Nah...That title is held in perpetuity by Craig Le VainQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Printable View
Nah...That title is held in perpetuity by Craig Le VainQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I'm am in agreement with you, apropos his writing style. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Am I missing something here?? Guys that have shafted Der Hun should go to jail??Quote:
Originally Posted by MKHIBEE
I'm perfectly comfortable with wanting these crooks sent to jail and wanting the new Rangers to go bust as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kojock
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's the creditors that they are alleged to have shaftedQuote:
Originally Posted by Kojock
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Doubt that detail will save them if they wind up in the other big hooseQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Agreed - anyone who's done damage to the Hun deserves nothing but thanks !!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kojock
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Cheers :aok:
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/09...ac6a43b125.jpg
Big Mike really does not like Dave. :-)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
From some guy on Facebook. :dunno:
"Skybet temporarily suspended all bets on Hibs winning the league earlier due to irregular betting patterns! I noticed this myself, and they have now limited it to max stake of £93.75. Very strange? My thinking is maybe The Rangers could be hit with a points deduction for Admin2, rumoured to be incoming.Wishful thinking? Any thoughts?"
:pray:Quote:
Originally Posted by silverhibee
Hope you are right :greengrin
I know nothing but I really hope you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverhibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There was a guy on here earlier that had his skybet account shut when he backed hibs for the league
Have the odds been changed ?
Sky bet
Attachment 15469
Paddypower
Attachment 15470
Quite a difference in odds there for Hibs
that would be hilarious - but I doubt it
They are going to run out of money before the end of the season. Whether they can source finance is the big question.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
End of the season ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
They needed additional funding by November last season, might be December this season.
Yes, and the 3 bears appear to have departed the scene, all the assets are already secured by MA except Ibrox, whose ownership is disputed. Tough conditions for borrowing money.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What are you basing that on? While we don't know how this season's wages compare with last, and we don't know how much of their other commercial income is being diverted to SD to service Ashley's loan, I'd have thought that the increased crowds this season will reduce their annual loss, whcih the interim accounts up to 31/12/14 suggested was running at around £8m pa. Based on that my guess is that it will be more like March before they run out of cash. Possibly I'm just being pessimistic:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Mind you, if any of the loans suddenly get called in things could change very quickly.
All of their merchandising money goes to Ashley until the loan is paid back. All pitch side and stadium advertising goes to Ashley. Their only source of income is ticket sales.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
The he way I looked at it was, last year they started with £ 4.5 million in the bank , all be it £ 3 million was rangers retail. They got £ 0.5 million for their stadium rent for the games in July, £ 3.1 million for a share allotment in August/September, they drew down £ 2 million of theAshley loan in October with a further £ 1 million at the beginning of November .
now season ticket sale may be up on last year but there are none of the other incomes I've listed so I reckon cash will run out unless somebody puts their hand in a very deep pocket.
Thanks. I follow your reasoning. I was simply thinking that the increased gate money (over the season it won't matter whether it's season tickets or patg) would reduce the losses so allow them to continue longer without a cash injection than last season. On that basis King's claim that they can operate for six months before needing cash to complete the season seemed vaguely plausible. Let's hope your're right and the crisis is imminent.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
It will matter, in that the ST's are up front. No idea what they were last year, but this season's seem to be pretty healthy.That has to give them breathing-space.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
The wage bill is also much less than last year's, which will help. As will the reduced squad numbers, and the removal of McCoist. (tried my best to use "slimmed-down", but it won't work in the same sentence as AM...:cb)
Wonder how many season tickets were used up paying off Swally?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
3 or 4 months at £80k - 90k a month, depending on who you believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
http://www.podcastgarden.com/episode...ode-1-06_58958
Interesting podcast for anyone interested in the financial goings on at Ibrox with our old friend David Low.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Listened to the first 15 minutes, and had to switch off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The guy has little understanding of insolvency law. And he's banging on about security when there is none.
So glad he didn't get involved with us.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Insolvency law seems to change with each individual case anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The Yams got to pick and choose who voted on their CVA despite insolvency law indicating connected companies could not vote. With these sorts of shenanigans going on and what has already occurred with the liquidation of the original Rangers it appears to me that insolvency law in this country is a mess. With this in mind, his opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else. The experts on insolvency law in this country have not covered themselves in glory so far.
I am glad he's not involved in Hibs though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exhibit A. He talks about Preferred Creditors. There are none in Rangers case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Exhibit B. He talks about Worthingtons being Preferred Creditors. They're not. They can't be.
Exhibit C. He talks about Worthingtons having security. There can't be security without a debt. That whole question was settled a long time ago.
Exhibit D. He talks about the Oldco being an attractive investment, because they might win the Big Tax Case. Even if they do, there are still tens of millions in unpaid debt
Exhibit E. He talks about the assets being transferred back to Oldco, as if it's an easy process. They're already (at least) 2 companies away. Good luck with that.
That's better. I prefer to know why rather than just be told someone is talking *****.
One thing I think is correct is that this will take a lot of time in the courts to sort out and that the new Rangers will struggle to borrow until it's all sorted.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah so that is why they want to re-instate Oldco. How will it get easier when their previous track record was horrific?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Genuine question, not trying to be awkward.
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
He also does that thing that so many so-called professionals do, in that he uses lots of big words and buzz-phrases that make it sound like he knows what he's talking about. He might know his own game, but in this situation it's mostly padding and flannel.
I guess with a new board they could always convince someone to lend to them but there is no way they could convince someone while the ownership of the assets is being contested. And Mike Ashley own security over everything except Ibrox. It's really down to Dave King and the 3 bears to fund the rest of the season.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I haven't been keeping up with this side of the thread much as my financial adviser and psychiatrist both said it wasn't a good idea, but is the gist of this post that there might be more than one glib and shameless liar? :confused::greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Are you sharing a professional secret with that? :devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
16/1 is still available...
I got 20/1 yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
Charles Green taking The Rangers to court according to BBC. Wants his legal fees paid. Got to admire his brass neck. Love it if The new club are billed £500k
BBC Scotland has learned the former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is taking the club to court in a bid get them to pay his legal fees after he was charged with serious organised crime offences relating to his time at Ibrox.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experie...livingston.jpg
BBC
Green claims his contract with the club entitled him to legal cover during and after his spell in charge. Lawyers acting on Green's behalf have written to the club and want a court ruling to clarify the situation - that could happen as early as next week.
Green and a number of others, including the club's former owner Craig Whyte, were arrested and charged earlier this month following an investigation by Police Scotland into off field events at the club in 2012 and 2013.
It's understood the fees involved could reach in excess of £500,000.
That's beautiful :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
What we want here is the Court to say to Rangers.... "stick £500k aside in a separate account, and we can have the case heard next year sometime."
:cb
Do they have £500k to put aside? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
one would doubt it and lets be honest, the fees will probably rise considerably as the due process is followed - hahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
One would expect a company the size of Rangers to have an insurance policy to cover such eventualities.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
:greengrin
In the meantime, they have to find the cash to pay their own lawyers to defend the action. ...................
Well, Chuckie no doubt wrote his own contract so he would know what's in it. Just fabulous.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That guy is a total weirdo and a charlatan, just like Whyte, which is deeply pleasing.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
It it is all so ridiculous and frightening in that our football ruling bodies sit back and do nothing! This is the state of our game where the SPFL/SFA will not get involved because they Know they will be exposed for the corrupt associations they where in a previous name and now going forward! I so wish EUFA would just ban our entire associations! I absolutely detest football in Scotland because of the parochial governing bodies!
Well there is no sitting on a fence with that commentQuote:
Originally Posted by MrSmith
I almost share it though you have a fair point.
Let's be honest, as soon as their name is mentioned, I'd think any decent, law-abiding business will run a mile before having ANY dealings with them so they might no be covered !!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
What utter horse ****.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You have more chance of going to jail for defrauding someone than you have of battering them.
Where we might agree is that large scale fraud cases seldom see people do time, probably because the fraud perpetrated is too complex for the police to provide a case simple enough for the jury to understand.
But plenty small scale fraudsters who have abused positions of trust have done time. It's almost mandatory and little is allowed by way of mitigation.
My tongue was buried in my cheek when I said that [emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Beautifully put.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I've said for a long time that the outpourings from the Sellik hysterics are to be treated in exactly the same way you would handle a dog turd.
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/09...8b31296e5f.jpg
Looks like all their former directors will have legal costs covered
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Allow me to be the first financially ignorant to ask...Is that specific to The Rangers 2012, or does it pertain to all directors of all companies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Is that standard practice? Or did they fully expect there to be legal action against them in the aftermath?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I believe that came from the IPO document when they floated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...igation-costs/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wasn't this particular Celtc hysteric one of those to stick his hand up and say he wanted to buy Hibs?Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Always an entertaining read, but for some reason I get the impression this guy doesn't quite have the financial understanding he implies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
They made damn sure they shut the door before the horse bolted then :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I never trust any of the info from these guys but don't let that get in the way of an enjoyable read.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
What they all do is create uncertainty and that makes it harder for them to get the external finance they need.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
And was shooed away...
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
To me, that's from a company's Memorandum and Articles of Association, which are the internal rules for that company. Every company has their own set; smaller companies tend to have similar, standard ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
It's not clear whether that is from Rangers' Mem and Arts. However, if it is, it makes pleasant reading :)
Rangers' response to the Green action today was quite telling, I thought. They didn't say that Green had.no case. They said that they would defend it vigorously. There's a subtle difference :)
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
That's what I took from their statement today. [emoji3]Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
And no mention of the appropriate insurance
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep. And Tom Farmer identified him as an absolute spoofer.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Bullet well and truly dodged.
Nowt unusual about the wording used but highly unusual for there to be no directors and officers cover if indeed there is none. Unless of course no underwriter fancied guaranteeing the fidelity(amongst other risks) of the various fit and proper persons who have piloted the good ship the rangers. The fun begins if the directors had no litigation insurance but the new club is liable for defence costs or any costs incurred by directors in the course of proceedings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
There must be the usual exclusions on wrongdoings though?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That may well be in the next paragraph. ... the one we're not shown [emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy74
That said, if CG wrote the Mem and Arts himself, maybe not. ....
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Rangers FC board 2012-Malcolm Murray (centre) with Financial Director Brian Stockbridge (left), Imran Ahmad of Zeus Capital and CEO Charles Green (right).
THE old Rangers board signed a severance deal with Charles Green agreeing to pay his legal costs if he was ever accused of being a criminal, the former chief executive claims.
Green, 62, is accused of obtaining “many millions of pounds” through fraud during his time at Ibrox. He is now seeking £500,000 from the club to fund his criminal defence.
Court papers served at Ibrox by lawyers acting for Green claim Rangers must cover the legal bills for his defence against fraud charges relating to his takeover, share issues and running of the club.
Green is demanding the cost of his criminal defence “without limitation”, along with the bill for solicitors, senior and junior counsel and expert witnesses.
He is also demanding that the club pay for the cost of his action to try to force them to pay his criminal defence costs.
The papers were served on Rangers after the club knocked back pleas from Green’s lawyers to bankroll his court costs.
The club will be given just three days to defend the action once the papers are formally lodged at the Court of Session.
If they fail to challenge it, the legal move could be granted.
This month, Green appeared in court on charges relating to conspiracy, fraud, serious organised crime and a breach of the Companies Act.
VIEW GALLERY
Last night, Rangers vowed to fight his action over legal fees.
Chairman Dave King said: “Charles Green approached the club prior to his arrest and demanded that we pay his
legal costs in respect of his co-operation with police in its criminal investigation into his time as an officer of the club.
“I advised him that we would not do so.
“He was subsequently arrested and has now approached the court to compel the club to pay the legal costs of his defence to the criminal charges.
“This application will be strongly resisted.”
It’s the latest twist in a complex web of criminal and civil court battles centred on Rangers.
Green’s summons claims a Compromise Agreement approved by the former Rangers board on his departure from the club in April 2013 means they are contractually bound to pay his legal costs to defend criminal action started against him “on or around September 1”.
VIEW GALLERY Duff and Phelps joint administrator David Whitehouse joins Charles Green (right) in addressing the media after having his consortium's bid for Rangers accepted. May 2012
It goes on: “Reasonable professional costs include the cost of instruction of solicitors, senior and junior counsel and such expert witnesses, if any, as senior counsel advises are necessary.”
In a final clause, Green demands that the club must also pay his legal fees in raising the writ at the Court of Session.
The writ states that former chief executive Green has been “the subject of threats of violence from members of the public”
As a result, Green’s address is given as his solicitors – DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP at 125 West Regent Street, Glasgow.
Malcolm Murray was chairman at Ibrox when Green’s consortium purchased the club’s assets for £5.5million in June 2012.
He was still in that role when Green’s Compromise Agreement was approved in April 2013. Murray stepped down that May.
VIEW GALLERY David Somers: Arrived November 2013, left March 2015. Resigned yesterday as Rangers chairman. After a career in fund management, supporters hoped he would bring investment to the club but his tenure was described by one fans' group as "inept".
The relevant clause states: “The company will pay any reasonable professional (including, without limitation, legal and accounting) costs and expenses properly incurred by the employee after the date of this agreement which arise from his having to defend, or appear in any administrative, regulatory, judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings by a third party as
a result of his having been chief executive of Rangers Football Club or the company.”
In this case, the “third party” would be criminal prosecutors from the Crown Office.
Green is one of seven people facing criminal charges covering fraud and organised crime over the meltdown of Rangers from 2012. The club went into administration and subsequent forced liquidation by HMRC over a “phantom” £80million tax bill, The club were later cleared of having ever owed the taxman.
The club’s assets were bought by Green’s Sevco company.
The writ lays bare the criminal charges faced by Green.It says: “He is accused of participating in a fraudulent scheme to acquire the business and assets of Rangers Football Club for Sevco Scotland at less than their true value.
“He is accused of conducting a fraudulent initial pubic offering by which substantial equity capital was raised.
“The defender and/or Sevco Scotland received the fruits of that conduct in the form of the acquisition of the business and assets of Rangers and the funds raised by means of the initial public offering.”
Green’s bill to defend the charges is likely to be astronomical.
The writ says: “The criminal proceedings are extremely complex. The charges extend to 20 pages of narrative.
“The indictment indicates in excess of 1000 documentary productions and in excess of 250 witnesses.
“The pursuer is accused of fraudulently obtaining assets worth many millions of pounds.”
It is understood the figure relates to the £22million share issue raised after Green’s takeover and appeal to fans for funding.
The writ adds: “If convicted, a substantial custodial sentence is likely.
“The proceedings are likely to be the most high-profile criminal trial held in Scotland in recent years.”
Yorkshireman Green was arrested on September 1 and appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court the following day.
On September 16, an indictment was served on him. A preliminary hearing is due to take place at the High Court in Glasgow on October 16.
Indictments were also served on former Rangers owner Craig Whyte, ex-commercial director Imran Ahmad and former administrators David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, along with David Grier and Gary Withey.
Whyte, Clark and Whitehouse were also charged with involvement in serious organised crime.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would imagine Craig Whyte and Imran Ahmad will be similarly covered for legal expenses.
Craig Whyte has never been a director of the new Rangers so he won't be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Ahmed might be though. It seems to be that it was part of his severance deal so it might depend on what Ahmed negotiated.
One thing is for sure, Charlie won't get cheap lawyers and the case is massive. New Rangers liability here could be huge.
And there does not appear to be an insurance policy to cover it. [emoji3]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So this may give dodgy Dave the chance to go bust again to avoid a seriously expensive liability, and shaft a few more innocent creditors along the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Problem might be his inability to shake off Mike Ashley the secured creditor. Rock and a hard place, keep up the good work Charlie-fit and proper person and former saviour of the rangers[emoji1] [emoji1]
"THE old Rangers board signed a severance deal with Charles Green agreeing to pay his legal costs if he was ever accused of being a criminal, the former chief executive claims."
Is this common practice? Honour among thieves,eh? :greengrin
There's a fair bit of confusion here, not for the first time :)
Ozy posted something from someone's Mem and Arts. The BBC said that the legal deal was in Green's contract. The Record is saying that it was part of his severance package.
They're all different things. If CG has been smart, the deal will be in all 3 :)
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...n-suit-re-ipo/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does he know that there is no insurance in place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Does it not read that the cost of criminal prosecution defence is only met if green is found not guilty.
I've no idea but if there was Insurance in place, wouldn't new Rangers be sanguine about Greens claim, knowing that the insurance would cover it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Probably but the decision could be years away but the lawyers bills will need paid now.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Someone will no doubt correct me but I think new Rangers pay for the defence but reclaim from Green if he is found guilty. Could be wrong but right now he is innocent and feels he needs his legal bills paid by new Rangers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looking at this in the real world, rather than the strange world belonging to Sevco, it is not unreasonable for a senior employee or director to be protected in this way in case someone took them to court for decisions made whilst they were in charge. The allegations could be unrealistic so the accused must have the means to protect themselves by employing lawyers to defend them. As said above most firms would have legal cover for these instances.
However we live in this strange parallel universe inhabited by the west coast media and The Rangers so we maybe have to look through the trees to see the wood.
At this time Green is innocent of any charges and has the right to defend himself to the best of his ability. His contract says he does not have to bankrupt himself doing so and The Rangers will have to cough up for the time being. It is not his fault if they had no insurance.
If he is found guilty I would assume The Rangers could sue him for the costs but until then.............
BTW I hate how the msm portray the old club as victims of the big bad taxman they were not found innocent of all charges. It is not true.
"The club went into administration and subsequent forced liquidation by HMRC over a “phantom” £80million tax bill, The club were later cleared of having ever owed the taxman."
I thought it was non payment of VAT that caused the administration so they did owe the taxmanQuote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Correct. They do owe the tax man both in respect of VAT and the Wee Tax Case which is a share option thing from 2000-2003 used against the contracts of two players. Minus HMRC's penalties in total they owe about £9m.Quote:
Originally Posted by dangermouse
The BTC is HMRC chasing a precedent they can use to chase other Companies for backdated taxes although right now the Tax man is 0-2 down and it's not exactly looking hopeful for them.
We have a lot to thank Sir Tom Farmer for.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Aye, we're blessed to have Rod Petrie right enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lago
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rod Petrie or David Low... Hmm.... the Tache or the Fantasist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
A grim choice right enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
:rolleyes:
He saw through Brian Kennedy as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lago
Just in case you don't realise the escape that Hibs had look at Stockport County who he did take over. Back then they used to move between the second and third tier of English football. Now they are in the struggling in the sixth tier and having to rent their own ground.
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...-with-rangers/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/a-d...ba-multiverse/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting gossip from both this radge and the Rangers guy, but only relevant to us if it causes a slump in results. It is just possible that a wee blip in form for The Rangers + cost cuts to 1st team squad facilities + failure to strengthen in January will cause them deeper problems. Here's hoping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I've said elsewhere that I think our team will improve over the season. We've got competition for places, injured players to come back, and last term AS got the team looking stronger throughout the winter. In other words, we have to keep the faith.
He self-describes as a journalist but doesn't seem to understand that no paper is going to print a story saying 'Sevco might go pop again'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Even if what the Old Huns did is eventually declared mostly legal by tenuous loophole, they still pursued an immoral policy of aggressive tax avoidance that HMRC is obliged to go after. Therefore they laid themselves open to everything that came to them. They tried to fund overspending by ripping off the rest of us (taxpayers).Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
So no sympathy for the *******s! :na na:
Rangers get no sympathy from me (horrible club) but there is nothing tenuous about what they did. It was legal and no amounts of spoofery and fake outrage from unqualified muppets like Mad Phil changes that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
It is the alleged bungled application of it by Rangers that is the issue on the BTC and right now the Tax Man is losing 0-2.
Whether or not Tax Avoidance (itself not a crime) is immoral is another debate entirely and not really relevant as there isn't any shortage of companies in the UK that will not seek to reduce tax liability if they have the option and if it is possible and legal.
The wee tax case was ruled illegal and the side letters were against the rules of Football.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Remember the old club did get found guilty for some cases just not the "big one". So they were guilt of not paying tax and used that to their advantage. Don't fall for the "victims" spin put out by the MSM.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Edit See Ozzy has beaten me to my comments. Glad I am not the only way who thinks like that.
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...e-in-the-park/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If it wasn't tenuous, HMRC wouldn't have been able to bring a claim in the first place. If you're going to play that far on the edge of the law, then you need deep pockets in case you have to defend yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Which the Old Huns didn't have. Ha ha. :wink:
My point was in relation to the BTC, the Tax Avoidance scheme. The wee Tax case isn't even up for debate. They owe on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
I'm not interested in spin of any sort whether its the "we need Rangers" drivel from the compliant lackeys in the MSM and certainly not the tear stained, spittle fuelled, outbursts of utter futility from Phil, Clumpany & the various other Sellik minded simpletons.
I like my information untainted & factual which is why I enjoy CWG's posts on this thread.
Slurp! :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875