PDA

View Full Version : NHC Huns in court



Moulin Yarns
09-09-2011, 02:08 PM
@GrahamSpiers: Rangers FC this afternoon warned about club facing threat of "insolvency" in court proceedings in Edinburgh...

Could this be the beginning of the end?

Moulin Yarns
09-09-2011, 02:09 PM
@GrahamSpiers: Various: I'm happy to clarify that recent tweet. Law firm made claim against Rangers due to its own concern at potential RFC insolvency...

H18sry
09-09-2011, 02:12 PM
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/7960/thatsallhuns.jpg :greengrin

Moulin Yarns
09-09-2011, 02:53 PM
@GrahamSpiers: The 35k bill re Rangers today in court is trifling. It was what counsel said about potential "insolvency" at RFC which triggered news wires.

PatHead
09-09-2011, 03:35 PM
BBC carrying story. Sounds like they even tried to avoid paying it at the end

Rangers agree to pay 35,000 bill to Levy and McRaeRangers Football Club have agreed to pay an outstanding 35,000 legal bill plus interest after the issue reached court.
The club owed the money to the Glasgow law firm Levy & McRae over advice on how to deal with a Uefa charge relating to fans singing sectarian songs.
The Court of Session in Edinburgh heard the cash had now been paid. It also heard the law firm had "real concern about solvency" in relation to Rangers. The dispute follows action against the club last week by HMRC over unpaid tax. A brief court hearing over the unpaid 35,000 bill to Levy and McRae was held at the Court of Session last week.
Sectarian singing The law firm said Rangers owed them for legal advice given over Uefa charges, and subsequent sanctions, relating to sectarian singing at Europa League games against Dutch team PSV Eindhoven.
Judge Lord Hodge was told that Rangers' new owner, Craig Whyte, wanted to check the details as the claim dated back to when Sir David Murray controlled the club.
He said that after last week's hearing there had been discussions between the two sides which, by Wednesday, had led to an undertaking to pay up, with interest.
"Bank account details were asked for and given," he added.
However, Mr Brown said the money had not appeared and there was no explanation for that.
Any fault, he suggested, lay with London-based solicitor Gary Withey who is Rangers' company secretary.
Legal costs Mr Brown said: "There then followed a frantic out-of-hours series of events... with the benefit of the delay here today, for which parties are grateful, funds were telegraphically transferred this morning."
As well as interest on the 35,000, Rangers will also have to pay a fee of 100 and the costs of the court action, which is still to be decided but believed to be about 5,000.
Lord Hodge commented that it was unusual for a judge to be so involved in over-seeing an agreement and Mr Brown told him: "There is a real concern about solvency."
Gavin MacCall, counsel for Rangers, confirmed that agreement had been reached.
The two sides may be back in court in about two months, to make sure there are no outstanding issues.
Last week, HMRC took action to have a seven-figure sum ringfenced in Rangers' bank account relating to a 2.8m tax bill.
The sum will remain unavailable to the club until the matter is resolved.
Rangers is believed to be disputing a 1.4m late payment penalty attached to this.

greenginger
09-09-2011, 04:26 PM
Kerrydale Street has got a 230 page thread on the Huns troubles posted in the last few days. And some people on here think we're over -interested in problems at the PBS. :greengrin

hibbycha
09-09-2011, 09:11 PM
http://i.imgur.com/ws7P3.gif :na na::thumbsup:(hope link works)

Moulin Yarns
09-09-2011, 09:22 PM
http://i.imgur.com/ws7P3.gif :na na::thumbsup:(hope link works) Brilliant

greenginger
10-09-2011, 09:02 AM
New this morning on Kerrydale Street a copy of Martin Bain's court papers. He suing the Huns for over 1 million for breach of contract etc.

Most interesting is all the background info. on Castle Greyskull.

The season ticket money for the next four seasons has been pledged to a London finance house for cash now.

There is a queue of unpaid suppliers.

Whyte told the old board at an interview pre-takeover that if the BIG tax bill was more than 10-15 million he would have to let the Club fold.

EK_Hibs
10-09-2011, 10:15 AM
Whyte told the old board at an interview pre-takeover that if the BIG tax bill was more than 10-15 million he would have to let the Club fold.


Indeed, and the aforementioned BIG Tax bill is 49 million!!!!

Oh dear

Cabbage East
10-09-2011, 10:55 AM
Fingers crossed.

(((Fergus)))
10-09-2011, 02:37 PM
http://i.imgur.com/ws7P3.gif :na na::thumbsup:(hope link works)

nice PIN :greengrin

givescotlandfreedom
10-09-2011, 03:31 PM
Die die die die ya Huns :bye:

Kaiser1962
10-09-2011, 04:32 PM
Whyte told the old board at an interview pre-takeover that if the BIG tax bill was more than 10-15 million he would have to let the Club fold.

It would appear that Whyte is perhaps stating/warning HMRC of the amount he is prepared to pay in total and should they find for a higher amount then they can whistle for it.

That'll work right enough. :rolleyes:

Spike Mandela
10-09-2011, 04:46 PM
Check out the court papers, interesting read.

http://www.afc-chat.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=26885

marleyhib
10-09-2011, 05:47 PM
My company owed the tax man 10k a few years ago due to an accounting error. I phoned and said as much as they said, so what you got 3 months to pay and that's it.

I had to find the money and pay or I went bust, so should the Huns.

I know they taxman can't just ask for it all cos the Huns ain't got it. They are hoping to keep them afloat so they get their cash in the long term

How can they be allowed to run up such an amount to HMRC? It must have been over several years?

ancient hibee
10-09-2011, 05:50 PM
My company owed the tax man 10k a few years ago due to an accounting error. I phoned and said as much as they said, so what you got 3 months to pay and that's it.

I had to find the money and pay or I went bust, so should the Huns.

I know they taxman can't just ask for it all cos the Huns ain't got it. They are hoping to keep them afloat so they get their cash in the long term

How can they be allowed to run up such an amount to HMRC? It must have been over several years?

It's because the dispute is about whether there is any tax due at all.

magpie1892
10-09-2011, 06:04 PM
It's because the dispute is about whether there is any tax due at all.

Nonsense. There is no dispute about the 1.4m owed. The (current) dispute is about the 1.35m fine on top of the aforementioned amount.

greenginger
10-09-2011, 06:34 PM
Nonsense. There is no dispute about the 1.4m owed. The (current) dispute is about the 1.35m fine on top of the aforementioned amount.

Whats agreed is a 2.8 million tax bill and what is being disputed is the 1.4 million interest and penalties HMRC are looking for on top.

What's also being disputed by Rangers is the assessment for the Employee Benefit Trust that Rangers ran for many years ( the BIG tax bill)
Its estimated at 50 million in tax and penalties. :greengrin

magpie1892
10-09-2011, 06:52 PM
Whats agreed is a 2.8 million tax bill and what is being disputed is the 1.4 million interest and penalties HMRC are looking for on top.

What's also being disputed by Rangers is the assessment for the Employee Benefit Trust that Rangers ran for many years ( the BIG tax bill)
Its estimated at 50 million in tax and penalties. :greengrin

No. The 2.8 is actually 2.75m and the 1.4m is not in dispute. The fine of 1.35 is in dispute. Which is why your statement was erroneous.

The 'other' figure - which has not been asked for, let alone 'locked down' - is not really relevant at this stage, for that reason; it's not been demanded.

2.8m, as I understand it, is near enough going to put the sons of William out of business. Again, the 1.4m is not in dispute, I'll give you that. The fine is in dispute but, as it stands, it is not 2.8m plus the fine. The amount HMRC (chuckle!) want is 2.75m including the fine.

This is all on the internet - pick up your research.

Mikey
10-09-2011, 06:54 PM
http://i.imgur.com/ws7P3.gif :na na::thumbsup:(hope link works)

:greengrin

The Falcon
10-09-2011, 07:19 PM
Whats agreed is a 2.8 million tax bill and what is being disputed is the 1.4 million interest and penalties HMRC are looking for on top.

What's also being disputed by Rangers is the assessment for the Employee Benefit Trust that Rangers ran for many years ( the BIG tax bill)
Its estimated at 50 million in tax and penalties. :greengrin


Whatever amount it is if they are being taken to court for 35k, and having to pay it, it does not suggest they are in a great place. The elephant in the room is the EBS offshore payments.

Mikey
10-09-2011, 07:50 PM
Just as long as they aren't let off with any of it.

CropleyWasGod
10-09-2011, 08:05 PM
Just as long as they aren't let off with any of it.

It's not actually about being "let off" with it. In recent years, HMRC have become more realistic about the commercial effects of settlements. In the past, they would have gone for the full amount, with no regard to the fact that they couldn't actually get it.... and, in the course of that, would put companies out of business and people out of jobs. Nowadays, they are more sensitive to the notion that, by accepting lower settlements, the company's future is not jeopardised and (and this, IMO, is the important point) a revenue stream for HMG is not shut off.

It is in no-one's interests, particularly us taxpayers, to have that source of tax removed.

That said, it is also part of HMRC's job to make examples of errant taxpayers, to discourage others from imitating them. The whole EBT situation has to be cleaned up, and it may just be that Rangers are going to be that example.

MWHIBBIES
10-09-2011, 08:36 PM
I find the title very sectarian and offensive :greengrin

greenginger
10-09-2011, 09:21 PM
No. The 2.8 is actually 2.75m and the 1.4m is not in dispute. The fine of 1.35 is in dispute. Which is why your statement was erroneous.

The 'other' figure - which has not been asked for, let alone 'locked down' - is not really relevant at this stage, for that reason; it's not been demanded.

2.8m, as I understand it, is near enough going to put the sons of William out of business. Again, the 1.4m is not in dispute, I'll give you that. The fine is in dispute but, as it stands, it is not 2.8m plus the fine. The amount HMRC (chuckle!) want is 2.75m including the fine.

This is all on the internet - pick up your research.



Apologies , been reading too many Red Tops. :greengrin

VivaPalmeiras
10-09-2011, 09:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4T9DGjGAUw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Didn't realise they diversified into swim wear ... ;)

magpie1892
11-09-2011, 12:44 PM
Apologies , been reading too many Red Tops. :greengrin Nowt wrong with that. Keeps lying, fabricating lowlife journos like me off the streets. Like most others, I am praying for the Queen to hit them for 50m. God save her.

The_Todd
11-09-2011, 01:05 PM
Rangers cheated the country out of much needed tax money. They should be punished heavily and if it means going out of business then so be it.

CropleyWasGod
11-09-2011, 03:19 PM
Rangers cheated the country out of much needed tax money. They should be punished heavily and if it means going out of business then so be it.

The only "cheating" proved thus far has been penalised. That's the fine that they have been hit with.

The wider issue, that of the EBT, has still to be settled.

EK_Hibs
13-09-2011, 04:36 PM
More breaking news relating to the huns...
Martin Bain now has 500K of Rangers assets frozen. "A real and substantial risk of insolvency" at Rangers - judge says in court today.


Now, Stories like this make me VERY happy!!!!!

Spike Mandela
13-09-2011, 04:48 PM
It is HER MAJESTY's revenue and customs is it not. Surely the country's most loyal and devoted true blue monarchist loving fans would not want to deprive HER MAJESTY of some much needed income.:rolleyes:

Dashing Bob S
13-09-2011, 06:17 PM
I find it hard to believe that such a gracious monarch as Her Majesty would allow her income tax collectors to pursue her most loyal of subjects, an institution worshiped by the Ayrshire and Lanarkshire intelligensia, who have sung wildly and passionately in support of this fine woman's reign for generations. Surely, with her great understanding of the needs of those troubled citizens, our figurehead would not let her revenue collection service do anything that might place such a fine body in peril?

Or maybe, just maybe, Her Majesty is a secret fienian ******** who doth twirl beads and kick with her left foot?

Bostonhibby
13-09-2011, 06:34 PM
I find it hard to believe that such a gracious monarch as Her Majesty would allow her income tax collectors to pursue her most loyal of subjects, an institution worshiped by the Ayrshire and Lanarkshire intelligensia, who have sung wildly and passionately in support of this fine woman's reign for generations. Surely, with her great understanding of the needs of those troubled citizens, our figurehead would not let her revenue collection service do anything that might place such a fine body in peril?

Or maybe, just maybe, Her Majesty is a secret fienian ******** who doth twirl beads and kick with her left foot?

Twil surely be paid, after all it smacks of double standards to be singing to god imploring him to save their Maj at a football event and swearing allegiance to Britannia as well as rejoicing in her her dominance over the waves whilst at the same time denying rightful taxes to support the very same majesty. And however can dear old Britannia continue to rule the waves without any money? maybe their beloved institutions should disown them until they pay up - they will surely have to find a new song, maybe even one with something to do with football in it?

greenlex
13-09-2011, 06:47 PM
It's not actually about being "let off" with it. In recent years, HMRC have become more realistic about the commercial effects of settlements. In the past, they would have gone for the full amount, with no regard to the fact that they couldn't actually get it.... and, in the course of that, would put companies out of business and people out of jobs. Nowadays, they are more sensitive to the notion that, by accepting lower settlements, the company's future is not jeopardised and (and this, IMO, is the important point) a revenue stream for HMG is not shut off.

It is in no-one's interests, particularly us taxpayers, to have that source of tax removed.

That said, it is also part of HMRC's job to make examples of errant taxpayers, to discourage others from imitating them. The whole EBT situation has to be cleaned up, and it may just be that Rangers are going to be that example.

Surely Rangers assets would fetch a tidy sum. Ibrox and Murray park alone should fetch such a sum. There cant be that many jobs outside the playing staff to concern HMRC. :greengrin

Kaiser1962
13-09-2011, 09:09 PM
Surely Rangers assets would fetch a tidy sum. Ibrox and Murray park alone should fetch such a sum. There cant be that many jobs outside the playing staff to concern HMRC. :greengrin

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. If it is 49m, or even half that, then surely they cant be allowed to dip into admin, dissolve the debts, and continue as before with a draconian 10 point penalty?

hibiedude
15-09-2011, 05:05 PM
Rangers cancel training tomorrow and send the players to find the real radio renegade :greengrin

grunt
15-09-2011, 06:30 PM
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. If it is 49m, or even half that, then surely they cant be allowed to dip into admin, dissolve the debts, and continue as before with a draconian 10 point penalty?Sad to realise that after just 6 games, Rangers would still be 5 places above us, even after a 10 point penalty.