So much going on, and I have lost track of when the panel are re-convening to decide the punishment for Rangers? ...... Anyone?:confused:
Printable View
So much going on, and I have lost track of when the panel are re-convening to decide the punishment for Rangers? ...... Anyone?:confused:
It's not been announced.Quote:
Originally Posted by HibbyRod
If Rangers fans buy season tickets this coming week, does the money go into the pot for the creditors?
And if not, why not?
Nope, has been pretty wide spread in the media over the last couple of days. Big Chas reckons it goes into a separate account until next season and "wont be used to fund the purchase". These are all words which i am sure will cheer the creditors to their plight.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Yes I've heard this, but I'm not talking about the season ticket money funding the purchase - that would imply that it went to Green for him to buy Rangers from the administrators. I'm not talking about that. I want to know, if Rangers (In Administration) receive income from fans through advance sales of season tickets, why isn't that money available to the creditors? I'm talking myself out of it here, as I guess the argument would be along the lines that the ST money is purchasing tickets for a future event - but then again, isn't that the argument used by D&P as to why Ticketus are just an ordinary creditor? I'm confused - nothing in this seems to operate like a normal administration...Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
Like you i would love to know the answer to this. As i pointed out the only reference that has been made to the season ticket money was as i pointed out that its going to be ring fenced for next season.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I like you am really confused about the whole situation, i have had an awful feeling the last few days that this CVA is going to get passed, however, i am really confused by the noises coming out of Ibrox as all the stuff in the press of late which as a creditor would make me press the no button.
I think that Dave King is spot on with his assertion that the Green Knights are using season ticket income to buy the club. They are trying to pull off a Craig Whyte style three card trick.
So according to the Sky Sports News app they are in discussions to bring Gattuso back, yep, seriously :greengrin
Other people here have given the same response but I don't buy it. Doncaster said that Rangers had put forward their CVA proposal and that as such, the SPL were not anticipating an application for a newco into the SPL. That, by the same token, to me, means that he/ the SPL were not anticipating the failure of the CVA proposal and that it would be successful. Am I the only one, along with Doncaster who thinks the CVA will be accepted? I hope you are all correct, please let me be wrong,Quote:
Originally Posted by down-the-slope
You're probably wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
There's a lot of paranoia around peoples thinking, understandable given the hun past
It's not Chic Young & Jim Traynor making the big decisions
At 12.5K a week. Imagine you are a creditor and have been offered 9p in the pound (probably less) and switch on SSN to see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HibeeSince85
Still, I suppose thats the kind of PR own goal you might expect after D & P have paid off the 30+ strong PR staff to save costs eh? Wait...what?
:tee hee: :lolrangers:
Hunbelievable arrogance and stupidity
Yes, it's a Bad Debt, and they will get relief for both VAT and Income/Corporation Tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by H18SVG
Back from pub :banana:Quote:
Originally Posted by down-the-slope
was still bothering me :rolleyes:
and found this.... DTS, yer spot on with the 17 & 15 ......
------------------------------
1st – 17%
2nd – 15%
3rd – 9.5%
4th – 8.5%
5th – 8%
6th – 7.5%
7th – 7%
8th – 6.5%
9th – 6%
10th – 5.5%
11th – 5%
12th – 4.5%
--------------------------------------
http://pitchmick.wordpress.com/2012/...e-spl-a-farce/
Almost worth another thread.... still a big jump between 2nd and 3rd, from 3rd down it's a 0.5% difference ????? there's got to be a better way?.... what about turning it upside down?......
Anyways .... off to bed TTFN
:flag:
The CVA is a total fantasy: nobody wants it to be accepted, including Green, Duff and Plelps, the SFA and the SPL. In fac, the Big Tax Case makes it impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Rangers law blogger, who I have quoted on many an occasion, is himself in the news.
He responds to the article in the comments.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottis...tion-1-2347470
http://news.google.co.uk/news/url?ct...id=top-stories
Buy the shares eh Charlie? Fur a pound is it? If the huns believe this guy ,they deserve him.:greengrin They deserve him anyway.:thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Some pretty poor reporting by The Hootsmon. McConville is quite right to issue the statement, for though he has obviously failed in his duty as a representative to [some of] these people, the sanctions he received are totally different to what is being reported in the Scotsman.
I also notice he apologises for the mistakes he did make ... Unlike a certain other group I could mentionQuote:
Originally Posted by ****pile
It was'nt me , honest says Campbell Ogilvie.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...dent-1-2347933
It is a pity the interviewer had'nt concluded with the following question.
" So you left Rangers in 2005 and turned up at the PBS, and Hearts are now subject to HMRC investigations, see a patern ? "
Has anyone heard what the general consensus in the Rangers support is re King v Green? Are they going yo but season tickets or not? Or better still, are they likely to split into 2 camps?
The SFA can't do anything until Rangers decide whether they are going to appeal against Lord Glennie's ruling in the court of session. Rangers appear to be stringing that one out as long as they can. They have until 19 June (21 days after the ruling) to decide, which means the earliest a tribunal would sit is late June.Quote:
Originally Posted by HibbyRod
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/footbal...6908-23892607/
I don't understand. (Nothing new there.) Rangers won the case at the Court of Session.
Why would they appeal?
Or is it that they might appeal the Judge's recommendation of sending the decision back to the Appeal Tribunal?
This story has more twists and turns than a box of snakes.
In an interview in today's SoS, Campbell Ogilvie states that he took an EBT himself and took payment of 3 bonuses and part of his settlement through the EBT. These are not loans but payment for services or in lieu of services. They would also be taxable.
Ooops, Mr Ogilvie, it seems like you have dropped a 'Doddsy" on your former employers.
Crucial week...SPL fixtures due out next Monday...if Rangers CVA fails no way will they manage that...
Then its potentialy an SPL vote for a newco...not sure how much notice an EGM requires....
Then there is the potential of disrepute case being remitted to the very independent panel, which if it found that suspension / expulsion was merited then NewCo could not even try for the SFL3 option......(ST's not worth a lot in that senario)
I think if CVA fails Rangers will ask for origional punishment to stand to ensure they have licence to play somewhere...Green has already said some of his fantasy investors will do walking away in this case (if you can walk away before having really arrived)
If CVA is agreed the the 21 day cooling off period will cause more uncertainty as creditors can change mind so even if SPL rush out fixtures they could not be fully confirmed until after this & the disrepute case is settled...to say nothing of BTC & SPL double contract investigations..
Ticketas have been very very quiet since BK's fell out the picture - can't beleive anyone thinks they are not going to fight for their (investors of theirs who will demand it) corner ...unless more deals have been struck...
The CVA describes ST income as an 'Excluded Asset' which means it won't go into the creditors pot. It's fair enough really because the money is primarily to finance the forthcoming season.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
On the other hand, also included in Excluded Assets are transfer fees for players sold after 12 May - not at all fair since those players were financed by the funds that creditors are now being stiffed for - and SPL money - from the season past, again financed by the creditors.
The document proposes that all these funds should be ring-fenced in a solicitor's account because "they are required to be utilised by the Company for the purpose of continued trading of the Company." i.e. needed for future working capital.
I thought this was not the admins primary concern? That statement should read "they are required to be utilised by the Company for the purpose of continued trading at a level which the Company deems suitable (for itself) after this sorry mess is resolved" - Utter bull****.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Edit: Another question. If the CVA fails, does the season ticket money gathered (personally I would be wary about renewing if I was a Hun) go into the liquidation pot or is that attempting to be 'ring fenced' away from that and further how would that even be legal or possible?
You would imagine him to be a bit smarter than Dodds...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
I suspect he sees the writing on the wall, so is now suddenly all too happy to tell 'the truth' in an effort to keep his current comfy job and no doubt substantial salary.
In a way, that he's doing this suggests this issue is going to blow up in Rangers' collective face shortly...
As far as I can see the proposal doesn't say what happens to the ST money if the CVA fails, but if newco is formed I would inagine the ST rights would transfer over and the cash probably would as well. If no newco is formed (or if they are suspended) I assume the ST money would have to be refunded to the mugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuanH78
At 9p in the £.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
http://i46.tinypic.com/nlv6e1.jpg
He has previously admitted to receiving those payments quite some time ago - three bonuses of £5,000 and severance pay of £80,000. I can't see that any of those properly fall under EBT provisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottB
He's very cagey in that interview as well -
Q: Can you see there being an issue with you being SFA president at a time when there is an ongoing SPL investigation into non-disclosure of payments at Rangers that you are directly linked to? You were a director and the secretary who signed off the accounts in November 2001. At that time the EBT scheme was in operation and players were receiving payments that weren’t in their contracts.
A: you're right, I was a director and secretary.
Plus the old 'I didn't know' defence. As a director he was duty-bound to know - that's what he was paid for.
It should be, but it would be the full whack - it doesn't fall into the CVA pot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
Are directors receiving money from EBT 'loans' not just about a legal use of the EBT though? Sure that it could be argued that it was just about kosher in those circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Either way CO's position is compromised and he should be asked to resign if he does not have the decency to do it himself.
Not really. An EBT payment is a discretionary loan that is requested by the employee and approved by the trustees, who are independent of the employer, and is not a reward for employment services. I can't see that Ogilvie's £95k satisfies any of those criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuanH78
As it was a "loan" we could always ask CO, given his position of prominence within the SFA, what provisions he has made for this "loan" to be repaid which would add legitamacy to Rangers procedures, and clarify the issue of legality. If there are none then, to all intents and purposes, it does not qualify as a loan and is therefore either a gift or a payment for services rendered or anticipated. It would not fit any known descrpitors as a loan. IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuanH78
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
Why has no one asks any of these people to repay their loans?
Rangers are in heavy debt, can the trustee not ask for the money to be repaid.
Oh, I know why. Because the players and other beneficiaries will pull out their second contracts and put the final nail in Rangers coffin.
The loans were made by the EBT which is a separate entity to Rangers. Even if the loans were repaid immediately (which would defeat the whole point of them), the creditors wouldn't see a penny.
The BBC is our national broadcaster; a position which brings responsibilities for fair reporting.
So why do they publish this rubbish?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/footbal...medium=twitter
As for the bit in bold - he clearly doesn't quite grasp what a stadium naming deal entails.Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
That made me laugh also.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Could you imagine sitting in a meeting with Green about investing 10m to own the stadium name rights to the next day reading him say even if we rename it it will always be Ibrox.
I assume that shop at Ipox is still trading? If so, where does the cash go? wages for staff? into creditor pot (since the stock was bouht with csh from creditors)?
Also, I noticed that they have been making arrangements for overseas pe-season tours/freindlies etc.....how are they paying the bills for these trips?
Does anyone else think that these press releases that have been coming out over the last few days are intentionally designed to turn the creditors against the CVA???Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
The only creditors that matter from a CVA perspective are HMRC and Ticketus.
I would hope they are not swayed one way or the other by bs news conferences by Green.
Is it not Ibrox Park rather than Stadium ?
I just dont get how there can be a planned warchest for next season and all this planned income generation while they are paying current creditors pennies. Its just not cricket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyrie
But you would guess that the money that has been used to fund the EBT has been accounted for somewhere in the process? Our accountants even want receipts for a packet of tea bags out the petty cash, which itself has to balance or hellfire and damnation will follow. But is that not the whole point of "accounts"? There must be a paper trail either in the form of an expenditure/cost to MIM or Der Hun, and must therefore be reflected as both income AND an expenditure for the EBT trust which should have to file accounts in its home country, if its anywhere in the civilised world that is.
All this money surely cant move about without someone recording it somewhere, or attracting the attention of the authorities at either source or destination? If not then "money laundering" immediately springs to mind.
On Friday, I was speaking to someone high up in HMRC and although he is not involved with Rangers cases he said HMRC will never accept the CVA.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
He also said they will be going full out on the EBT case.
Not my words, but someone high up in HMRC.
Ogilvie admits “might have signed some documents”
Posted on 10 June, 2012 by Paul67
49
Campbell Ogilvie was interviewed in today’s Scotland on Sunday but he singularly failed to deflect the central criticism of him continuing as president of the SFA despite being a director of Rangers during the period they introduced the controversial EBTs and, allegedly, illegally registered players with the SFA, which Ogilvie was also a director of.
Interviewer, Andrew Smith, asked “Can you see there being an issue with you being SFA president at a time when there is an ongoing SPL investigation into non-disclosure of payments at Rangers that you are directly linked to? You were a director and the secretary who signed off the accounts in November 2001. At that time the EBT scheme was in operation and players were receiving payments that weren’t in their contracts.”
Ogilvie’s response laid bare how inappropriate the situation is: “I was secretary up until 2002. That’s correct. I was a director, that’s correct.”
All he could do in response to the question of how inappropriate his job as SFA president is when Rangers are under investigation for non-disclosure of payments he was “directly linked to” is confirm he was a secretary and director. He didn’t even offer a counter argument.
It was as though he’d been coached, badly, about what to do when you are asked a question you don’t want to answer. Simply not answering the question and making an irrelevant statement treats Scottish football fans like fools.
The truth is he did not and cannot answer the question. If Campbell Ogilvie cannot argue why there is not an issue for him continuing to be SFA president, why is he still SFA president?
Ogilvie confirmed that in March he told Andrew Smith that there were no side contracts and insisted this was “the case to the best of my knowledge”, despite Smith referring him to the recent BBC documentary, the assertions of which have not been challenged.
Readers would have been confused by this ‘knowledge’, that there were no side contracts as Ogilvie immediately denied involvement with player contracts.
This duel position, bearing witness that there were no side contracts, while denying knowledge of player contracts, is wholly inconsistent and, in itself, reasons enough to for his dismissal.
One of the most intriguing comments from Ogilvie was “I might have signed some documents from time to time. I certainly didn’t do the player negotiations, I didn’t do the contracts.”
He “might have signed some documents from time to time”. Oh dear.
If he signed some documents active in this scandal “from time to time”, for pity sake, just go. Pack your bags, apologise profusely and get out of Scottish football.
We await to hear who conducted the inquiry into Ogilvie which allowed Stewart Regan to clear Ogivlie, but if this shoddy testimony informed their decision, the scandal at the heart of the SFA has taken on a new dimension.
Rumours that the SFA did not conduct an inquiry into Campbell Ogilvie and that chief exec, Stewart Regan, spoke inappropriately in order to save the skin of his pal, remain unfounded.
1
share on F'book or Twitter
1
0
So he was on the Board at Rangers and either didnt understand what was going on or he didn't do his job and ask.
He was the company secretary at Rangers and signed off the accounts containing information on the EBTs that he wasn't aware of and also didn't ask or query. He even had his own snout in the trough with his own EBT.
He's either an incompetent fool or guilty of negligence and failed spectacularly in his duties as a Board member.
So where is he now - President of the Scottish Football Association who are investigating the crimes of the past Rangers regimes in which he played a key role!!!!
You really could not make it up!
:worms: -> :worms: etc.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Mainwaring
My thoughts exactly. He was LEGALLY duty bound to know and as a Director carries full responsibility for the decisions and actions of the company. The fact that he's offered this as a defence proves he's not fit to be a Director let alone Chairman of any company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
:agree: this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Mainwaring
It was accounted for as an expense in the Huns accounts every time they paid money into the EBT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
Fair point though about the EBT's own accounts. Are the loans to players/directors/managers/Blackburn employees still shown as assets, or have these been written off as irrecoverable?
:agree: Not so much put his foot in it, more blown it clean off...Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
He's also acknowledged as being one of the game's 'finest administrators'. Yet he signed important paperwork 'blind'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onion
Tells you alll you need to know about the standard of football's administration in this country!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18385024
Green looking to buy players now? This guy is unbelievable! He reminds me of this chap...
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...5007100510.jpg
Carry on as normal nothing to see here :greengrin
I'd like to get a hold of his cheque book.Quote:
Originally Posted by calmac12000
' Just sign here, Campbell. It's okay, you don't need to know'. :cb
He can't sign players whilst in administration without the permission of the SPL. He's grandstanding and the more he grandstands the more he looks like Del Boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngyosh
Will endear him to other chairman when he comes begging for his newco to get into spl.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngyosh
...and following it up I really liked this post from the RTC blog regarding the Bbc sport pages.
:greengrin pmslQuote:
BBC website SPL team by team headlines
ABERDEEN – SFA investigates clubs’ finances
CELTIC – SFA investigates clubs’ finances
DUNDEE UNITED – SFA investigates clubs’ finances
DUNFERMLINE – Dunfermline add three new faces
HEART OF MIDLOTHIAN – SFA investigates clubs’ finances
HIBERNIAN – SFA investigates clubs’ finances
INVERNESS CALEDONIAN THISTLE – SFA investigates clubs’ finances
KILMARNOCK – SFA investigates clubs’ finances
MOTHERWELL – SFA investigates clubs’ finances
RANGERS – Rangers could make early signings
ST JOHNSTONE – SFA investigates clubs’ finances
ST MIRREN – SFA investigates clubs’ finances
Mucho credit to the chap who posted it.
:agree: just PR puff from Greene who needs to appeal to the Ibrox knuckle draggers who need reasons to but STs. In saying that, it I really hope HMRC, the teams that RFC owe money to, and other creditors are reading this :furious: Not long to wait now :titanic:Quote:
Originally Posted by youngyosh
Dave, I was asking myself that very same question. It doesn't make sense to the ordinary man on the street. Some of the finance experts here on .net could probably give some good suggestions or answers. All I can offer is:
> Rangers Fighting Fund?
> faceless but rich pro-RFC benefactors
> foolish traders (no offence meant) giving credit terms for purchases such as merchandise for shop, travel and accommodation for friendly matches etc.
The Ipox clubstore staff are probably getting paid out the money taken for selling stuff in the shop which in itself is probably not getting paid for, i.e. merchandise obtained on credit, then sold to pay staff wages? I don't really know just trying to think of some logical suggestions.
Maybe there's a big dungeon several hundred feet below the admin building where the hierarchy at RFC go down to wearing dark as night blue cloaks and consort with the Devil and he gives them big wads of cash to keep going? ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HibbyDave
The big tax case seems to be dragging on for ever. If the CVA is accepted or if it is not and a newco is established, what are the implications of the case going against Rangers?
If a new club is established there are no implications at all regarding any money owed by the old club. Which is why we are relying on the sporting authorities to deal with them properly. The pressure must be kept on Petrie, the SPL and the SFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Absolutely rediculous... offering business's they shafted 9p for every pound they owe them , then they turn up and say "look who we're wanting to sign & pay big wages to..."
Hope they get binned even more now.
I think the HMRC is going to screw Rangers to the wall, and they will get two chances to do it. If the CVA fails they are liquidated, and the big tax case is finished. If they survive the CVA and keep their history, the big tax case comes into play, and Hector goes after them again. I think the tax man is covering all bases for any eventuality. To be honest, I think Rangers (Green) would prefer liquidation as well, to get rid of the BTC. I hope they do survive the CVA, only for Hector to serve them with a BTC bill the day after. They then have to agree a payment plan of £5M a year to pay of the tax debt, leaving them seriously weakened for the see-able future. The end game is nigh.
GGTTH
Huns don't own their shops (warning link contains traces of Hun):Quote:
Originally Posted by HibbyDave
http://www.followfollow.com/news/tmn...23/index.shtml
BTC is included (at least the original amount + interest and possibly an estimate of the penalties). The bill has been served and although the Hun appeal result is not known, HMRC have a claim in for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs07p
By this logic therefore it is in HMRC' s financial interests to accept the CVA. Why is then that most people think it won't be accepted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs07p
I can see the point he's making with the stadium renaming to be fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Newcastle fans still call St James' Park, St James' Park, despite the investment and new name.
Livingston's Almondvale has changed names a few times (West Lothian Courier Stadium, Braidwood Motor Company Stadium) but most people still call it Almondvale.
It has almost no practical implication. HMRC already have a large enough debt to block the CVA on their own. The only difference it makes is to how shafted the other creditors are because HMRC will claim a larger percentage of the paltry pot. If a New Club purchases the Hun assets then the BTC debt is nothing to do with them, Guv.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Because the message to all other football clubs is: "don't worry about paying us, you can throw us buttons in a few years time". A million or 2 now is pretty much neither here nor there in the grand scheme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
I was speaking to someone through the weekend who claimed that this week will see the end of them as a club.
HMRC aren't willing to accept a CVA, as it'll accept a precedent for every other company in the UK to wiggle out of such future instances of financial oblivion.
He also told me that the assets will be liquidated separately and not as a package, so individual developers can take Murray Park, the car park or Ibrox individually.
His credential is that he used to be one of Scotland's chief tax inspectors, though is now retired. He's also a Celtic fan.
He claimed to know the name of the company who would undertake the liquidation but suddenly wasn't in a sharing mood when pressed.
Possibly all nothing more than hot air or nothing new but I felt I'd share with the group :greengrin
HMRC aren't only concerned with the financial aspect, they're very keen that taxpayers abide by the rules. They have a set of criteria for accepting CVAs and this one fails most of them. On top of that the CVA proposal is half-arsed - it can't state how much in the £ creditors will get and there's a large number of creditors that haven't even been quantified. On top of that it seeks to remove certain assets from the CVA fund that rightfully should be in there and suggests that the total gross value of the assets in liquidation is less than £4.6m.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
The very best HMRC can hope for with a CVA is an unquantified share of £5m - that's chicken feed to them, and IMO they would much prefer to show that they will come down hard on those who break the rules (and those who operate sub-standard administrations) and to test those liquidation values - that's why they've lined up BDO as liquidators.
My apologies, I thought the BTC was outstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
That would only have been relevant if Hector was still waiting to pounce with the BTC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Do keep up, old chap. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
http://www.bdo.uk.com/find-a-partner/malcolm-cohen
I couldn't be bothered trawling through to see if it had been touched on already, but thank ye :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Surely this guy telling everyone how much money Rangers will have in a few months time is just very badly misjudged at this time?
Creditors will be paying attention no doubt and I would hope the SPL clubs are taking note in the event they are asked to let any new club back in.
Andy, i have said this a few times, IMO i think it is a deliberate and calculated ploy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy74
Charles Green wants the CVA to fail as much as you or i do.
If i were a creditor and was reading some of the recent press i would be fuming, i even noticed on the BBC gossip today that they have a list of potential targets 5 of which are currently playing at the Euro's.
He may not want the CVA, but judging by the comments of the formerly supportive (to the Newco cause) Steven Thomson last week, they are playing a very dangerous game. They are winding up the the other clubs and their vote for a reintroduction into the SPL suddenly looks far from assured.Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
If you look closely at what Steven Thompson says he doesn't actually say that Rangers Newco won't be accepted into SPL. He says ""It wouldn't be just a simple yes or no vote, they'd have to negotiate their way back in again, that might not be easy for them."- In short, they can get back in but on our terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
I still believe a Rangers of sorts will be in the SPL next season. Doncaster is being far too quiet for my liking as are his apologists in the BBC and media regarding Rangers newco and the SPL..
Of course he doesn't say definitively one way or another, but it's a seismic shift from his previous standpoint that they would have to be voted back in.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Like a lot of people on here i'm not to hot on the legalities of der huns financial jiggery-pokery and i'm thankful of the imput fron those who do have a better understanding.
From what i gather, no matter what happens it looks like the cheats are going to avoid paying up to or in excess of 100 million quid which is disgusting.
Part ofme thinks they should be allowed to continue to operate only on the proviso that this debt is serviced even if it takes 20 years to recoup their dues. This would see them having to operate on a playing budget similar to that of the poorest clubs in the league.
The other point that i'd love soneone to shed light on is the case of the 10 mill plus of recent tax (paye) that they deliberately withheld in the last year or so.
I was led to believe that it was a criminal act to deliberately not pay ongoing costs if there is evidence that the intention was to go into administration/liquidation/cva all along.
Could Whyte be charged and potentially jailed for this specific crime?
I think he's trying to convince the hard of thinking huns that RFC will be in the SPL next season so they'll buy season tickets. RFC holding thousands of fans ST money would arguably put pressure on the SFA not to suspend them if the CVA is accepted and on the SPL to admit a newco if it fails.Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
It does alienate a lot of people, but I think they're really at the nothing to lose stage now.
Defrauding HMRC is indeed criminal. It would be difficult, though, to prove. On the face of things, RFC were in financial difficulties; the first people to suffer in those circumstances are the Revenue. They would plead lack of money rather than anything more sinister, and that's the way it looks to me as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by sadtom
The SFA investigation uncovered emails from Whyte saying that he was refusing to pay taxes to "gain leverage" in negotiations with HMRC over the big tax case.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
You're thinking of the trading while insolvent rules. They're not actually criminal unless there's an element of fraud involved (it could be argued that the action itself is fraudulent, but that's not how the law sees it). The rules are that if directors incur debt when they are (or should be) aware that the company will not be able to pay it they can become personally liable for that debt. In Whyte's case HMRC and other creditors could in theory pursue him and the other directors for the amounts they've lost in the administration/liquidation process if they can prove that RFC was insolvent at the time the debts were incurred. There's unlikely to be a criminal case though.Quote:
Originally Posted by sadtom
Not sure that that is "fraud", though. It's dodgy behaviour that would not please HMRC, for sure, whilst others would argue it's commercial sense in terms of a negotiating tool. Fraud, though? Don't think so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
Are you saying that deliberate non payment of VAT and NI contributions is not fraud?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It is not a "can't pay" but a "won't pay" situation.
HMRC are probably going to get two shots at killing them off.
If they vote against the CVA this week then the likelihood is that liquidation follows. If the CVA goes through, then the second chance will come along with the BTC
Once the First Tier Tribunal comes to a decision on the BTC, and it will surely find in favour of HMRC, they have the next chance to kill them off. If this eventuality happens, then any money put in my Green will be lost.
Oh, I do envy Hector.
I am saying that it would be difficult to prove that RFC set out with the intention of not paying HMRC. The document that was alluded to (which I haven't seen) might help in that, but it would have to be a strong case to prove fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
The BTC is part of the CVA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Sure about that ? I thought that D&P had only put forward a sum of £55m or thereabouts as total debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
As I recall, it was a TBC, with no amunt shown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
It has to be part of the CVA, though, as HMRC have made an assessment on RFC.
HMRC still get two shots though, kill them now or wait till the result of the BTC. So stop being so f**ing pedantic. :na na:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
HMRC get one chance to kill off Rangers. By voting no to the CVA on Thursday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
If they do not veto the CVA the only impact that the resolution of the BTC will have is to change the amount in the pound received.
I'm missing your point. It's Monday...:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
If HMRC accept the CVA, the BTC becomes irrelevant. RFC live on.
If they don't accept it, then it's toast-time... maybe.
What have I missed?
Okay, I'm probably wrongly assuming that they can vote to accept 'as is' i.e. leaving the BTC aside until a decision has been announced by the FTT. If the BTC goes in their favour then the CVA is worth diddly squat.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
This could happen during the cooling off period, when they could legitimately chamge their mind.
I think the CVA has no chance. Far more interesting question is can Green get his mitts on the assets for £5.5M or will any of the creditors step in to argue there is better value in a break up? Sadly I think Ticketus are focusing their recoup strategy on the bold Mr Whyte and I'm not convinced HMRC will do anything either given the likely small amounts involved either way.
Then it'll be onto the SPL transfer of share showdown (say that in a Sean Connery accent) or perhaps back to the SFA tribunal rematch first. Plenty of life in this one ... :wink:
uh-oh
http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/20...262950_2807965
World's worst Hibby and Barren Knight (that might still be sniffing around a Hun New Club) is Mr Weatherseal isn't he?
It's this last bit, the transfer of share I can't quite get my head around.... If CVA fails why does the share HAVE to go to the folks that buy Ibrox etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Also of there's transfer embargoes (and the rest) do they apply to the licence, the club or the "holding company"?
In my dreams I can see them getting the licence revoked and handed to Dundee or someone and any newco being told to apply for entry to SFL3 as there's now a vacancy.... Oh well.... One can but hope!