:not worthQuote:
Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY
Printable View
:not worthQuote:
Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion Hibs
It's not as cut and dried as it would appear IMO.
Some further Q&A's in here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-17018226
the tax man has lodged several winding up orders for the hertz recently, i am sure they will do the same to rangers, if they loose the tax case
Correst. There is a real question to be asked here. Scottish clubs which are properly run have been denied European competition essentially by a failed charity case enjoying financial doping by the taxpayer.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_the_angus_hibby
From what I understand Hertz have never topped a million. The one lodged against the Huns is £49m and Criag Whyte has tonight said it could rise to £75m which is a tad differentQuote:
Originally Posted by ggth
On top of that the HMRC made a very public erse of themselves last week with the Redknapp/Mandaric trial. They're unlikely to be to keen to be seen to do the same again
The only bit to focus on in regards the CVA is if the UNsecured creditors agree to the CVA, in essence this is the wholly down to HMRC.
In previous situations with 'Well, Livi and Dundee was HMRC involved up to that level of liability?
In fact read this, better than trying to 2nd guess anything..seems pretty factual but not sure how balanced it is.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...va-nae-chance/
Much as I would love this to be the case, it has next to no chance of happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by EasterRoad4Ever
Whatever Whyte is he is no-one's fool.
Wouldnt be surprised if they have no assets at all barr their playing staff with all the "bricks and mortar assets" held separately for "tax reasons".
A few token numpties will be sold / freed as a gesture of contrition.
No way would Whyte have taken on Inland Revenue gamble without master plan behind it, his advisers would get sued to hell and back if he had.
Rangers will go into Admin
Whyte will buy them at xp in the pound. Inland Revenue will get severely stiffed, Murray and Whyte will walk away relatively unscathed
They will have a share issue which the Rangers supporters will back in their thousands, giving Whyte all the costs back for buying them out of Admin.
He will then either rent them or sell them Ipox and walk away minted, having done you and I over like a kipper and no doubt have acquired some other tangible reward from David Murray for hauling his arse out the fire.
With respect I'd say he was a chancer who has been caught previously and proved unworthy in two courts now.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
Do you believe that the taxman is just going to walk away from this and give a green light for tax evasion on a grand scale, it just doesn't happen and never will do. He's tried it once with HMRC and got caught hence his 7 years disqualification.
RFC own the properties. CW has security for his loan over them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
Sorry if already posted, but:
:rotflmao:
http://i.imgur.com/EWN5B.gif
http://i1232.photobucket.com/albums/.../kjijhijhn.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PbMYI.jpg
Sadly it's too much to hope that they will drag the whinging tims down with them.
However given that Whyte knew that the tax case could go against the Huns, I find it hard to believe that this administration is not part of his cunning plan to avoid having to pay out.
The only item in Chubby's trolley is a ****in lettuce! Who is she trying to kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by frazeHFC
With equal respect to you it is not impossible to be no-one's fool and a chancer, they quite often go hand in hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulSmith
If I read Whyte correctly his 7 year disqualification would mean nothing to him, this is his ticket to the big money game.
No I dont believe the taxman will willingly walk away far from it, but even the taxman cannot get blood from a stone.
Whyte has had a long time to plan this before even committing to purchase Rangers, Do you think he was going to play heads or tails over a tax liability that could stretch to £75m+
I "believe" HMRC will need to agree to a CVA. Meaning it's not a done deal.
That's to go on the half dozen boxes of frozen doner kebabs that going to get ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
Whyte will get paid whatever happens, he has the only secured debt. The issue is what happens to RFC. It's extremely unlikely that HMRC will get the full £50/75m (depending on what reports you read), so the plan is to force HMRC into taking a settlement now rather than get little/nothing in a liquidation. Thankfully, it's extremely unlikely that HMRC will go for such a deal, as it would set a horrible precedent in their practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
Clearly lots of thought and preparation put into this article by the BBC...Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulSmith
"Administrators are then in charge of the company and, while they're in charge, creditors cannot expect to get payments they expected."
Depends on what you believe he personally has to lose (or gain) on the likely scenario that HMRC do not agree to the CVA. Is it not feasible to see him own Ibrox, Murray Park and start up a new co Rangers 2012 and sell it for several millions of pounds to an ex director such as Paul Murray or float the club on the stock exchange, all in exchange for £1 in hard cash that he used to buy from MIM.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
Rangers are re-founded and start debt free agreed and Whyte gets his £££ but the old Rangers are no more, no Europe for 3 years and it would take a lot to convince the other clubs that Rangers should automatically be granted entrance back into the SPL as we know it via first gaining a new SFA licence.
This I would argue would be Whyte's ultimate end game.
Its no a lettuce, its one of the guys gangrene infected he haws!Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
Slightly confused here. What about the £18m he paid to Lloyd's TSB? He would have to sell the properties for more than that to be ahead, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulSmith
Apologies if someone has already called this out, but Rangers going into Administration presents a massive opportunity for the other non Old Firm clubs.
If Administration means they have to re-apply for SPL membership then it's a must that in return for this membership has to come with the following conditions:
Removal of the 11 - 1 voting rule (effectively giving the Old Firm a veto on change)
Re-distribution of TV and commercial income to provide better even spread across all SPL clubs
Might also involve a points deduction penalty for next 3 seasons and certainly make sure that they were no allowed to take a European slot regardless of where they finished in the league - again say for next 3 years
Time for the SPL clubs to grow some balls and take collective advantage
lol, of course. Sorry any monies raised over the initial £18m he used to pay Lloyds would be 'his' with a new co Rangers. :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Real radios first two songs of the hour have been i gotta feeling by black eyed peas then keep the faith by bon jovi. Dj is surely at it!
It doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Mainwaring
Perhaps we should be giving away free rope in the Hibs shop.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S
...okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulSmith
As someone else said... somewhere in the many threads.....a lot hinges on the values of Ibrox and Murray Park.
More than £18m?? Nae idea....
Also did he actually use his own cash to buy the club through Wavetower or did he use the Ticketus money? (this is secured by one of his other companies but if this were to tragically fail as well Ticketus would see £18m doon the swanny?!)Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If Whyte mortgaged the ST for 4 years to raise the money to pay Lloyds (which I think is broadly right but may be entirely wrong), and this money is secured against another of Whytes companies, then am I right in thinking that Rangers will make no money from the sale of ST's for the next 4 years? If this is the case then NewHun Co will effectively have no money from this source for this time period, which even if they start with a clean slate means they're still in the deep keech.
Please feel free to point out where I'm hopelessly confused on this.
The Ticketus money belongs to Rangers, and should have gone to them. If he used that to fund his purchase, then his debt is (depending on the amount) partly or fully wiped out.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulSmith
For their part, Ticketus.... is their debt secured? I thought I read that it was secured against future season ticket sales. If it is, they then have first dibs in an administration. If not, then their debt goes into the pot with everybody else.
Let's hope for full Liquidation then!Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulSmith
Saw this gem on the raingurz forum
I'll be there.
I'll have no ticket (probably), no cash to buy one, and I'll have to travel 3 hours to get there.
But I'll be singing from outside the stadium if I have to, to show my support for this club.
Thats called being a drunk skint jakey, you drunk skint jakey.
GrandmasterSuck from FF forum himself now on stv
So a pre-pack liquidation - shift it all over and start again. Bargaining on the SPL letting them?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
But can he pre-pack?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
No don't think you have - on the basis that the SPL let them come straight back in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
So they can't pre-pack? Shift the assets and start a newco?Quote:
Originally Posted by EasterRoad4Ever
So they come after the newco, post liquidation?Quote:
Originally Posted by EasterRoad4Ever
I think you might be right:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
I don't think you have. He leveraged the buy out and paid a quid. He isn't going to sell the assets he plans to emerge at the other side debt free and with all the assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by sahib
There is absolutely no room for any glee or rejoicing whatsoever. Rangers are about to pull off the biggest con in football.
You are forgetting that he paid £18,000,001.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
And who walks off with Ticketus' money? Do you think he might have leveraged the buy-out using them?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Maybe they don't have the right security?
See my earlier post on this (think it's on this page :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
Pat Nevin interviewed on Newsnight Scotland about Rangers.
Was he being interviewed in the car park at Easter Road?
Does anyone think what Whyte is doing for Rangers Petrie did for Hibs?
BTW, I could not give a toss about Rangers....
:faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by frazeHFC
It's more like Whyte doing for Rangers what Romanov...etc etc....:na na:Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfTortolano
Let's hope so.....Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
At the moment the HMRC "debt" is not even in play is it? It may come into play in the near future but, at the moment, the administration process (and any CVA) will only deal with the debts currently on the books will it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
Thats how I see it... the HMRC money isnt debt yet because it is being contested in the courts as to whether or not they owe it - Rangers say naw, Her Maj says aye.
Going into administration before the case is settled would just mean their current debts surely?
I dunno, its all too confusing to me!
Listening to the Pompey situation - it said they are going to the High Court to apply for administration - I presume RFC need to also apply. I would like to think that it could be refused or HMRC may object or at least have their two pennies worth (or £49m) considered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker
I think this is whytes plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
He can now say to HMRC that as they are now entering into admin, when HMRC win the court case, it's unlikely HMRC will get the full amount.
Rangers will try to make them an offer now for a much reduced amount before the 10 days are up, try and come to an out of court settlement for a fraction of the full amount.
Once they settle out of court for a lesser amount before 10 days, Rangers then pull the plug on the adminastration.
They then have a much discounted HMRC payment and don't have to follow through with the adminastration.
I reckon it all depends on HMRC, they should be acting on behalf of the Public and doing there best to get what they can.
When HMRC win and already knocked back an out of court settlement, Rangers will already be in adminastration and they'll probably not get the full amount due.
Rangers are attempting to blackmail HMRC by saying take the lesser amount now, if you don't, we go ahead with the adminastration and you don't get the full amount when you win anyway.
If HMRC win the case and ask for their money and RFC cant pay, cant the HMRC just call for them to be liquidated? Like they do all the time to HoMFC? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by macca70
The problem with this strategy is that HMRC's hand are tied. They can't go accepting pence in the pound deals without setting a precedent they can't afford to set. It's like trying to persuade a blackjack dealer to twist on 18 on his own hand. He is not allowed to do it. It's the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by macca70
I think a version of pre-pack administration is the route they are likely to take. There are some obstacles, but none seem insurmountable to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
Financially the IP is duty-bound to get the best possible price from Newhun for the assets of Oldhun. That is all subjective, but usefully their accounts value freehold property at a "recoverable amount" of £112m. That would cover pretty much all of their debts, and HMRC would be justified in questioning why that amount isn't recovered by the administrator. Sadly, there are plenty of legitimate answers to that. Newhun however, would still have to find a fair chunk of cash to buy those assets.
On the footballing front Newhun would have neither a UEFA licence nor membership of the SPL (as I understand it the single share is non-transferable) which would mean no European football for the next three years and a requirement for the other clubs to vote for their membership. The UEFA thing could be remedied by Newhun actually being an existing club (as in Airdrie/Clydebank), the SPL membership could see a serious split between clubs and their fans, since I imagine the majority of clubs would vote for, while most fans would almost certainly be against. I could see Celtc fans in particular mounting a campaign, and it's one time I would back them all the way.
With out a doubt. Probably already writing to their board...Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Looks to me like Rangers are doing this purely to force HMRC to reduce their tax bill or get next to hee haw.
So Rangers are trying to cheat the country out of the money it's due and why should they get away with it when others have paid in full, cheating barstewards. :fuming::furious:
Surely any club in big debt could do this then? Is it really as simple as go into administration and they get away with not paying the full tax bill?Quote:
Originally Posted by YehButNo But
Whyte certainly seems to know what he is doing and like mad vlad has pulled the wool over the gers fans eyes and manouvered himself into a situation in where it seems he used their money to buy the club and yet he will be the main beneficiary if they go into administration.It sticks in my throat how anybody has any sympathy for them and hertz and well and dundee before them.They have spent beyond their means for years and now he thinks lets go into admin,write off a league title they werent going to win anyway and them come back with far less debt then no doubt they will invest in the team.So we now have well in 3rd having sacked so many players and staff due to boyle spending so much money and having wiped off £11m debt at a stroke and have come back stronger than ever.Now rangers will look to do the same and no doubt the mad one is looking on with interest the only difference with hertz is that he is the one owed the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by EasterRoad4Ever
Clubs like celtic and ourselves have looked after the pennies and while i dislike both of the infirm equally at least the leasser greens are run properly.The only good thing that may come out of this is hertz not getting the wallace money owed and put them in ever more brown stuff.Feel sorry for the other clubs owed money but surely gate money has to be ring fenced to other clubs as they cant get away with taking in the gate money and not paying utd.As usual the spl will no doubt bend over backwards to help rangers and we will see the worst of scottish football in the next few months.Sad times for scottish football when those that waste the most money still profit and small businessmen get shafted by them.sums up modern life does it not.
It's debatable whether the £50m debt is officially due yet since the tribunal's findings are not known. This administration could be seen as an attempt to pre-empt the debt, in which case it would not fall under the administrator's jurisdiction and a pre-pack as suggested above would potentially avoid it completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve20
If this is the case, expect a robust response from HMRC.
The sale agreement between Murray and Whyte has been published on the rangers tax case website.
THis is the bit that confuses me, Cav. If the pre-pack takes place before the HMRC debt is established, would HMRC challenge it (or the coming-out of it) in Court? Is that what happened at Portsmouth, the first time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Not really as it critically depends upon who has the debt to the (insolvent) company and what security the creditor(s) hold in respect of that debt and that in relation to the priority of theirs and other creditors' debts in relation to their respective debts! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve20
On the face of it, in this case, it looks like the principal (first priority) debt due here is due to the owner or one (or more) of his companies and that may be why it appears that administration will enable the club assets to be retained within a new vehicle owned by the current owner with the pre administration liabilities being left in the old vehicle where they arose and for RFC (under the new vehicle) to "continue" to operate in the SPL (assuming they get the dispensations that have been highlighted in this and other threads as if it is a right). :agree:
I think HMRC can oppose the granting of an administration order - pretty sure they tried but failed with Pompey and they also unsuccessfully opposed the appointment of the specific IP who eventually acted. I would imagine they have stronger grounds this time, given the high profile the case has received and the reported amount of the contested debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I might be wrong, and my source for this is the excellent rangerstaxcase.com, but the c£50m debt to HMRC has already been assessed and established. They have served a demand for that amount - being tax due and interest. The First Tier Tribunal is Rangers' first attempt to appeal that demand on the basis that the scheme is legitimate within the legislation that applied at the time. The FTT will then rule on that appeal and potentially assess a further penalty on top of the c£50m - which is where, I think, Craig Whyte gets the potential total liability of £75m.
For all intents and purposes, HMRC will strongly argue that this can be taken into account when Rangers are trying to get a CVA agreed and their standard policy is not to agree. They might even be in a position to object to administration and, in fact, could potentially persuade a court to proceed straight to liquidation. In that circumstance, Rangers' SPL membership could effectively be put up for sale by the IP, which is where a Newco Huns may come into the picture, the only problem being that they wouldn't necessarily have a stadium to play in!
If there is any hint that HMRC could be potentially be excluded from the process, then I would expect a protracted legal battle to take place. This would not provide the certainty that Whyte is clearly pleading for and I wouldn't expect HMRC or the courts to take much notice of the 31st March deadline to have their financial affairs in order.
Not by any means an expert, but if Whyte is pre-empting the tax bill by trying to shield whatever assets Rangers have (and they are surely considerable - Ibrox and Murray Park not least), then surely HMRC have a case to put to Court that the administration is purely a ploy to prevent the collection of tax due.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newry Hibs
It seems that Whyte has paid £1 for the club and may yet walk away with £Ms as secured creditor, while depriving the public purse of its due (as well as other smaller creditors having to accept either nothing or at best peanuts). Meanwhile New Gers Ltd gets resurrected under new ownership with assets mostly intact and debt free to carry on as if nothing happened.
What a bunch of shysters if that is what transpires!
Any new club should be relegated to the juniors, with a 50 point handicap for the next 10 seasons!!!! :greengrin
If you're right (and I think you probably are) that strengthens HMRC's case immeasurably but RFC may be hanging on to the argument that the debt is still in dispute (hence the appeal).Quote:
Originally Posted by Smidge
Re the stadium, if Newhun can afford to pay more than a developer then they will get it. The £112m valuation is for current use and the market of large Glasgow-based football clubs in need of a stadium is not huge. I do wonder if Whyte really is a front man and his mission was to get rid of the debt and investigation problems before the real buyer steps up to save the day....
I didn't think I'd ever say this, but I'd love HMRC to win their case.
I like how they are sayig its Scottish Football in Crisis on the Radio when 11 out of the 12 top flight clubs fans are pissing themselves :greengrin
Thats the stumbling block. The main stand at Ibrox is a registered building therefore any developer or would be buyer would need include a stand in their developmentQuote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Is it the entire stand or just the front of it that is listed?Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBean
I think it's just the stand, in which case, any developer would be having a close look at what Arsenal did at Highbury :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Of course, the demand for deluxe apartments is a little bit higher in North London than Govan....
It's a stumbling block for a developer because they would have to incorporate the building into any proposed development. That would reduce the amount they would be willing to pay, which is actually beneficial to a buyer proposing to use the place as a football stadium since the offer they have to beat becomes lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBean
how the **** can a business take on a new employee (daniel cousin) and pay him between 5-7K/week, then apply for administration a couple of days later :confused: surely a director(or whoever sanctioned said purchase) has to be held accountable for this ? or do the huns not have any directors left nowadays due to being booted out by the crooked dwarf
:agree::thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatecrasher
Derek Johnstone just on SSN, decent hun to be honest.
He agreed that rangers cheated their way to glory and that all SPL clubs would say rangers are getting what they deserved!
There were suggestions in the Herald today along the lines of "Scottish Football needs Rangers" and hence they (or a Pheonix) would be readmitted to the SPL after being liquidated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
This would be a very dangerous course of action for SPL clubs to take as the resentment caused within the support could cause mass boycotts. It will be bad enough if they are readmitted to the SFL but if they come straight back there would be open warfare and the SPL would lose what remains of its credibility.
The fiasco of the failed attempt to go back to a 10-team SPL caused enough bad feeling. This would top that by far. The clubs need to be reminded of this forcefully.
He gave a very balanced assessment of things as he saw it. Surprised me to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnum Hibee
The developers of the old Arsenal Stadium managed just fine! :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by MacBean
http://www.highburysquare.com/
After the dust has settled on this a little bit and the initial euphoria of the situation has died down, its hard to believe that Whyte hasn't come into this with his eyes wide open.
Unfortunately, I would imagine he has as Baldrick of Blackadder fame was fond of saying "A cunning plan", I wouldnae be surprised to see him walk away from this with a right few quid after tidying up the mess and selling on to whoever he has been acting as a frontman for.
Whyte is in the business of making a profit from basket case firms. He won't be a loser and in the long term Rangers won't be either. The rest of us will pick up the bill for this mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY
That is awesome!!! :top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by GloryGlory
They do believe this would shield them from the HMRC demand.
It's a real fault in the whole system where they can come out the other end and spend money again that is due to the tax payer.
The whole of the UK went a bit mental when a bank Chief Exec got offered less than a million for doing what he was asked to do. Will there be a similar amount of time spent on something far more damaging to the tax payer?
Surely people are waking up to the fact that ALL sectors of big business, banking, politics, establishment and indeed football are morally bankrupt. Their efforts and money are all safeguarded by dodges and loopholes cleverly created over the years and made perfectly legal. With the aid of their fellow gaurdians of corruption the media and the slavish ignorant masses Rangers' phoenix like rise from tha ashes will be hailed as good business by whichever 'white knight' turns up to join the gravy train.Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
Cynical, moi?:greengrin
Indeed it is, unfortunately I cant see the same business opportunity for Ibrox. I'm sure Phil Spencer could try calling it 'an up and coming area' but no building developer is going to fall for it in the current economic climate. Which, as has already been stated means that the phoenix company/new investor could pick it up for less than the value that it is currently claimed. In a way it means that HMRC could end up not getting all the money due, and the phoenix company pays less in total terms than it would if it didnt go down this route. They will still be massively out of pocket, but not to the extent of £50-75M that they could be facing now. I wouldn't be surprised if Whyte is not part of the phoenix company, he will have taken his profit from the Ticketus deal, minus the money paid the Lloyds and moved on to another opporchancity!Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBean
Breaking News....................................seemingly
HMRC moves to put Rangers into administration
HM Revenue and Customs have lodged an application to put Rangers into administration.The club had lodged a notice of intent to appoint an administrator.
However, on Tuesday HMRC lodged an order with the Court of Session in Edinburgh calling for the court to appoint an administrator.
It will be heard before a judge at midday and HMRC are due to make a statement afterwards.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-cen...dministration/
Quote:
Originally Posted by YehButNo But
So... this makes what difference?
Not sure what difference if any this makes ?Quote:
Originally Posted by YehButNo But
Not sure either but I would imagine it would benefit HMRC rather than Rangers. :dunno:
I am guessing that if they put themselves in admin, they can organise and pick an administrator (who might be kinder?)Quote:
Originally Posted by YehButNo But
By HMRC forcing them into it then it is court appointed Admin?
Has to be a bad thing for the Hun, taken out of their hands now. HMRC running the show.Quote:
Originally Posted by YehButNo But
:greengrin
I think it means that an administrator would be appointed by the court instead of one of craig whytes choosing.Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
An administrator should be independent. Dont really know. I see Whyte was talking about appointing a restructuring firm.Quote:
Originally Posted by YehButNo But
I'd think if HMRC had their choice they would be looking for sales of anything that could be sold first and foremost.
Craig Whyte was going to appoint Duff and Phelps, the same firm that advised Whyte on the takeover. I would guess they would have been much more kindly disposed to Whyte and Rangers than a court appointed administrator will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibby Hippy
And the Huns' site would have a marketing advantage over Highbury in that it has historically had "Castle" in its name.Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryGlory
Would a concierge really be necessary in Govan? :hmmm:
Where's Caversham when you need him?! :greengrin
Like me, he is probably waiting for HMRC's statement after the hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker
IMO, this is about control of the process.
Remember that RFC have filed notice of their INTENT to go into administration. It appears that HMRC are trying to make it happen NOW.
It will be clearer later today. Maybe:greengrin
Apologies if already posted, but this will swing it the huns' way for sure:
http://www.change.org/petitions/her-...-the-clubs-ebt
A bloggers view on Administration and CVA http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...va-nae-chance/
Cool, cheers CWG. Am I right in saying that by being forced into admin they cant pick their own? I got the feeling from RFC speech that is what they intended?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Yesterday and today have been an education!
A Hun begging letter. Aye, that'll do it all right!Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
Yeah... the Court will appoint someone. Chances are HMRC have already identified them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker
This sounds good :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Court 7 at court of session in edinburgh at 12 bells will decide if Rangers exist or put into liquidation.
That's how serious I see this now.
Basically HMRC are trying to put them in administration before Craig Whyte is able to. That being the case if administrators other than those appointed by Whyte are appointed, his pre-packed administration plan could be screwed. The process will be more transparent and would likely result in the taxpayer re-couping as much as is possible.
Looks like HMRC is going to skull-***** them into oblivion. :cb mmmm yes.
I think this is a clear sign from HMRC to Craig Whyte that they believe they hold all the aces here and won't be dicked around. If CW thought yesterday's move was a good tactical ploy to bring HMRC to the negotiating table, he is clearly wrong. The gamble that Rangers' self-appointment of an administrator is more likely to lead to a phoenix club could be CW's biggest mistake yet. A court-appointed administrator is far more likely to judge that liquidation is the best means by which the return to creditors and shareholders can be maximised.
:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
:top marks
Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
i imagine craig whyte will have already planned for both scenarios, i hope this little fly gets a serious swatting :agree: but i'm still convinced he knows exactly what he's doing