Big tax case is irrelevant apart from the evidence it produces on dual contracts etc. Its a waste of time going after a newco for oldco debt and the new legislation only allow's hmrc to demand a bond equivalent to one years tax for high risk companies so unlikely to apply to rangers. If a cva isn't agreed with the oldco then yes they're will be trouble due to moving assets out of creditors reach, but who knows what will happen.
Cant see HMRC agreeing CVA if they think they can get their hands on the assets instead. They would have the tax payer up in arms if they let assets worth £30-40m slip away. They wouldnt agree CVA with Leeds but they just didnt have the 25% required to deny it fully. AT says that he has spoken to ppl in HMRC who make it clear that they want to make an example of RFC, for big clubs down south who owe over £1B in EBTS.
Don't see them agreeing a cva either but if no cva is agreed then its liquidation in which they still get nothing as the secured creditor will get paid first, and the assets don't appear to be worth 30-40m more like 20m. Therfore whyte will pocket 20m and everybody else gets nothing. Either way there will still be a rangers next year its really up to the football authorities to decide where they play and punishments etc. If they are back in the spl next year without agreeing a cva then im off. I view football as a game and don't care for the financial aspect of it but when rules are rewritten to suit one club then whats the point? What if rangers faced relegation next year due to a severely reduced squad are we going to change the league again? Theres no enjoyment in beating them anymore as the whole setup would be a charade like WWE to fleece fans of there money.
