the takeover. The truth is that around £4.4m of the £9m demand is, in fact, the ‘wee tax case’, including penalties, and which is in dispute.

"We offered to pay £2.5m of the PAYE and VAT up front with the remainder at £500,000 a month, but HMRC flatly rejected that."

Mr Whyte continually refers to the "big tax case" in his statement, which he claimed could result in Rangers being hit with a bill of up to £75m. It relates to HMRC claiming the club owe at least £36.5m in tax as it allegedly wrongly used an employee benefits trust scheme to pay staff between 2001 and 2010.

The outcome of the appeal in this case is not yet known, but in his statement on Tuesday, Mr Whyte claimed HMRC had rejected a payback offer from him.

The Rangers owner questioned whether HMRC’s refusal of his offers for payment of both tax cases was because it was "simply determined to make an example of Rangers." He claims it was judged "far too risky to pump further funds into the club" while the result of the 'big tax case' is not yet known.

 

[surfbum]

Sam Wallace: Spanish clubs' unpaid tax bills are a disgrace – and a warning to all

Talking Football: This is money owed to the Spanish people. On a sporting level it is "financial doping" at its very worst
When faced with the prospect of the Spanish government waiving the collective €752m debt the nation's football clubs owe to the country's tax authorities, the reaction in Europe last week was one of outrage. The German tabloid Bild even asked how long the German taxpayer would be obliged to subsidise the wages of Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo.

What they meant was that while the European Union members bailed out the Spanish economy, successful Spanish clubs were failing to meet their own tax obligations. Strictly speaking, Real Madrid have no tax debt among the €170m debt that the club carry, but Barcelona owe €48m of their overall €364m debt to the Spanish taxman.

Uli Hoeness, the outspoken president of Bayern Munich, got to the point rather more quickly when asked about the proposal to excuse Spanish clubs their tax debt. "This is unthinkable," he said. "We pay them hundreds of millions to get them out the shit and then the clubs don't pay their debts."

It is a uniquely modern European dilemma, encompassing EU bail-out funds and the competitiveness of the continent's respective leading clubs, all of which ultimately adds another fiendishly complex element to the concept of Financial Fair Play, as proposed by Uefa president Michel Platini. It is further proof that while Spanish football is undoubtedly top dog in Europe, with five teams in the quarter-finals of the two Uefa competitions, it is not without problems.

As The Independent's Pete Jenson reported in these pages on Saturday, a government report in Spain last week disclosed that the equivalent of £625m is owed by Spanish clubs to the country's public purse, with £353m of that due from 14 of the 20 clubs in the top division. This is not money owed to banks, investors or owners. It is owed to the Spanish people.

On a sporting level it is "financial doping" at its very worse. On a social level it is nothing short of a disgrace in a country where youth unemployment currently runs at 50 per cent.

Not all top Spanish clubs are culpable and it was reassuring to read in the breakdown of club debt by AS newspaper that Athletic Bilbao, the team of largely home-grown Basque stars who left English football spellbound with their schooling of Manchester United last week, do not owe the taxman a cent. So too Real Sociedad, Getafe, Villarreal and Sporting Gijon.

On the other hand, Atletico Madrid, currently eighth in La Liga and drawn against Hannover 96 in the quarter-finals of the Europa League, owe the Spanish public purse €155m (£128m), more than any other club. The money from the €50m sale of Sergio Aguero to Manchester City last summer went straight to the tax authorities. Valencia, who play AZ Alkmaar in the same stage of the competition, owe €6m in unpaid tax.

When Hoeness expressed German football's bitterness that their government is, indirectly, subsidising the success of Spanish clubs it is the likes of Hannover he was talking about. Atletico's big signing was Falcao from Porto last summer, a £33m signing financed by third-party ownership deals. Hannover bought Mame Biram Diouf from Manchester United. Enough said.

No one would pretend that British football is the perfect financial model, especially given Rangers' and Portsmouth's debts to HMRC. Even the Germans have had their problems with Borussia Dortmund and Schalke. But unpaid taxes at a time when public services are being cut and jobs lost are particularly repugnant.

Real Betis, Real Zaragoza, Racing Santander, Levante and Mallorca (denied a place in last season's Europa League because of their finances) owe a total of €118m to the Spanish tax authorities between them. There are also suggestions that unpaid social security contributions by some Spanish clubs rival those eye-watering figures for unpaid tax.

In the past, Spanish football has been protected by the assumption that punishing badly-run clubs would cause such a backlash against government by voters that it would not be politically expedient. There is no points penalty in Spain for going into the equivalent of financial administration as there is in England. But attitudes are changing.

The governing political group Partido Popular has described the situation as "intolerable". The government was forced to disclose the figures of unpaid tax because of an official request by Caridad Garcia of the Izquierda Unida (IU) party.

A spokesman for IU, José Luis Centella, made the connection last week between the financial hardship felt by the Spanish people and the clubs' failure to pay. "This is bad news for all the people who have lost homes and suffered from the cutbacks while there is this tremendous generosity towards football."

Wisely, the Spanish sports minister Miguel Cardenal announced last week that the government had dropped any consideration of giving football clubs a clean slate on their tax debts. There has even been a call from the centre-left party PSOE to ban clubs with tax debts from competing in the league, a rule that, already in place in Italian football, would change the face of La Liga overnight.

Were the Spanish tax authorities to call in their debts tomorrow, Barcelona would surely be able to find, or borrow, the €48m they owe. Atletico, on the other hand, would find themselves in the kind of dire situation currently enveloping Rangers.

There is a lesson for English football that in the risky game of investment and borrowing that most clubs enter as they attempt to fulfil the ambitions of supporters and owners, there are certain obligations that are non-negotiable. Football clubs command such loyalty and affection that they are too often cut slack, but, as the situation in Spain is starting to show, there is always a limit.


Sam Wallace: Spanish clubs' unpaid tax bills are a disgrace

 

[doughball]

Regan and Lawwell: Resign Now - NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE Petition

I have signed the petition as I believe that these people are not fit for purpose. :Angryfire

 

[surfbum]

Celtic board members = Tax cheats?
You know the feeling you pay your expensive tax advisers for some expensive tax advice on how you can mitigate the tax laws to your advantage. You take the advice you're given and implement it accordingly you do it for years, everything's above board and legal then all of a sudden HMRC says "oh no you can't do that we don't like it and we'd like you to give us some money we feel is due". The next thing you is there's a sudden outburst of moral superiority and cries of, "tax cheats", "cheating Her Majesty", "what about the schools and hospitals an arat" yada yada yada.

Well step foreword one Peter Thomas Lawwell and one Eric James Riley both members of the Celtic board, Lawwell member of the SFA Professional Game Board, Riley a member of the SPL Board. Both are members of a LLP called Inside Track3 which is allegedly a 'tax efficient film investment vehicle' or rather it was since HMRC have decided it's merely "an aggressive tax avoidance scheme" and as the Rangers Tax Case blog keeps lecturing "tax avoidance is illegal" so can we see their expose of the Celtic directors tax cheating any time soon?

Tide turns in tax war as loophole is closed


A landmark victory for Revenue & Customs to deny wealthy investors £117 million in tax relief has ushered in a new era of intolerance towards tax avoidance by the rich.
Eclipse 35, a film investment partnership whose members include Sir Alex Ferguson, the Manchester United manager, was barred from claiming tax relief on a complex £1 billion deal with Disney.

If the 2007 scheme had succeeded, each of the 289 members of Eclipse 35 could have enjoyed an average of £404,000 in tax relief on a personal investment of £173,000. Other investors included Sven-Göran Eriksson, the former England manager, as well as bankers, chief executive officers and hedge-fund managers.

The decision of a tax tribunal could have a wide-reaching effect on dozens of other film schemes as well as other investments designed to achieve high tax reliefs, experts said.

It comes after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Revenue & Customs (HMRC) in a £1.5 billion tax avoidance case last May involving a software company called MCashback. In recent years, money has poured into finance schemes offering high net-worth individuals tax savings through investments from clean energy to software and marine salvage. But the rulings show that the tide is turning, as courts reflect Parliament’s growing disdain for “tax mitigation” schemes.

“The Revenue are winning a lot more cases than they’re losing now, and that pattern is accelerating,” one senior tax adviser told The Times. “The courts are taking a purposive approach, which means they look at what Parliament intends.”

The Eclipse 35 ruling comes as David Cameron promised yesterday not to have dealings with businessmen who were guilty of “aggressive tax avoidance”. The Prime Minister made a distinction between legitimate ways of minimising tax bills and practices he regards as wrong.

While investing in an “enterprise investment scheme” or pension fund was legitimate, Mr Cameron said: “There is a form of tax avoidance where people are almost specifically setting up a company in order to avoid tax rather than wanting to invest in start-ups.”

He was also asked whether he would promise not to allow tax avoiders into his flat and have “dealings” with them. “Generally speaking, yes, I think that’s sensible,” Mr Cameron replied.
The Times has established that two of Mr Cameron’s key business advisers were long-term investors in a film partnership currently under investigation by HMRC.

Sam Laidlaw, chief executive of Centrica, and Dick Olver, chairman of BAE Systems, held stakes in the investment vehicle Ingenious Film Partners 2 LLP for at least four years.

HMRC has an outstanding inquiry into Ingenious, examining whether its partnerships were trading with a view to profit or whether it was set up primarily for tax avoidance purposes. Ingenious strongly defends its schemes as commercial enterprises.

Tory MPs told The Times they are worried that the Prime Minister had blundered by making the remark, since many large companies, including those that give money to the Conservative Party, use techniques that Mr Cameron has now set himself against.

Eclipse 35 licensed the worldwide rights to Enchanted and Underdog for £503 million before licensing the rights back to Disney. The 289 members of Eclipse 35 claimed tax relief on the interest on the loans taken out to fund the deal.

But two judges found that Eclipse was “not trading” and therefore the members could not claim tax relief. “It is difficult to see what services Eclipse 35 realistically offered to provide to the Disney group by way of business,” they said.

“Eclipse 35 did sub-license the rights to the distributor, but it had acquired the self-same rights a moment previously from Disney, and had acquired them on terms whereby they would be so sub-licensed.”

A spokesman for Future Capital Partners, which set up Eclipse 35, said: “We maintain that this investment is very much a commercial opportunity. We are disappointed with the decision and intend to vigorously appeal against it. Given that this is an ongoing process, and the decision has not yet been published, we cannot discuss the case in any further detail.”