4 bidders

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Ah, I see. You're saying that it was Whyte's deliberate intention to not attempt to trade out financial trouble but to go directly to admin and do not pass go. It would indeed be a pretty ****ty thing to do.

To be honest I'm no longer thinking about the shambles of his tenure, only thinking and hoping we get out of it so I can have a football club to support next season. No more and no less than that for me.
 
Gambol said:
Ah, I see. You're saying that it was Whyte's deliberate intention to not attempt to trade out financial trouble but to go directly to admin and do not pass go. It would indeed be a pretty ****ty thing to do.

To be honest I'm no longer thinking about the shambles of his tenure, only thinking and hoping we get out of it so I can have a football club to support next season. No more and no less than that for me.
Click to expand...


Not really, man - I don't know what his intention was. I appreciate that you just want your team to continue - so would I.

I was kind of responding to the idea that people want further censure because it's Rangers - given that Rangers and all other sports clubs are in the business of competing for sporting accolades, I (and lots of others, I'm sure) don't think it would be fair for Rangers to continue competing in the SPL without a points deduction when they have a lower rate of their obligations to meet than everyone else.

In a normal business, you just want the business to continue and as few people as possible to lose their jobs - in this case, to Rangers fans, it's a lot more important than a business.

However, for rival fans, the CVA route HAS to be accompanied by additional sporting censure - otherwise it's not fair.
 
Gambol said:
Ah, I see. You're saying that it was Whyte's deliberate intention to not attempt to trade out financial trouble but to go directly to admin and do not pass go. It would indeed be a pretty ****ty thing to do.

To be honest I'm no longer thinking about the shambles of his tenure, only thinking and hoping we get out of it so I can have a football club to support next season. No more and no less than that for me.
Click to expand...


What was the thing Whyte did last week? He lodged some papers that would guarantee he would be seen as bona fide owner of the club or something.
 
Bib Fortuna's Maw said:
Not really, man - I don't know what his intention was. I appreciate that you just want your team to continue - so would I.

I was kind of responding to the idea that people want further censure because it's Rangers - given that Rangers and all other sports clubs are in the business of competing for sporting accolades, I (and lots of others, I'm sure) don't think it would be fair for Rangers to continue competing in the SPL without a points deduction when they have a lower rate of their obligations to meet than everyone else.

In a normal business, you just want the business to continue and as few people as possible to lose their jobs - in this case, to Rangers fans, it's a lot more important than a business.

However, for rival fans, the CVA route HAS to be accompanied by additional sporting censure - otherwise it's not fair.
Click to expand...

Right, now I see where you were coming from. I wisny being thick, I'm mainly thinking forward now in terms of Rangers. Or, I was being a bit thick.

If the league and/or association decide to censure the team further then so be it. We'll have to take them lumps.

I've said before on this forum that I wouldn't mind being kicked out of the SPL. Rebuilding from the lower leagues would be no bad thing. As I understand it we may well be kicked out a for us to remain in the SPL the other clubs have to vote to keep us there. (Is that correct?) If so, it would be farcical to artifically kept in the SPL.

I'm looking forward to the days when the only time Rangers are on my mind are match days <laugh>
 
Gambol said:
Sounds more wishful than anything else to me. He wants additional punishment on a company getting out of admin via CVA just because it's Rangers. Moral hazard? Aye, Rangers are the first company to get themselves in the **** and get out via CVA so let's hang them out to dry as a warning to every other company.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's wishful thinking (although perhaps RTC personally wants to see Rangers hammered) I suspect (though i'd admit I know little about such matters) that he may have a point when it comes to the allegations concerning "Shredding" and the incriminating letters that Bain sent regarding his "Contractual" bonuses being paid through the EBT scheme.

If I were the Taxman I would take a very dim view of this and I would be making a point of not allowing anyone to get away with such actions. If the paper trail is correct - Rangers and it's board of Directors knew exactly what they were doing and that what they were doing was indulging in tax evasion/avoidance.

As RTC says, a failure on HMRCs part to come down hard on anyone who has been shown to be "at it" would be negligence on HMRC's part, as it would be sending out a message to everyone else that it's better to try and avoid paying the Tax due and get caught, (because the punishments are mild) rather than just pay up in the first place.

Let's say for example the final Tax Bill is £50m and Rangers get away with paying just £5m (10p in the £) through a CVA, what kind of message does that send out to the other 5000 or so companies who are facing a similar tax claim from HMRC? Who in their right mind would not just chance their arm and try and get a 10p in the pound deal at the end of any tribunal rather than just pay what they know is owed in the first place?

I know I would.
 
Small Tax Case
14.28 The Small Tax Case was bought against the Company by HMRC in respect of outstanding amounts owed from the use of a discounted options tax scheme for payments made to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer between the tax years 2000/01 and 2002/03.
Click to expand...


Didn't Mr De Boer just last week deny having any involvement in EBTs?


ps D&P have earned more (£1.2m) than Rangers have taken in (£1m) since they took over as administrators <laugh>
 
DevAdvocate said:
I don't know if it's wishful thinking (although perhaps RTC personally wants to see Rangers hammered) I suspect (though i'd admit I know little about such matters) that he may have a point when it comes to the allegations concerning "Shredding" and the incriminating letters that Bain sent regarding his "Contractual" bonuses being paid through the EBT scheme.

If I were the Taxman I would take a very dim view of this and I would be making a point of not allowing anyone to get away with such actions. If the paper trail is correct - Rangers and it's board of Directors knew exactly what they were doing and that what they were doing was indulging in tax evasion/avoidance.

As RTC says, a failure on HMRCs part to come down hard on anyone who has been shown to be "at it" would be negligence on HMRC's part, as it would be sending out a message to everyone else that it's better to try and avoid paying the Tax due and get caught, (because the punishments are mild) rather than just pay up in the first place.

Let's say for example the final Tax Bill is £50m and Rangers get away with paying just £5m (10p in the £) through a CVA, what kind of message does that send out to the other 5000 or so companies who are facing a similar tax claim from HMRC? Who in their right mind would not just chance their arm and try and get a 10p in the pound deal at the end of any tribunal rather than just pay what they know is owed in the first place?

I know I would.
Click to expand...

When I responded to your post I was thinking in terms of Rangers as a company and wondered why the specific picking on Rangers by RTC for additional punishment. I accept that a company that is a football club is something a bit different from a normal company and that further censure by the SFA may well be applicable.

If the Rangers directors acted fraudulently then they should be punished, no one can argue against that. This too could have further punishments to the team by the SFA.

As for the CVA and Rangers as a company HMRC are in the same boat as other creditors when they are owed money by a company in administration. Either they get something or nothing (liquidation). In terms of Rangers as a football club, might the SFA yet further censure them? They may well do, I don't know.

I
 
DevAdvocate said:
It's simple Nev, if someone owed you £100 and claimed he was skint so could only afford to give you a tenner, would you accept it even if you found out he's just been down the bookies, the boozer and had paid for a hooker the night before?
Click to expand...

To be fair (and I know this has turned into the usual Tims commenting on this now - I'm waiting the "obsessed" stuff coming soon), that analogy could be amended a bit.

Most of the money HMRC are claiming are fines, are they not? This is why I think that they might do a deal - as long as they recoup what they were due before the fines, then why not?

I think you could say that you lent your mate £80 but slapped an extra £20 on it cos you knew the **** was taking the piss.

If he's utterly brassic and about to skip the country because of it, you'd take your £80 or as much as you could get before the **** wasn't there to get your readies back at all.
 
I take it you've all seen this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17628749

Rangers' administrators estimate that the club's total debts could top £134m.

The figure is revealed in the administrator's report to creditors published on the club's website.

A total of more than £93m is being claimed by HM Revenue and Customs, relating to the so-called big and small tax cases, and unpaid VAT and PAYE.

The report also reveals Rangers owe cash to other football clubs including Celtic, Hearts, Dundee United, Manchester City and Arsenal.
Click to expand...

Geez wur readies ya ****s <grr>
 
It is likely that any purchaser wishing to invest monies into the Club to fund a CVA or Scheme of Arrangement will require the shareholding or substantially all of the shareholding of the Club. The Joint Administrators are investigating whether there are mechanisms by which they can compel existing shareholders to transfer shares to a purchaser, but no representation has been made that this can happen to purchasers. A formal request has been made of the current majority shareholder RFC Group which holds circa 85.3% of the shares to make these available to a purchaser.


No agreement then? Not what the papers have been telling us?
 
It's nowhere near as bad as you all think......£7,500,000 are debenture holders from when the club deck was built.

It's all rosey down Govan way <whistle>
 
3 bidders.

Hector can decide if there is a CVA or not. I suspect not given that Murray ****ed him about and Shooter is ****ing him about.

I don't know about De Boer, but it might not have been an ebt, that is just one mechanism to lessen liabilities.

And the valuation of Ibrox and Murray park have been questioned for years. The Huns had it as part of their annual submissions for years. Looked dodgy then and it looks dodgy now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back