The Official Glasgow Rangers Thread
Discussion
Driver101 said:
They shouldn't be taxable if the "loans" were paid back. The clear ruling was they were loans. However not a penny has ever been paid back and highly unlikely to be paid back.
Why would a footballer earning a substantial amount of money also require a loan every week as part of his contract?
Why the childish dig? Not exactly mature.
Sorry I had it in my head that you were the poster who called me a retard earlier. Duly retract the dig!Why would a footballer earning a substantial amount of money also require a loan every week as part of his contract?
Why the childish dig? Not exactly mature.
I don't fully understand it either (not a tax lawyer) but those are our tax laws it would appear. You might be right, you might be wrong, but crucially you're at odds with judicial decisions. It's fairly clear (I think!?) they can't be paid back to a company that's been liquidated
simoid said:
Grandfondo said:
Simoid needs to look up the noun "loan" if he is confused! 
I've checked previously. Have it written in my little glossary of terms, with a note saying "not taxable".P.S. You said you can't pay back a liquidated entity? NEW rangers then!
Grandfondo said:
simoid said:
Grandfondo said:
Simoid needs to look up the noun "loan" if he is confused!
I've checked previously. Have it written in my little glossary of terms, with a note saying "not taxable".P.S. You said you can't pay back a liquidated entity? NEW rangers then!
simoid said:
Grandfondo said:
simoid said:
Grandfondo said:
Simoid needs to look up the noun "loan" if he is confused!
I've checked previously. Have it written in my little glossary of terms, with a note saying "not taxable".P.S. You said you can't pay back a liquidated entity? NEW rangers then!
Read back your last few posts!
BlackLabel said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68PmPEzQvCc
This certainly puts things into perspective and it's nice to see the Old Firm come together for it.
It's not often I'll have a good word for Celtic but fair play for the £10k. Sad times yesterday, Ricksen himself seems to be getting worse and having De Boer etc playing brings back memories of the good old days (on the field at least). We signed him from Barcelona ffs. 7 years ago we were in the UEFA Cup Final...This certainly puts things into perspective and it's nice to see the Old Firm come together for it.
But the positives are a wad of money for MND and 40K+ fans who turned out to help one of their own. Simply the best.
All the off field stuff is shameful. Sharks and shysters from Murray through Whyte and Green to the current lot. I used to work for the club and I've long lost the will to understand the ins and outs but it will right itself eventually, and it can't come soon enough.
One way or another, either a legitimate investor(s) or a FC United style new beginning we're not going away.
Grandfondo said:
simoid said:
Grandfondo said:
simoid said:
Grandfondo said:
Simoid needs to look up the noun "loan" if he is confused!
I've checked previously. Have it written in my little glossary of terms, with a note saying "not taxable".P.S. You said you can't pay back a liquidated entity? NEW rangers then!
Read back your last few posts!
Now a loan from Ashley but with no charge over Ibrox. This is going to be difficult to pick apart for any new buyer. Looks like Ashley has control of the training ground, the shirt sales and a small % of the club.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30996809
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30996809
What registered trademarks has he got control of?
They've obviously avoided the backlash of securing the loan on Ibrox, but if things do go wrong, will that mean he holds the names and badges of the club so they no longer can be used again?
If Ashley isn't allowed to own the club, why does he keep drip feeding Rangers enough money every month to stop it from going bust?
Why would he want assets such as trademarks? What value would they have for him?
They've obviously avoided the backlash of securing the loan on Ibrox, but if things do go wrong, will that mean he holds the names and badges of the club so they no longer can be used again?
If Ashley isn't allowed to own the club, why does he keep drip feeding Rangers enough money every month to stop it from going bust?
Why would he want assets such as trademarks? What value would they have for him?
Perhaps it means Ashley gets more money from merch sales, as the makers have to pay for the licence to whomever owns the trademark? Also will it give influence for him over who manufactures the stuff...?
At least it seems like a minor victory for the fans in that Ibrox wasn't mortgaged.
At least it seems like a minor victory for the fans in that Ibrox wasn't mortgaged.
How are they going to repay these loans?
They've just taken loan after loan to repay off previous loans without actually making any reduction to the level of debt.
The club's income is getting lower and lower with season tickets and crowds down, Ashley is taking more money away from the club at the same time.
How can they possibly balance the books?
How has the assets of the club gone from £5.5M after liquidation to the worth of all the share issues and loans secured against property? Why is it so much more valuable now when it's in far more of a mess than it was 3 years ago?
When does it become trading insolvent when the club has to borrow money on a monthly basis to pay the bills and can't pay back any of the loans without further borrowing?
Now their assets are all tied up in loan deals, what options do they really have?
From the £10m today, only £5m is paid just now, but £3m of that goes back right away for the previous loans I'm reading. £2m isn't enough for anything more than a couple of months.
They've just taken loan after loan to repay off previous loans without actually making any reduction to the level of debt.
The club's income is getting lower and lower with season tickets and crowds down, Ashley is taking more money away from the club at the same time.
How can they possibly balance the books?
How has the assets of the club gone from £5.5M after liquidation to the worth of all the share issues and loans secured against property? Why is it so much more valuable now when it's in far more of a mess than it was 3 years ago?
When does it become trading insolvent when the club has to borrow money on a monthly basis to pay the bills and can't pay back any of the loans without further borrowing?
Now their assets are all tied up in loan deals, what options do they really have?
From the £10m today, only £5m is paid just now, but £3m of that goes back right away for the previous loans I'm reading. £2m isn't enough for anything more than a couple of months.
simoid said:
Perhaps it means Ashley gets more money from merch sales, as the makers have to pay for the licence to whomever owns the trademark? Also will it give influence for him over who manufactures the stuff...?
At least it seems like a minor victory for the fans in that Ibrox wasn't mortgaged.
They still don't know who owns Ibrox, so he would never have got a mortgage on it in the first place.At least it seems like a minor victory for the fans in that Ibrox wasn't mortgaged.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff