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
Printable View
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!
Shirley the concept of sporting integrity (copyright 'tacheman :not worth) has gained sufficient hold now that this financial consideration would not prove decisive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
You've missed out an asteriks there. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Because it makes life a lot easier for Doncaster! Seriously there's no reason. Once the CVA fails, it's not completely impossible that the BKs and the Green brigade could both attempt to start Hun New Clubs. That would be an entertaining twist. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Alf R
If the SFA/SPL attempt to get away with a transfer of share to a New Club then I can't see how they can possibly do anything other than transfer any penalties with them but then again we are deep in Alice in Wonderland territory already so who knows?
OK, IC. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
And this thread will probably triple it's post count! LolQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
GTF :na na:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
That would be rather splendid! We could have one for the bigots and the other for the glory hunters. But it might be unfair on the 20,000 who proudly count themselves as both - which way would they split?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I think that opinion in the SPL has moved dramatically against Rangers following them taking the SFA to the Court of Session. I do not think we have heard the last of this issue from FIFA. If a more 'lenient' penalty is dolled out, I can see a Sion situation arising and Scottish Clubs being banned form Europe and Scotland kicked out of World Cup qualification.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I don't expect FIFA to see any difference between a Newco and the Oldco in these issues. If a Rangers Newco comes into the SPL via a share transfer and avoids the punishment they will take the same action.
It would really be fun if multiple Newcos for Rangers were set up by the Blue Knights, the Green Knights and the Knights who say Ng. This will be hilarious if they are all competing for the vacancy in SFL3!
Makes sense. Plenty of panned-in windaes after Thursday perhaps. More after the SFA tribunal resits.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Thanks for the link. I rubbed my palms with garlic before reading it to ward off evil spirits...
Actually it is possibly the most intelligent article I have ever read by a Hun. You can see even back in 2009 when it was written that th cracks were beginning to show. It says clearly that all Rangers retail activities were taken over by JJB so I assume then that the clubstore at Greyskull is also run by JJB even if it is still branded as purely Rangers, although as I never go there I can't confirm or deny that. It answers the question as to how the clubstore staff are getting paid anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I remember about seven years ago at the height of the UVF / LVF fueding over in the Six Counties and I was cutting through the back streets of Belfast heading for the ferry (in the days when it was an easy walking distance) and I could hear the opposing Loyalist factions shooting at each other in the north of the city. I can just imagine something similar happening in Govan (hopefully minus the guns) if two separate Newco Hun teams were formed. It would not be any more far fetched than what has happened already :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens