You have just had my two fingers again, ya cheeky get.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Think Warren Beatty, or Jack Nicholson. They're my type of roles.:cool2:
Printable View
You have just had my two fingers again, ya cheeky get.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Think Warren Beatty, or Jack Nicholson. They're my type of roles.:cool2:
I don't believe it for one moment. Delusion I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
How would a CVA work without a secured creditor?
There is next to nothing there apart from the balance of the Ticketus cash and the real estate. Would the Treasury accept 1 pence in the pound on a £75 million debt?
The club, if it survived would have no ground, or would have to rent Ibrox, and most of its season ticket money would be in hoc to Ticketus for three to four years.
They would have no access to Europe for at least a year. What support would they get if they put out a team they could afford to pay?
The whole thing will not work without a full liquidation to really clear the debts and get rid of the Ticketus obligation.
Understood. Jack N has a post-graduate degree in staring eyes.:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Warren Beatty - nah - he's me!:greengrin
(ps - it's git!)
A couple of points:-Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
1. it's "only" £15m that HMRC are in for just now. The BTC, not being settled yet, wouldn't form part of the debt.
2. the real estate wouldn't necessarily be relevant, I don't think. The creditors would be entitled to say "we'll take x% of whatever liquid assets you have, and you can stay at Ibrox" just to get something, and to ensure a continuing future relationship. I reckon they'd be daft to do that.... as you say, there would be more for them in a liquidation.
I am sure it will hurt them waaaaaayyyy more than it will you :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If they do this for Rangers, then the stench of corruption will be overpowering. I'm not sure that there won't be an enormous backlash, particularly amongst English taxpayers.Quote:
Originally Posted by HibeeSince85
Can't quite make my mind up if he has to be a villain or a victim at the end of the movie. I think a villain but the real bad guys in my movie would be the former club owner wishing to off-load an impossible debt and whoever is eventually exposed as the Mr Kingpin behind the scheme. Any resemblance to any non fictional characters would of course be purely coincidental and in no way intended to reflect real life:hi:.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
IMO the decision by the authorities tae allow this game tae go ahead as normal is complete insanity. It`s one thing tae have Killie, ICT et al giving it tae them tight, but Smeltc singing taxman jingles and waving scrawled banners ( most likely mis-spelled ) while doin that nauseating backs tae the pitch pish would be a recipe for utter mayhem. It`ll be chaos.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverhibee
It should be played behind closed doors although the TV company that runs our game would never allow that.:tsk tsk:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindsummit
Could it be that a rash of English clubs are on the brink of following suit?
Has Nick Leeson got an equity card? Ideal candidate. Or maybe Fred Goodwin though the role might be small beer to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That's Mike Myers, for sure...Quote:
Originally Posted by CentreLine
Oh, you HAVE to have a sex scene. That Swedish burd of Craigie's has to get her kit off.
Think it was yesterday's Sun (Bill Leckie?) that took the same view.Quote:
Originally Posted by RossHibs
I dunno though... could be a great place to chuck a dirty bomb.
surely it was Rangers who got f'%ked in the film..............Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
You can take as much artistic licence as you want with soft porn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RossHibs
lets change the teams here, hertz v hibs at the pink palace, hertz in the same predicament as the sons of william, you would want the hibs fans denied the chance possibly seeing us winning the league in this game, yes ??
It's this type of thinking that is killing scottish football. They're not special, they don't deserve allowances to be made. Treat it like any other fixture and if they choose to riot then nail the b******s. Pretending they matter more than the rest of us and treating them differently has contributed to the current situation where they think that they are better than the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by RossHibs
Finding the complexities of the Hun predicament more amusing by the day. SKY TV will be CREAMING themselves over the thought of an OF match at the mo. Note to UEFA, SFA and Salmon if it goes ahead - think there might be a bit of sectarianism. bigotry at this match :green grinQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibs Class
Either way, if t goes ahead as planned - excellent entertainment for all. If it doesn't go ahead because the Huns have collapse.... that's just as good.
It's true that the debt is currently £15 million. But what would be the point of a CVA now with the Big Tax Case near to a decision and the Wee Tax Case still in the pipeline? The club would emerge from administration to be hit by another £55 million tax bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
As for letting Rangers keep Ibrox, that would be right! ore likely that Murray Park would be sold to a housebuilder in the hope that planning permission could be extracted and Ibrox would be sold either for development or more likely to rent it back to Rangers.
The mad rush to sell by D&P seems very strange, Who will buy a club with that sort of tax bill on the horizon?
Why not wait until the tax tribunal reports? Obviously the cash will run out prior to that.
I might have missed this....
With Dunfermline getting paid, and punishment if Dundee Utd don't get paid, are Hearts likely to get paid their money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
Hearts are not due any money at this time.
They are due an installment for Wallace in the Summer however.
Hearts are not owed anything until end of season which is next installment of Wallace transfer.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Exactly :agree: Why on Earth would anyone even pay £1 for the Huns at the moment ? Obvious thing is to wait until after the tax case and see what's what. Problem the Admins have is that they've no money left to keep the business going to summer unless players basically agree to play for nothing. Even then, the tax case would kill them off.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Smelling like ... the Admins see this as a gravy train until it final runs off the rails :greengrin
Accountants artificially pushing fees up? Wash your mouth out, boy!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Onion
:greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mon_the_cabbage
Aha. By which point there won't be a RFC. :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Col2
However, if RFC are liquidated, Hearts would put in a claim for everything they are owed... so they may get something, earlier than they would otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Yep about 5p in the Pound. I can hear Mad Vlad ****** Mafia ***** Monkeys ****** everybody :greengrin:greengrin:greengrin:greengrin
After seeing the way he minced out of his lawyers in London the other week as he was getting ambushed by reporters the only person I can think of that could possibly do it would have been dick emery :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by CentreLine
Quote:
Originally Posted by CentreLine
A porn expert as well as accountancy. Is there no end to your talents ?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Except you have to consider the poor wives that will get battered when the animals return home. That's what concerns the Police more than the relatively minor violence that tends to happen in and around the match.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs Class
That escaped Fat Eck as well when he introduced that ridiculous legislation.
As we head towards page 100, is this where I come clean and tell everyone that I was struck off 20 years ago for raiding a client's account? That I spent 5 years inside, where I met a young man from Motherwell, a man eager to learn all that I had to teach him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
After intensive study, he was ready to go out in the world. I gave him my favourite calculator, and a signed photo of Charles Ponzi, and said "treasure them, young Craig."
That was a long time ago, of course. I often wonder what became of him.
These days, I have to eke out a living as a fluffer for Ron Jeremy.
Sorry but you're all wrong. Only one man could possibly play wee Craigie in the film...Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
......Marty Feldman !
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieFitbaTeam
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0tZrIiQyTZ...eldman_512.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaSaikouKujabi
This is old news Mr, now wrapping the suppers down Govan :greengrin
So as the 100 page approaches the utterly predictable Rangers agenda becomes clearer...............
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...es-shares.html
Ever get the feeling you've been swindled!
:top marks:top marks:top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Steven Whittaker and Steven Naismith agree Rangers wage cuts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17308715
Without wanting to interfere with the main point of this thread - ie who plays Craig Whyte in the porn version of the saga - the only reason I can see for HMRC/Treasury to go down the CVA route would be to keep them alive long enough to kill them off with the BTC. If they are liquidated now - there's surely a risk they don't come back in time to pay the £75m. Take £15k now to get £75m later. Or take £15m now and get nothing later.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Incidently, Danny Alexander is a Rangers supporter - but I don't think with the debt he is responsible for (£1 trillion) I think that is £1,000,000,000,000 - he's looking for every 50p down the back of the sofa.
Boggles the mind that Rangers can free themselves from the ticketus deal but that money has been used to pay off their debt. Theft pure and simple.
This saga moves on faster than Concorde and always raises more and more questions. Are all players now agreed to cut pay? Will there still be redundencies Friday? Even with an agreement, how long will those top players remain at a Rangers without a new buyer?Quote:
Originally Posted by PaSaikouKujabi
Let's just hope that that's not where the concord similarities end :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
I think how a CVA works normally with HMRC is that they reject it, and then reject a revised one, and then etc etc. That way, the delay you mention would still work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal Hibby
The problem, as I see it, with "agreeing" one is that the company (with minimal debt) could then be sold on to a new owner before the BTC verdict came in. HMRC would then get stiffed twice.
I have read the article you posted, and am not seeing that Rangers are freeing themselves from the Ticketus deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Any purchaser would want guarantees that there is nothing due to Ticketus from ST sales. The admins can't give any such guarantee; they can only give their opinion. The purchaser would also want to get their own legal advice. Again, that could only be an opinion.
Ticketus, of course, will have their own opinion. To paraphrase Super Ally, they won't walk away.
So, there are two scenarios in this:-
1. the Knights ask the admins for the guarantees I mentioned. The admins don't give them that. The Knights walk away.
2. the Knights decide to go ahead anyway. Ticketus lay claim to what they see as their cash. Cue Court battles for the next few years.
There is a potential third scenario, which I mentioned ages ago. The takeover goes ahead, and then nobody buys a ST. That way, Ticketus would be due nothing.... and they might then have a claim against CW. However, such a scenario would require orchestration of the entire RFC support in a way that Ticketus would see as a deliberate (and fraudulent) ploy to wriggle out of their original debt. They would probably still sue RFC.
Turning to the "second contracts", there was an interesting article in the Evening Times last night. Part of it read:-
Tax experts have already said Rangers’ defence will be that EBTs are non-contractual and are discretionary and would therefore not be required to be disclosed to the governing bodies, in the same way that no paperwork from any other bonus payments have to be passed on to Hampden.
Sources close to Sir David Murray claim that he will have his say on Adam’s allegations once Rangers administration process progresses further.
But already the statements have been seriously questioned as EBTs didn’t come into play at Rangers until the year 2000 and their use has never been denied.
Every EBT payment made is documented in the club’s annual figures for each year they ran, signed off by the club’s auditors Grant Thornton.
Albertz and Laurdup have both confirmed to SportTimes they worked with ONE contract, and one contract only, when they played in Scotland.
A few points:-
1. does anyone know if that is true about bonuses, that they don't need to be registered with the SFA? I would have thought that a bonus scheme would form an integral part of a contract.
2. that's bulldust about every payment being documented in the annual accounts. The most we would get would be a total figure.
3. the ET mentions that Mr. Adam is 86. They don't mention Albertz and Laudrup's ages. Smearing the senile auld git?? :rolleyes:
4. it doesn't mention the allegations of the payments coming from the holding company.
I find it truly astonishing and digraceful that with the complete mess and financial ruin Rangers find themselves - they will continue to the end of the season with the second best squad of players in the league. Hunbelievable.:grr:
Who gets to play that ugly man-she (or was it she-man) gers fan with the mullet in on if the videos walking alongside Whyte when he took over the club? Limahl?Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Things could be worse. One could have the third best squad of players in the League, and end up in the bottom half of the table, with a £40m debt. :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by SkintHibby
Mad Vlad yes he probably is. Has he made mistakes. . Yes plenty. . Is he irrational. . Undoubtedly:. . Has he been right about corruption within the establishment and unfair bias towards the old firm well it certainly appears so. As for his media monkeys well the fawning over the poor old Gers by many worried their gravy train has stopped begging us to have sympathy and welcome them back into the fold shows clearly the media have loyalties to the big ugly two. I've yet to speak to a non old firm fan who wants rangers to jump back into SPL yet the media have already started their campaign to try make us believe scottish football needs rangers. Anyway I digress I believe Hearts or more specifically Vlad will be recompensed when. . Hopefuly. . Or if. . Rangers go to the wall by the Spl for the full value of outstanding money when it's dueQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruno
Why would the SPL recompense Hearts for a debt that's due by Rangers?
:wtf:
100 pages about the Hun-dreaded Huns
Talk in the media of player and HMRC deals in the pipeline.....well, well, well.......the Rangers may slither back towards normality unscathed.....hope you all cite Rangers as a stated case when your business struggles to make ends meet regards your tax and PAYE. If this is true re HMRC then they need to ditch Hector's pinstripe and bowler, and just have him with the old tennis ball in the mouth, positioned bent over a table.
... the hundredth being kicked off by a classic lesson in Yamanomics. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
It's also misleading in implying that the payments to players are documented. The accounts show payments into the trust. The trust itself is a separate accounting entity and being offshore, the amounts paid to players from the trust can't easily be ascertained.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Good spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
The more I read the ET article, the more it seemed like a PR piece for Rangers. Wheeling out two ex-heroes , emphasising the age of the bad man who's telling stories, quoting a "tax specialist" ... how come these guys are rarely named?
Talking of specialists, the one who's become a regular talking head up here (you probably don't see him where you are) is Steve Morrow from Stirling University. A football fan, and an academic, but who really knows his stuff when it comes to the business angles on fitba. I have worked with him in the past, and he's a decent guy as well. Always worth listening to.
With Whittaker and Naismith accepting 75% pay cuts, the impression being given on FF is that they have turned the corner and that everything is going to be hunky dory.
The BBC are reporting that an appeal will be made to the SFA to get them into Europe next season. "Rangers' administrator has admitted there was "no realistic prospect" of the club meeting the deadline but hoped to appeal to the Scottish Football Association, which uses Uefa rules to determine whether licences are issued."
I hope that the perceived upturn in their fortunes isn't the start of a universal campaign to get them back on an even keel without the pain and suffering we all think they deserve and assumed was just round the corner.
Interesting that the Administrators seem to think that there is a good chance that the Club can get out of the Ticketus situation. Could this be because CW signed the contract before he owned Rangers and is not therefore legally binding ?
HMRC are willing to accept 10p in the £ (sanctioned at the Treasury level) IF Craig Whyte is given the boot.
According to an article in The Sun this morning.
And how are they going to do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
Yet more wishful thinking from "the people" who were talking about "billionaires", "wealth off the chart" and "warchests".
Thats an odd deal for the HMRC to make. Next will Joe Public be allowed to pay 10p in the pound of what he owes if 10 HMRC staff can have a go on his wife?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
:agree: That mention of the accounts showing EBT payments looks deliberately misleading to me - particularly if they've been talking to 'tax experts'. Likewise they have 'tax experts' telling us what can and can't be disclosed to the governing bodies - they have no reason to know any more about that than the rest of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
or maybe they'll offer a 50% reduction for folk who change thier surname to HMRC#1.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
Are they not just regurgitating the Telegraph story from yesterday?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
I'm not promoting anything - merely sharing the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
I guess 10p in the pound is better than 100% of nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by easty
I didn't read the story in the telegraph yesterday, so I don't know - maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That may be the stance they are taking. But, the facts are that RFC have had the money. They are therefore due to pay it back to someone, whether that is Ticketus or CW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
If it's CW, then his security comes back into play. But the smarter journalists are saying that the admins have decided his security is worthless in that he isn't owed a bolt.
An old boss of mine used to talk about "playing French cricket"... in other words, batting away problems in any way you could. I think there's perhaps a lot of this going on just now.
Shirley Bruno's vButtons should read "-£30m+"? :devil:
If the company goes into liquidation, they will probably get a lot more than 10p.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
On the other side of things, liquidaton might mean the closing off of future tax revenues from RFC. Agreeing to a CVA now would keep that stream open.
You're a clever guy:agree:, is this 10p in the £ likely to happen?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Mcgregor agrees to 75% cut
It is in the short term of course. But it opens the door for any Tom, Dick or Harry (Redknapp :devil:) to offer to pay the same thing in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
This whole saga is so fascinating, and there are so many variables, that one can never say never.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkintHibby
However, it is HMRC's policy (to date) not to agree to CVA's, which is what this "dividend" is about. If they do agree to it, it will represent an enormous shift in their stance, and will have major repercussions, not just for football clubs but all businesses. Basically, it will enable struggling businesses to say "let's go into administration, agree a deal with the taxman, and start again".
I just can't see HMRC doing that for what is a "mere" £15m.
It is now becoming pretty obvious that Rangers fate is now being decided from the highest level possible. I don't believe there will be any liquidation.
Why have HMRC been so quiet over the last near four weeks, while the administrators have (seemingly) stumbled around like a blind man in the dark?
You would have expected some kind of, ' will you just get a move on please, do your job and give us the money. Normal rules obvious don't apply here.
Here is my take on the end game.
1. Rangers FC will take their place in the SPL, perhaps with a ten point penalty for the next two seasons.
2. The Ticketus deal will be declared void.
3. Craig Whyte will be left with nothing. Rangers will still own Ibrox and MP.
4. The big tax case will be withdrawn on a hitherto unseen technicality.
5. The CVA will be agreed in the next few days - early enough for the accounts to be completed and the Huns to play in Europe.
6. Sir David Murray and the double contract fiasco will be found unproven.
7. Rangers will finish second in next seasons SPL - twenty five points ahead of the third placed club.
8. SPL crowds will be down by a further 20% due to the disappearance of sickened fans.
:titanic:
In a slight deviation (way hey), does anyone know anything about the gentleman named as Arsenal's retail director in this piece?
http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-arc...line-boot-room
He was at RFC in a similar role for a few years in the SDM years.
Isn't French Cricket where someone stands on a box with a bat and everyone else is in a circle around the box. it means that fast balls are coming at the batsman from every angle. ( we used to play it in the Scouts )Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Seems like an excellent analogy. ( the game, not the Scouts ).
If I'm being honest, i find this whole thing a joke. If this was any other club players would not get the chance to sit down and talk over pay cuts etc.. They would be punted. Look at Motherwell, Dundee and Livvi. Seems the Administrators have bent over backwards for Rangers and i also think they are delaying lot's of issues until a proper buyer is found. I'm sick to death of the old firm and if they come out this and nothing is done about it then Scottish football can GTF.
A real chance to chance the face of Scottish football but as usual I think all the clubs will bottle it. I just wish Rangers would close down now. Then they can apply for the 3rd Division. Anything else is just a shambles. :furious:
Yup, that's the one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
I think the modern term is fire-fighting.
But fire-fighting doesn't run the risk of getting a vindictive chuck in the chuckies.
Only the 10 SPL chairmen growing a collective pair and bringing about change can save us from the horror above. COME ON ROD ET AL!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrebus
There is no need for HMRC to say or do anything. Indeed, they can't actually "do" anything; that's one of the protections that administration provides.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrebus
They are sitting on a £15m debt. As each day passes, they are closer to a potential further £49m. Why should they do anything?
That said, some reports have them in talks with D&P. Personally, I hope those reports aren't true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TQM
TQM, I'm pretty sure that it won't make a blind bit of difference what the SPL chairman do.
We're stuck with the *******s.
But believe me, I want to be wrong.
:brickwall
I have a feeling that this could be Rod's finest hour. There is a growing rage bubbling beneath that Tache.Quote:
Originally Posted by TQM
If rangers come out of this whole thing with very little damage then i reckon a lot of people might just give up on scottish football. They should be made an examlple of or it will give the green light to every other club to rip off the taxman and spend well outwith there limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
This is what worries me.
I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but.............,
:spider:
Rangers are still heading for liquidation because no one will buy a club with the level of debt they have and although The Sun is claiming HMRC might do a deal over the "big tax case", there is nothing to confirm this.
I have a vision of a statue of Rod, not just outside ER, not just outside every football ground in the country, but also right in front of the massive new Tesco on Edmiston Drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
:hibees
And a special day in March will henceforth be named 'Tache Day'. Football fans around the country will congregate around their local statue and bow, just like that, proclaiming 'Hail the Tache'.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm close to tears at the mere thought.
I wish you were wrong as well but is clear that they will pay back a relative pittance of the many millions they stole from the taxman. With the possibility of liquidation now out of the equation, their position in the duopoly in the SPL will be consolidated in the near future ( in fact the meeting of the SPL clubs is hardly worth taking place ). Is the party over?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrebus
Whittaker, Naismith and McGregor have all agreed to take a 75% wage cut...
Must surely be off their rockers?
:crazy:
Well that's a jolly post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
It is NOT clear that they will pay back a pittance.
Liquidation is NOT out of the equation unless I've missed something.
The SPL10 meeting is worth taking place.
No need to quite put yourself on suicide watch yet...
Missed that one.... where did you get it from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Yes, how they'll struggle by on a mere £5K+ a week is almost enough to make me weep for their sacrifice. Dont people know their kids need new shoes? We should really have a whip round for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by HIBERNIAN-0762
I thought that the big tax case was effectively a test case that the HMRC want to win as there is then significant revenue they can go after with English clubs. On that basis I would not have thought they would be in any position to be negotiating a deal on the big taxcase until they have either won or lost?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve20
And only for about 3 months until they either get a new club or normal business is resumed.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoCarpets
Correct. It was The Sun wot said it. Ignore it. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by GreenPJ
Taking the "test case" scenario a bit further, I did read that the RFC judgement, when it comes, is not necessarily to be relied on for future cases involving football clubs. That is because it is a "First Tier" Tribunal, and apparently that doesn't have any clout in setting precedents. However, if it goes further up the chain, perhaps through appeal, those Courts higher up will be setting precedent.
That said, the verdict in RFC's case will certainly help to shape HMRC's approach in those other cases.
But they will presumably get a second bite for the £50-55 million if the tax disputes go in favour of HMRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
So taking all this into account Whyte started with a debt at Rangers of £75m give it take.
He creates a Phoenix company (wavetower) to get £24m from Ticketus on basis of future sales to wipe out bank debt.
Rangers Fc no longer owe lloyds, the ticketus deal is with Wavetower and now not valid.
£64m worth of tax due becomes £6.4m.
Rangers sell 40k STs in May, have insignificant debt, start next season in spl with no penalties and become the richest club in Scotland overnight.
Sporting integrity, aye right. I'm out of this nonsense if this comes to pass.
See, that's my big worry.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
If HMRC agree to a CVA on the £15m, it means that a buyer can take the club over, through his/her company, with a much-reduced debt. That leaves the BTC in RFC(the old company). Even if that went against RFC, there would be nothing in that company to pay it with.
No liking this idea one bit.
It's not just about sporting integrity for me, Paul. It's about moral integrity, but more than that it's sending out a message to UKplc that they can do what they want with their tax debts.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulSmith
Surely if they get liquidised (http://joecartoon.org/?p=37) then newco will have to pay tax? Either way, whatever company comes out of it will still be raking in enough money for the tax man to be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
.....and within two years he'll Lord Murray, for services to football.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrebus
That is correct if there is a newco after liquidation. It is likely that there would be, but it's not certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty