Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[...WentToMowAnSPL]

Not an intellectual comment I know, but I hope they scuttle the huns, and like their bretheren we can then spot their appearance in South Africa, or America as appropriate............

'I've never met a nice Glaswegian Hun"

To the tune of ......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v439zTOJVho

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't get how todays agreement with the players has saved one million pounds a month. Assuming the average wage at the huns is 10k a week, they would need to cut the salaries of a lot of players to save a million.

anyone enlighten me?

Starting with the 3 big earners who, going on the media reports, are Naisy, Whitty and Daviesy. They seem to have taken a cut of £15k a week each. That's £180k for starters. NI would take that up to £200k.

Let's say another 15 are on £10k, and that they came down to £5k. That's £300k, plus NI, say £340k.

That's half a million already, with half the first team squad.

Play around with these numbers, add in the rest of the first teamers, then the Under-19s, and of course the coaching staff... and I think you might get near £1m.

[PaulSmith]

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/compa...he-cva-process

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/vas-factsheet.pdf

Probably somewhere else in the 106 pages but...

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Buys them time to the end of the season. They win the BTC and all is dandy.

I hear Tony Soprano has been put on a contract to deliver the BTC.

" I might as well put a bullet in my head. Here, here and here...."

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/compa...he-cva-process

"They will approve a CVA if it is a properly structured, a well thought through plan and the company has been compliant with tax rules in the past. "

The clue is in the last bit

This one is more helpful:-

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/vas-factsheet.pdf

Read the first two lines of the paragraph "Rejecting a voluntary arrangement". That's important.

[CentreLine]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"They will approve a CVA if it is a properly structured, a well thought through plan and the company has been compliant with tax rules in the past. "

The clue is in the last bit

This one is more helpful:-

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/vas-factsheet.pdf

Read the first two lines of the paragraph "Rejecting a voluntary arrangement". That's important.

It looks like that is the reason they wanted rid of CW. With him gone it looks more likely that they will cut a deal. Not sure I like that

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It looks like that is the reason they wanted rid of CW. With hom gone it looks more likely that they will cut a deal. Not sure I like that

First of all, there is only speculation that HMRC want rid of CW. No confirmation either way.

Secondly, RFC do have at least an allegation of "evasion of statutory liabilities" in the BTC and its wee brother. There is a clear history of non-payment in the CW era, and .... perhaps in the SDM years too, HMRC will know that.

Also, "payment of other creditors whilst withholding sums due to the Crown". In recent weeks alone, DAFC and Strathclyde Polis. There will be others.

[WindyMiller]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/compa...he-cva-process

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/vas-factsheet.pdf

Probably somewhere else in the 106 pages but...

Stumbling block!!!!!



"They will approve a CVA if it is a properly structured, a well thought through plan and the company has been compliant with tax rules in the past"


Edit: Too f***king slow!!

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Stumbling block!!!!!



"They will approve a CVA if it is a properly structured, a well thought through plan and the company has been compliant with tax rules in the past"

TBH, I wouldn't rely on that site to any great extent. It's trying to sell that company's services. The HMRC helpsheet Paul and I posted is more balanced.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Is Paul Murray the guy the South African tax authorities are chasing for over £200 million?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is Paul Murray the guy the South African tax authorities are chasing for over £200 million?

Dave King, sadly.

Although we could start an internet rumour that Paul Murray has a raging coke habit, and is into people trafficking and young boys.

Fancy taking that job on?

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Dave King, sadly.

Although we could start an internet rumour that Paul Murray has a raging coke habit, and is into people trafficking and young boys.

Fancy taking that job on?

Hear its not a rumour. FACT


(Will that do? I put fact 'cause that makes it true.)

[Hibernia&Alba]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Dave king, sadly.

That is a shame. Dave King Billy, is it? Well he did say liquidation is inevitable, and he must know a conman like Whyte when he sees one.


I'm not too worried about the Blue Knights yet. They won't get their CVA whilst the big tax case is unresolved. As you said, CWG, for that to happen Rangers need around £60 million of debt just now, which is unlikely. Let the Huns build their hopes up then have it all taken away from them.

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

First of all, there is only speculation that HMRC want rid of CW. No confirmation either way.

Secondly, RFC do have at least an allegation of "evasion of statutory liabilities" in the BTC and its wee brother. There is a clear history of non-payment in the CW era, and .... perhaps in the SDM years too, HMRC will know that.

Also, "payment of other creditors whilst withholding sums due to the Crown". In recent weeks alone, DAFC and Strathclyde Polis. There will be others.

Like all of Rangers' problems with HMRC started when Craig Whyte came on the scene?

The Big Tax Case and the Wee Tax Case ran up a claim approaching £55 million under Sir David Murray.

So get rid of Craig Whyte and all will be well!

[PatHead]

Is there a team of Cropley Was Gods or are you getting this legendary status by yourself?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is there a team of Cropley Was Gods or are you getting this legendary status by yourself?

Eh?

[matty_f]

It would be more than a little amusing if they managed to worm their way out of liquidation, get their money worries sorted out and all that, only for the SPL to expel them for being cheating b*****ds, leaving them with nowhere to go.

Preferred option is still for them to go completely under and die. Soon.

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Eh?

You seem to be on everytime I log in and wondered if this was all the work of one man

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It looks like that is the reason they wanted rid of CW. With him gone it looks more likely that they will cut a deal. Not sure I like that

I don't think so, HMRC won't do a deal where

" other creditors have been paid whilst sums due to the Crown have been withheld "

I think paying wages etc for 9 months whilst bumping Hector for tax ,N I and Vat has them nailed.


Besides, the HMRC have been working on this case for years, and spent a fortune in hours and legal advice to throw in the towel now.
I bet they are also still seething at loosing the Rednapp case

[TornadoHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

First of all, there is only speculation that HMRC want rid of CW. No confirmation either way.

What would be the motivation for HMRC to 'want rid of CW' and (presumably) act 'out of their ordinary manner' to achieve that?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Secondly, RFC do have at least an allegation of "evasion of statutory liabilities" in the BTC and its wee brother. There is a clear history of non-payment in the CW era, and .... perhaps in the SDM years too, HMRC will know that.

Why do you think that what you suggest is the case?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Also, "payment of other creditors whilst withholding sums due to the Crown". In recent weeks alone, DAFC and Strathclyde Polis. There will be others.

'Payments to protect the value of the assets' perhaps which, provided the justifying basis for doing so is sound will be acceptable I suspect! Which others do you suspect there will be and why I wonder?

[ScottB]

This seems to be nothing more than getting Rangers fans to wet themselves with excitement.

Several issues still to resolve:

Murray himself has previously said any bid would be dependent on the Big Tax Case. Presumably this has not changed.

Ticketus are involved. This would suggest that they want and will get their share of season tickets over the coming seasons.

The investigation into second contracts.

And, most massively of course, casting a huge shadow over Castle Greyskull, is the taxman. Will they agree to a CVA? Unlikely, then there's still the Wee Tax Case and it's much bigger brother to deal with. Does Murray's group have the resources to deal with these?


Now, I know some folk are getting worked up at the thought of an HMRC deal, but personally, I'd be delighted at a Rangers that has to spend the next 4 seasons handing cash to Ticketus and another 6 minimum giving millions a year to the taxman...

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You seem to be on everytime I log in and wondered if this was all the work of one man

Ah, I see.

It's actually a wee cottage industry here.

One Crop is on Accountancy For Dummies, a page ahead of you guys.

Another Cropette is on Wikipedia, looking for dodgy factoids to throw in and confuse the lot of you.

Another is keeping shottie, lest I get a visit from Craig's Crew, the polis, or my own former professional regulators.

I wish I could say that Mrs. Crop is constantly keeping us going with cups of tea, but she ****** off the minute Craigy did that speech at the doors of Ibrox. She knew her days were numbered...

Ex-Sir Fred Crop is preparing the invoice to be sent to Hibs.net for all of this toxic, I mean, entirely right and proper advice.

Me? I'm just typing this shecht until somebody else comes up with a damn fool question or Jim Traynor gives us another wee exclusive.

[CropleyWasGod]

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
First of all, there is only speculation that HMRC want rid of CW. No confirmation either way.
What would be the motivation for HMRC to 'want rid of CW' and (presumably) act 'out of their ordinary manner' to achieve that? I have no idea, I was only repeating the media speculation. If HMRC tried that on with one of my clients, I'd tell them where to go.

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Secondly, RFC do have at least an allegation of "evasion of statutory liabilities" in the BTC and its wee brother. There is a clear history of non-payment in the CW era, and .... perhaps in the SDM years too, HMRC will know that.
Why do you think that what you suggest is the case? I am not suggesting anything. I am stating the facts, that there are two tax enquiries going on, and that RFC have hardly paid a thing to HMRC since May

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Also, "payment of other creditors whilst withholding sums due to the Crown". In recent weeks alone, DAFC and Strathclyde Polis. There will be others.
'Payments to protect the value of the assets' perhaps which, provided the justifying basis for doing so is sound will be acceptable I suspect! Which others do you suspect there will be and why I wonder? The company is still trading. To enable it to do that since last May, it must have been paying its suppliers, its tradesmen, its security staff and the police. All of these payments were made to the exclusion of HMRC.

.

[hibs0666]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Dave King, sadly.

Although we could start an internet rumour that Paul Murray has a raging coke habit, and is into people trafficking and young boys.

Fancy taking that job on?

Nah, that was the lawyer McBride, allegedly.

[TornadoHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
First of all, there is only speculation that HMRC want rid of CW. No confirmation either way.
What would be the motivation for HMRC to 'want rid of CW' and (presumably) act 'out of their ordinary manner' to achieve that? I have no idea, I was only repeating the media speculation. If HMRC tried that on with one of my clients, I'd tell them where to go.

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Secondly, RFC do have at least an allegation of "evasion of statutory liabilities" in the BTC and its wee brother. There is a clear history of non-payment in the CW era, and .... perhaps in the SDM years too, HMRC will know that.
Why do you think that what you suggest is the case? I am not suggesting anything. I am stating the facts, that there are two tax enquiries going on, and that RFC have hardly paid a thing to HMRC since May

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod H
Also, "payment of other creditors whilst withholding sums due to the Crown". In recent weeks alone, DAFC and Strathclyde Polis. There will be others.
'Payments to protect the value of the assets' perhaps which, provided the justifying basis for doing so is sound will be acceptable I suspect! Which others do you suspect there will be and why I wonder? The company is still trading. To enable it to do that since last May, it must have been paying its suppliers, its tradesmen, its security staff and the police. All of these payments were made to the exclusion of HMRC.

.

Thanks for your very prompt response but I'm not sure if you've clarified any of the issues that you had simply raised suppositions about.

I've peeked into this thread periodically over the past couple of weeks and see that you have been very active, possibly the most prolific poster on the thread actually.

However, I don't believe that you've added any helpful value with your responses to the queries I raised and wonder what drives you to comment here so prolifically?

Purely out of possibly selfish self interest I might add!

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thanks for your very prompt response but I'm not sure if you've clarified any of the issues that you had simply raised suppositions about.

I've peeked into this thread periodically over that past couple of weeks and see that you have been very active, possibly the most prolific poster on the thread actually.

However, I don't believe that you've added any helpful value with your responses to the queries I raised and wonder what drives you to comment here so prolifically?

Purely out of possibly selfish self interest I might add!

Can you be more specific about the "suppositions"?

[TornadoHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can you be more specific about the "suppositions"?

Far too late at night for that kind of nonsense dare I say!

You set out the suppositions yourself for goodness sake!

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Far to late at night for that kind of nonsense dare I say!

You set out the suppositions yourself for goodness sake!

What nonsense?? I asked the question seriously, as I didn't understand what you meant by suppositions.

To recap, though,

1. I repeated the fact that there had been media speculation about HMRC'S desire for regime change.

2. I stated the fact that HMRC have hardly been paid anything since last May.

3. I stated the fact that there are two ongoing tax cases.

4. I made the case for the reasonable assumption that creditors have been paid to the exclusion of HMRC. Had these creditors not been paid.... the police being a prime example... RFC would not have even got this far.

Other than 4, which I have explained, there are no "suppositions", only facts.

[green glory]

Why would the Blue Knight/Tickitus consortium ( bearing in mind Paul Murray's comments about the big tax case) even consider putting together an offer now when the BGT is still undecided? Do they know something we don't or just impossibly naive?

[Dashing Bob S]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What nonsense?? I asked the question seriously, as I didn't understand what you meant by suppositions.

To recap, though,

1. I repeated the fact that there had been media speculation about HMRC'S desire for regime change.

2. I stated the fact that HMRC have hardly been paid anything since last May.

3. I stated the fact that there are two ongoing tax cases.

4. I made the case for the reasonable assumption that creditors have been paid to the exclusion of HMRC. Had these creditors not been paid.... the police being a prime example... RFC would not have even got this far.

Other than 4, which I have explained, there are no "suppositions", only facts.

Keep up the fabulous work CWG, these posts are brilliant, imformative yet optimistic and positive. They make my day.