I bought a Sun today (I was going to a cafe for some scran and I wanted something to read) and this gem caught my eye. Penned by Andy Devlin who really should know better but having seen his scribblings before i should have realised maybe he should'nt.. Taxman set to back shock Rangers lifeline RANGERS were thrown a dramatic lifeline last night as it was revealed the taxman WILL do a deal with the stricken giants. But the crisis-hit club were warned their £49million battle with HMRC and the £9million bill for unpaid VAT and PAYE will only be resolved if owner Craig Whyte gets the boot. The Scottish Sun can reveal a compromise deal — sanctioned at Treasury level — is within reach which could see the fallen giants pay back as little as TEN PENCE in the pound. That would mean instead of paying a whopping £49million penalty, Gers could get off with forking out a paltry £4.9million. But the negotiations hinge on new owners replacing shamed Whyte — and a company voluntary agreement in place with creditors. A source said: "This is welcome news for whoever wants to come in and take over Rangers. "At least anyone coming in knows that HMRC are going to be flexible. "It is also in their interest as if the club goes into liquidation they will get nothing. "The deal is only on the table for new owners and NOT Craig Whyte. He has treated HMRC with contempt." The news will be a welcome boost for hard-pressed fans who feared the worst after administrators — who yesterday arrived at Ibrox in a light blue van — launched a last-gasp bid to sell the club. Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/feeds/smartphone/scotland/4182291/Taxman-set-to-back-shock-Rangers-lifeline.html#ixzz1ofIu1ryt ============================================ Now why would HMRC discuss and allegedly come to a deal on a bill which has not even be decided yet? Why would HMRC stipulate in this fantasy deal that Craig Whyte should not have anything to do with Rangers if the deal is to go through? As it stands at present is he not "The owner"? I'm a bit of a cynic I know but is it just me or does this sound like a lot of monumental bollocks, a fabrication which Sir Minty himself would have been proud of? Utter guff imho.
Unfortunately i read this earlier, utter tosh, but then again, what else should we expect fom the Sun.
Exactly. The notion that HMRC would be involved in stipulating who the owner of the club should be, is ludicrous. There may be slight chance for negotiation on the interest figure but not the actual amount due, otherwise the wrong message is sent out to all and sundry...and so publicly at this stage - no chance!
The Huns are going to be delighted when the first tier tribunal comes back and the figure isn't the £75m that whyte mentioned or the £49m that is the accepted sum doing the rounds. £34 or £36m or whatever it is isn't going to seem that bad......then the 2nd tier comes back with the penalties.
Is that the same HMRC/ Treasury level involvement that saw Barclays get hit with a bill for half a billion pounds in tax last week?
LOl 10p in the pound, rangers fans just dont get it its not about the money. The tax man takes a hard line so you pay your taxes or he liquidates your company. Just like he is trying to do to portsmouth and hearts.
Is this the same HMRC who turned down an offer of £10m from Rangers, when the bill was a lot smaller too?
Also the same taxman who has staked a claim on the money held in colliers account. If he wanted to help rangers he would not have claimed for that money as rangers desperately need that money to make the end of the season.
It isn't fair for the media to **** about with their emotions like that. I am being absolutely genuine in that. As much as they like to call us ****s etc, the only people being any way honest with them has been the Celtic support, and now more recently supporters of other clubs.
And the lie exposed in the very same "paper" and the very next day. The huge £49m tax case has still to be ruled on and Clark added: "Regrettably that's out of our hands. "To some extent it's really about what that would mean in terms of the deal offered to settle the big tax case. "Just because we don't have the final extent of the amount outstanding, needn't hold that up. It doesn't concern me."
