Will the BTC contingency be included in the CVA? If not it would make it more attractive to the ordinary creditor.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wee Hibby
Printable View
Will the BTC contingency be included in the CVA? If not it would make it more attractive to the ordinary creditor.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wee Hibby
"the proposal does not constitute a final offer"Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wee Hibby
(based on a £25m lawsuit against Collyer Bristow)
I thought a CVA was exactly that, a final offer?"
Can creditors accept on the basis that it includes the extra £25m in the pot and reject if it doesn't?
Surely they are not ready to produce a CVA if they still don't know the final "pot?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Not a cats chance in hell of getting that. IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wee Hibby
I would hope that HMRC are waiting in the wings for their call .. :aok:
Who thought that this would rummble on as long as it has? and for that reason I can't see it coming to a close any time soon. :wink:
After Thursdays programme it has just become more treacherous for that mob and I look forward to today's proceedings :greengrin
I wonder how much of the creditor's pittance Duff and Duffer will retain to fight this Micky Mouse law suit ?Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
If I understand it, the case is Whyte with the aid of Collyer Bristow mislead the Rangers take over panel as to the source of the funding to pay off Lloyds Bank and this in turn prevented Paul Murray taking over the Club , launching a £ 25 million share issue, and securing the club's future.
Never mind that there was no certainty that Murray ( P ) would get control of Rangers or his share issue would be supported, I think the weakness in their case is the take over panel recommended rejecting Whyte's offer to David Murray regardless of where the funding was coming from.
No doubt a large chunk of the creditor's pot will be kept for their own and legal expenses, and I'm sure a contingency sum for the other side for their expenses which will no doubt be awarded against the ( Mal ) - administrators.
You are correct in your assumption. Typically these investments will be spread over a few different share classes rather than an EIS/VCT investing solely in Rangers Season Tickets. Most EIS/VCTs run for a period of 3 years after which the maximum tax relief will have been given and they will then roll over into another investment if they so wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
With regard to the question on why are Ticketus "bleating" about losing money- I don't think they are bleating as such just trying to get the best return for their investors. If this means calling in a secured debt they will do so.
Is it just me that is surprised that almost 2 weeks after the end of their season Rangers are about the only club who haven't released or even talked about releasing anyone? If I was a creditor I would be :confused:
Are they perhaps waiting to see who does walking away?Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
With the situation they are in they can't afford to release anyone. They will sell to get money into the club and those they don't sell they will need for next season unless they are going to field a team of 17 year olds :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18183076
this ispretty shocking if you read between the lines - D&P pretty much saying that their job is flogging Rangers and anything else - i.e. providing SPL with paperwork on EBT's - takes second place.
Now why this is fair enough on the one hand - they are effectively running the club and therefore need to have regard to the SPL licence and rules (or SPL should charge) and if they obstruct investigation its in effect potentially preventing the true financial picture / state of the company being seen by potential bidders. In other words if found guilty there may be no licence to flog like an old car to whom ever...never mind though drag it out and coin in the alleged £600 ph fees.................................
The big question for me is how, after the documentary findings, is Ogilvie still in a job??
:dunno:
He will (and should) have the right to defend himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
However, if the BBC report is accurate, then a lot of people are telling porkies. In my experience people with nothing to hide dont tell lies. They dont have to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Attachment 8299
At the moment, it is only one side of the story, Stevie. We all want it to be true, of course, but the BBC have got things wrong in the past, so CO (and D&P) do have the right to put their side of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
I wouldnt be surprised if the SFA/SPL offer some sort of EBT amnesty in that if everybody fizzes up to having done so wont be punished as long as they stop it now and dont do it again. That would get the SFA/SPL and the perps off the hook. Not really fair on those who have abided by the rules but fairness flew out the window a long time ago.
It has to be. That is included in the amount (sorry, the QUANTUM) of HMRC's claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
Reassuring CWG.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm with StevieC on this one. There's no doubt that Ogilvie benefitted from the EBT - he admitted as much himself. Whether the payments are found to be 'legitimate' or not, that deeply compromises his position with the SFA and there is a clear conflict of interest. The best case scenario for him is that he is indebted to a trust with direct links to a member club, that alone must raise questions about his ability to act impartially. He should at the very least have been suspended for the duration of the inquiries into RFC.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
His defence, though, (and I am not siding with him, merely assuming what he would say) is that it is not the SFA who are conducting the investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Thinking about the BBC programme, one issue that emerged that doesn't seem to have been discussed much (unless I've missed it) was Sir David Murray's 'loan' from the EBTs.
Murray has effectively taken £6.3m tax-free out of RFC and disguised it through the EBT vehicle - this from a man who it would seem has put little if any of his own money into the club. I don't see how that can possibly be seen to be a correct use of EBTs. While the players were entitled to assume that their tax liabilities were being dealt with correctly by their employers, the directors are better able to control the use of EBTs and are expected to understand the rules and operate them correctly. I could see HMRC going after SDM and the other directors for tax on their own EBTs if they can't recover it from RFC (IA).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
What if, and I dont think it is, but what if the info the BBC has is wrong? Surely their evidence needs to be tested?
The man that knows for certain if its true or not is Ogilvie and if he is remaining in post on a lie then it reflects very badly on him and, one can hope, this will also have implications for the Yams.
Correct - but as I pointed out previously SFA are appeals body...and going on recent you can be sure (if found guilty) Rangers will appeal...particularly as the sanction could be removal of licenceQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Cav - I may be wrong, but my understanding was that overarching trust covered MIM & Rangers with both companies paying into it and employees of both having individual trusts within that?
I've been throwing this one around in my head, Cav.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Although I have said before that the basic principle is that it's almost always the employer's fault.... hence why RFC are being chased and not the players...... it could be argued that the payments came from the Trust(s), which of course is not the employer.
From the players' perspectives, of course they would see it as "employment income", and they are probably justified in doing so. Could the directors (having a clearer picture of what was happening) be accused of wilful avoidance? That would be an interesting argument. Of course, as was suggested in the programme, they will probably blame it on their advisors.:rolleyes:
But the SFA is closely associated to the SPL and will hear any appeal relating to the investigation. They have also carried out their own investigation into RFC's misdemeanours - CO was rightly kept out of that, but it goes beyond just the investigations. My view is that CO's position is compromised in general by his financial association with RFC, which goes beyond payment for employment whichever way the BTC falls.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If it comes to an appeal, the SFA would at the very least need to be transparent, and either (as Cav says) suspend him, or declare that he has no part in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by down-the-slope
Campbell Ogilvie has himself stated that he received £95,000 from RFC's EBTs. While that may turn out to be completely legitimate, right now there are serious questions being raised and until these are answered his position is IMO compromised.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
The farce that is Rangers rumbles on regardless of how reality impinges upon it. We have D+P's insisting on presenting a CVA, which in all likelihood even they know is unlikely to be accepted. They, D+P's themselves are in a sticky position themselves and it would be a surprise to no one if a significant creditor e.g. HMRC moved to have them removed as administrators. HMRC, even if they don't move to remove D+P from their role, will at some point apply the coup de grace to the present company by not allowing the appeal from Rangers over the EBT's etc. The football authorities whilst no doubt anxious to ingratiate themselves with UEFA by hammering the Huns for their breach of sporting ethics are no doubt bricking themselves over the prospect of their product losing a substantial amount of its revenue from that well known philanthropic body owned by good ol'e Rupe' Murdoch. The admixture is completed by a supporting cast of characters, a script writer for festive entertainment would baulk as being too far fetched to add as pantomime villains. Confused, you will be after the next episode of Rangers!
Was the EBT sheme not Murray Groups as opposed to RFC's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
That would be the porn guy then!?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
:cb