Printable View
This all happened when I was away, so maybe i didn't get the figures right. I relied on the headline figures from BBC, rather than the font of all knowledge that is Hibs.net :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I thought HMRC were in for £75m IN TOTO, including the BTC and the uncontested part?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-17628749Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Rangers' administrators estimate that the club's total debts could top £134m.
The figure is revealed in an administrators' 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.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-...-west-17600284Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
This is the story I was talking about. Almost got it right. Initial proposals have been put to the creditors, who have till tomorrow so signal their agreement or not.
Tomorrow is clearly an important date, and hopefully we'll start to see them pushed ever closer to the abyss.
Hun Apocalypse!
Okay, ta.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
What is clear is that the HMRC debt, ignoring the BTC, is going to be round about 25%. That is important, IMO. The admins will try and minimise the percentage (as they appear to have done in the Portsmouth case); HMRC will argue for a higher percentage.
That debate, in itself, will be interesting.
Fingers crossed the FTT verdict will be back by then and Hector will be armed to the teeth. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm pretty sure, on the figures I was aware of - and others have posted here - that the only way hun will get a CVA is if HMRC do not oppose it. HMRC have significantly more than 25% of the outstanding debt, enough of a %age to remove hun wriggle room.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
BTC is almost certain to go against them. That will settle it. If the hun somehow win the BTC then what chance HMRC both a) not appealing, and b) voting for 8p/£ in a CVA.
It's all over.
You got an insider?Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
Gonna come back to the HMRC percentage again. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
The total HMRC debt in the admins report is £93m. Of that, I understand that £75m is for the BTC, £4m for the Wee Tax Case and the remaining £14m for uncontested debt.
Soooo... if RFC win both the BTC and the WTC...... HMRC's debt reduces to £14m, out of a total of £55m. ie 25.5%
You can sense my cynical unease here, can't you? :rolleyes:
Yes and no. 'Yes' in that I know a couple of journos who have said that the outcome of the BTC is known to more than just the three judges and they know someone who knows someone, etc., who know the verdict, and that verdict is the hun are going to take a big skelp from Her Maj. 'No' in that, trying to put aside how repellent I find just about everything to do with hun, is that based on my (limited, but nonetheless vocational - former editor of business magazines in both UAE and Qatar) knowledge of these things, the political ramifications and how appalling it's going to look if the hun win BTC (added to the fact that HMRC have already said they will appeal an acquittal), I don't see any other outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
This combination of factors, and others of relevance discussed elsewhere on this thread, lead me to the 'liquidation is inevitable' conclusion. Even by their own admission, many people who think the hun are going to dodge a bullet are basing this on the club's standing and influence (ill-deserved, but tangible nonetheless) and 'a feeling', rather than the facts themselves. A credo with which I have a great deal of sympathy, it has to be said, but I'm (reasonably) confident the facts will win the day and, this being so, cheerio.
When you unround the figures the the admitted amount due to HMRC is actually about 25.93% of the £55m, but that is before the amounts due to employees and season ticket holders which have yet to be determined. Assuming they complete their fixtures the ST holders shouldn't be a problem but the amounts due to employees needs to be around £2m to take HMRC's debt below the 25% level. I suppose much depends on how they negotiated those wage reductions here.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
On the tax cases, I thought the wee one had been decided and the question was about the amount of penalties. Similarly, from what has been written, the big tax case liability is unlikely to be zero and the tribunal is more about details of indivual contracts rather than the whole principle.
I can understand (and share) your concerns but there would have to be a lot of creative accounting to get that debt below 25%.
I accept the challenge! :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I suspect someone at Duff & Phelps is already on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
May it be Mr Magpie, may it be!!:rockin:Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
What the Portsmouth administrators did was to wrongly classify a debtor as a creditor. This pushed up the debts and helped to ensure that HMRC remained just below 25% of the total.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
The Hun settled with HMRC on a WTC figure of £2.8M, they were only disputing the penalties.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ry_790386.html
Looks like Singapore Bill is getting fed up with Ibrox Circus and who could blame him.
Imagine a Club with the stature of Rangers F C not playing fair with Johnny Foreigner. :greengrin
I can't read the full story... too mean to subscribe :greengrin... but it looks like it's Ticketus he's p'd off with, not RFC.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Imagine them trying to recoup their investment, eh no?
Am I correct in thinking that Hector's meter is still running at the judicial rate of interest of 8% ? Or is it suspended pending the decision by the FTT ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
So the Knights who say Ng are now the Knights who say No.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/
A fascinating analysis of Rangers financial position through to the end of June which will have CWG and Cav drooling all night, no doubt.
His conclusion is as follows :
' For there to be an attempt for a “Rangers” to survive, Duff & Phelps would need to sell off the assets of Rangers Football Club PLC to a buyer in sufficient time for that purchaser to organise a license to play in the SFL/SPL, and for all arrangements to be put in place for a team to start next season.
The longer Duff & Phelps succeed in keeping the doors open, the less chance there is for a new owner of a “Rangers” to get everything in order in time for preparation of fixture lists for next season, for example.
I am coming to the view that there is almost certainly not going to be a Rangers, nor indeed a “Rangers” playing in Scottish football next season (apart from the team from Berwick of course).
The best, and possibly now only way to get over the hurdles of time and potential legal challenge to any sale as mentioned above, would be for a person or consortium looking to save “Rangers” to buy an existing club, and rebrand it, moving it, ideally, but subject to agreeing rent with the owner, to Ibrox.
It appeared that Rangers may have tried this with St Mirren and there are rumours that Cowdenbeath could be ripe for takeover. We will need to wait and see. '
Now who do me know at Cowdenbeath that might be receptive to such discussions ? :cb
Have I missed something here?
I haven't wadde my way through 170 pages of threads to catch up but from reading a few recent posts is it correct that HMRC are accepting £2.8 million in settlement of the PAYE and NI unpaid since Craig Whyte came to power, which was reported at £9 million, and increasing to £14 million with interest and ongoing non payment?
If that is the case, that alone should be enough to get Rangers kicked out of the SPL, because they quite blatantly have not paid their dues. I know that HMRC are no longer preferred creditors but surely there is some SPL rule covering running your club in a financially questionable way. How does this square with UEFA requirements for proper governance?
How can they get away with not paying taxes when all other clubs have to? Is HMRC going to make a pro rata refund to all SPL clubs to equalise the playing field?
Anyone able to throw some light on it?
Brian Kennedy told to bolt and admin say a 2nd offer is that bad it won't be accepted.
Yet he was rangers hero by Keith Jackson only yesterday :)
Aye, Kennedy told to GTF by Fud and Feltch, and preferred bidder needed by end of play tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulSmith
Tick tock Huns :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
What happened at Portsmouth explained here;
http://web3dlaw.wordpress.com/2012/0...agreements-25/
HMRC didnt exactly roll over and take it and one can only hope they have learned from this episode and are better prepared for the days ahead because of this.
What a mistaka-ta-maka!Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
When they going to do us all a favour and turn the life support machine off?
Where did you hear that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Famous Fiver
It sounds like a right load of codswallop to me.
Yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Famous Fiver
The £2.8m was in settlement of the Wee Tax Case.
The £14m, for ongoing PAYE and VAT, is still due. It will be rising by the week.
The Big Tax Case (for £49m or £75m, depending on who you believe) has still to be decided.
Great Monty Python quote!!:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Cleverest quip I have heard on hibs net this week.
From the RTC blog, the HMRC claim is for £24M of unpaid tax. Interest is due for every day it's overdue and has been comounding nicely (the EBT payments in question go back as far as 2000/01), penalties will be imposed dependent on just how much of a bunch of cheating ****bags they were.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod