Printable View
If they owe that much to the police and ambulance services then how the hell are they still allowed to hold games at ibrox, surely the strayhclyde force should be refusing to police games until they are paid, can't see this happening anywhere else or in any other sector, it stinks
Oh, you bad person. :rotflmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
:agree: what's for sure is that every penny anyone spends from now on RFC is dead money. No chance of winning the SPL, no chance of getting into Europe. Suppose they get their weekly opportunity to sign their bigoted songs without any chance of the authorities clamping down :green grinQuote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish
Will enjoy dancing on their grave :thumbsup:
:agree: over the next few days, this and many more questions will be asked about RFC still being in business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4
Nothing to do with the £400 an hour rate the Admins are getting, like :greengrin
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
That report is the best thing I have ever read :aok:
This is my favourite bit :
The Joint Administrators‟ agents, Lambert Smith, were appointed to provide an indicative valuation of Ibrox Stadium on an existing use and alternative use basis.
:lolrangers:
The end is nigh :thumbsup:
Like Onion, my thoughts on hearing this was how I want to dance of the filthy badstars' grave! We are the corpses! :faf:
£135m !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who the **** is going to buy them.?
That instruction to the valuing agents is completely normal - nothing to see here!:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Nobody in their right mind would take on that amount of debt, can't see any way they can just write this off and still stay the same Rangers.
On Reading the report is says Duff & Phelps been having dealing with the club since January 2011 so must me well aware of the background of the club before going into administration?
Even without the monies owed to the Big Tax Case, The Small Tax Case and the Employees they still owe £55,415,632. They're doomed a tell ya, they're doomed
Creditor -Claim (£)
Trade & Expense Creditors - £5,544,508
Ticketus (amount of claim to be confirmed) - £26,700,000
HM Revenue & Customs – Excluding Big and Small Tax Cases - £14,372,042
HM Revenue & Customs – Small Tax Case TBC
HM Revenue & Customs – Big Tax Case TBC
Supporter Debenture Holders - £7,736,000
Football Related Creditors - £1,063,082
Employees TBC
Total - £55,415,632
Yes, I know but stop spoiling the fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Rangers & New Rangers / Rangers 2012 or whatever they call themselves should be banned from signing any players / S Forms etc until every last penny owed to other football clubs is repaid
Before I permit myself a stauner here, let's look at worse case scenario; that is worst case for the rest of the world.
Circa £75 million, may be less, is HMRC big tax case which hasn't yet been resolved. Rangers might win the case.
£26 million or so is Ticketus deal which was done by Craig Whyte and which Rangers are disputing the legality of. The might win that case, too.
Hence their two biggest potential debts might not come into play at all.
I'm still keeping the jelly and ice-cream in the fridge. So many twists and turns with this.
They're not disputing that Ticketus had a valid deal, that's uncontested. What they're disputing is whether the Huns coming out of admin would have to honour the deal or whether they could just say, ok Ticketus, you're not getting the tickets so we owe you £27M instead. Join the queue of shaftees and get your p/£.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
It's the big tax case that will decide all of this really. Win it and they get their CVA, paying their creditors a few pence in the pound, as you say. Lose it and we then have to hope HMRC refuse any kind of CVA deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
All the bids will be on the basis the company can agree a CVA. If the main creditor (HMRC) decides against a CVA then the Huns are dust. Then probably one of the bidders will start the 1690Huns FC from scratch and look to rent Hunbrox for a quid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs7
My ideal scenario would be rangers to get bought over come out of administration then get hit for the £75M from HMRC and have to go back into administration :thumbsup:
That would make my year!!
On the figures quoted by D&P, HMRC are over 25% even without the BTC. So Hector can block a CVA whatever. A quick glance over other football administrations shows they've not voted in favour of one yet (that I can find anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Also, you have to think the Salmond thing is going to count against Der Hun. The very last thing Cameron & the Tories will want is his smug pus claiming his part in saving The Rangers. :rolleyes:
Excerpt from BBC report reads - The report reveals that since Rangers went into administration - some six weeks ago - the club has lost more than £2.5m
How the **** then haven't some more players been let go?
Reserve keeper, Neil Alexander is still getting £7K (£28K reduced by 75%) for sitting on the bench each week. There's £42K min that could have been saved.
same for Davis, Whittaker, McGregor, etc, etc...
It is so they can get the cash for finishing second by paying players that the Admin's admit they cant afford? Whole thing stinks.
Edinburgh City Council - £90 !!!!
Parking fines? Lee Wallace' Ridacard? Kevin Thomson's Mammy's rent?
Just watched the story re Rangers debt on STV News which finishes off with them offering Aluko a new contract, how does that work then?
The surprise is the amount they owe the newsagent ... I'm just impressed somebody at the new Govan TESCO can read.
But seriously folks:
For as long as they owe money to other clubs for what I presume are transfer fees, is it the case that they will not be allowed to sign players until that debt is paid?
How can they be allowed to participate in next seasons League cup or Scottish cup, if when the draws are made they still owe money to other clubs ( principally to Dundee Utd ) from the previous seasons Scottish cup?
From the look of the possible final debt total, how can any of the 4 ( now 3 I understand ) bidders have any way of dealing with such a huge deficit? As far as I am aware even the largest bid comes nowhere near offering to put that kind of money into the club.
It looks like liquidation as far as a total layman like me can see.
When that happens then we will see just how much integrity Scottish football has left ........... if any.
Anything less than newco huns starting again at the bottom of SPL2 with or without a points deduction will be totally unacceptable to fans of every club in Scotland. Especially Livingston, Dundee and Gretna. Not to mention clubs who fear getting to the top of the first division coz they cant afford the thousands of pounds required to bring their grounds up to scratch.
I say SPL2 because if the current buns do re start as a new club the other clubs will put SPL2 into place in order to avoid sending newco huns into the 3rd division, giving them the chance to get back into SPL1 in at the most 2 seasons.
Damn, my bid of bratwurst and cyanide capsules has been turned down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Another 'small tax case' has been listed which invloves payments to a couple of players. Interesting.
Remember that CW is still trying to claim that he is secured creditor and due £30m.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
If he can confirm this in the courts then there's nothing left in the pot for unsecured creditors.
Would have been better if the debt was lower imo so they would have spent years trading out of it, with the debt being as it is it seems inevitable they'll go into liquidation and back debt free in the SPL in no time, even if it is with a slightly different name
It's imperative that Rangers are saved.
We don't want thousands of morons wandering about the West of Scotland with nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon.
No more than usual that is.
Perhaps CavG or CWG can explain if these figures ensure that HMRS can vito a CVA. Also how are they counting such a big figure for Ticketus if their deal doesn't kick in until tickets are due for sale? Finally, where is CW in all this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainboy19
Quote:
Originally Posted by CentreLine
If HMRC have at least 25% of the debts they can veto a CVA.
There have been suggestions in the past that clubs have over-stated their non-HMRC debts to dilute the shared owed in taxes. This appears to have happened at Portsmouth whereone company was put down as a creditor when they were in fact a debtor.
I think the admins have basically said that they can tear up the contract that allows ticketus to have first dibs on future ST sales and stick them into the pot with unsecured creditors with a debt of 27 million meaning they have to accept x amount of pence in the pound.Quote:
Originally Posted by CentreLine
The Great Rock n Roll Swindle!
So, it's actually been in the interests of Duff and Phelps for Rangers to have racked up more non-tax debt during their stewardship. This would also help explain the sudden dramatic increase in the declared debt. The more non-HMRC debt they can claim to have, the less likely that HMRC can block any CVA.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
I wonder if the bills for their own services are added to the debt or is that one particular expenditure (1.2M and counting) that's guaranteed to be paid in full :hmmm:
Ask yourself who is in charge of the cheque book at Ibrox at the moment...Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
I think HMRC already have 25% of the debt with the confirmed debt figure of £55 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Quote:
Originally Posted by heretoday
It would be like being surrounded by "walkers" from The Walking Dead!
That would be an interesting read...Quote:
Para 5.4 Due diligence in relation to the acquisition was undertaken for Liberty Capital by Saffery Champness
[Edit] And it seems that they weren't even paid for the work.
:agree: Isn't that what we have out of town shopping centres for?Quote:
Originally Posted by heretoday
Hi. I'm on ma holidays, so haven't read the last few pages in great detail. Pyramids take preference over Hibs.net :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CentreLine
1. yes, HMRC could veto the CVA on those numbers.
2. Ticketus will have made a claim to the admins, so they have to be included. I think, though, that all claims have to be "adjudicated" before any payment, under a CVA, could be made.
3. CW is not in there because he is not an unsecured creditor. In his opinion, he is a secured one... although, in the admins opinion (and mine) he isn't. If, by some fluke, he is proven to be secured, then he gets paid before any unsecureds.
There are plenty other posters on here who have a decent handle on what's happening..... so dinny bother me again, eh? :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Rangers FC (official) figures over the last ten years (2000-2001 till 2009-2010) amount to ;
Income £454.8m
Wages £307m
P/L (87.7m)
Given that they also raised £51.4m in a share issue in 2004 it beggars belief as to what has been going on.
It is also worth noting that these are all prior to Craig Whyte's involvement.
Aye good point. Wecome back though and so very glad my fears are unfoundedQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It's guaranteed.Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Finance professor reckons a CVA is feasible...
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-cen...d-through-cva/
I have checked every British and European newspaper and I can find no trace of the headline Huns bid for Huns. This I feel should be raised at the Leveson Inquiry and the journos and editors who so shamefully and negligently failed to spot this opportunityshould be hauled over the coals.:greengrin
He doesn't explain why this low level of repayment would be accepted. Wouldn't surprise me if he was correct however.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
I have thought for many years that administration is just a convenient financial tool used consistently by football clubs to get out of large debt. Let's face it Motherwell have had a pretty good run since the 'pain' of administration.
Every football club should do it. Makes our prudence even more ****ing ridiculous.
What a load of tosh!Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
Like HMRC are going to accept 8 pence in the pound on a CVA for their £75 million debts (after the big tax case tribunal reports).
I think Motherwell is an unusual case in that the vast majority of their debts were owed to John Boyle. When he wrote his share off, which allowed them to exit administration through a deal with the other creditors, they were debt free. They've ran their club well since then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Most other clubs that have gone into administration are in a worse state now than before - eg Dundee, Gretna, Livingston, several English examples.
If the alternative is getting 5p in the £ through a liquidation fire sale, they might.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Erm so.... Is it likely or not rangers are gonna go bust or not? :greengrin :greengrin
HMRC are not interested in clawing back a few quid from a CVA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
They want a big scalp. Making Rangers insolvent would send out a message to all and sundry that they mean business and they will take no **** from anyone. As the French used to say: kill a general from time to time 'pour encourager les autres'.
If HMRC accept a CVA of around 10 pence in the pound, this will send out a message to the effect that you do not need to pay tax as you can do a deal to pay less than 10% of that owed.
There are few bigger scalps on offer in British Football than Rangers. HMRC will not less this one pass.
Who do you have in mind? Not many clubs are bigger than Rangers. Man United, Liverpool, maybe Arsenal and Celtic. Richer clubs than Rangers is another matter, of course, with the EPL having been awash with money for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
From the valuation figures given liquidation looks like it would net about 80p in the £. The values for the land assets look a bit fanciful though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
Of course all these figures are dwarfed by the amount they are morally due the supporters of all the other clubs they have played, at least over the last 10 years, as they have cheated from match to match. And not for just matches against them but all matches in all competitions they have participated in.
Maybe someone with a legal and accountants background could put together a case so that we can all make a claim.
PS I do see the problem with the first bit where morals are mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy74
The valuation will be based on replacement costs not what Ibrox and Murray Park would fetch on the open market.
Perhaps if they assets would offered for sale individually it would force a better bid from the likes of David Murray who would have to do something to at least save Ibrox for the club.
Not just the last ten years. I'm positive I saw Henry Kissinger coming out of the Hibs dressing room just before the 1993 LC Final. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
On Sportsound last night. In amongst a quite interesting discussion including his evident discomfort when the other panellists started talking about the lamb diners and lap dog media.
When they were talking about the fact that Rankers would be facing the same problem even if CW had not bought the company, Chic claimed the last audited accounts shown they were making a profit but was corrected by the others. His ignorance, bias and lack of interest in detail is quite amazing.
This fabrication about him being a St Mirren fan has to laid to rest now I think.
Sent from another universe!
Instead of that excuse for a comedy show that he does at NY, Jonathan Watson should have a go at doing Chic's job for a year. Guaranteed to be a better investigative journalist than (a) comedian and (b) Chic.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_the_angus_hibby
They did make a (small) profit last year. The problem is that it was totally dependent on them qualifying for a CL group. Without that (or even a EL group) they are losing £10m+ in a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_the_angus_hibby
If Jimmy Krankie did Chick's job for a year, would we notice?Quote:
Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee
Re a p/£ deal. DM offered HMRC £10m before selling to CW. Bearing in mind the tax debt has increased by £14m during CW's tenure. Why would Hector accept less for more now?
£4.2m profit for 2009-2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
That said they lost £87.7m in the ten seasons up to and including that one. They have been profitable in 3 out the last ten seasons but, nonetheless, spent £139.1m more than they brought in during that period. Wages to turnover for the ten year period was a reasonably healthy 67.5%.
And from reading the report there appear to be all sorts of problems in respect of using the land owned by Rangers for other purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
eg1 Para 9.18 Albion Road Car Park is subject to a finance agreement and Rangers won't have full title until 2023.
eg2 Para 14.3 to 14.11 Kelvinside Academy had a security over Murray Park that meant they would cut of any sale or change of use, which lapsed in October 2009. The Sports Council also provided secured funding of £505K for Murray Park.
eg3 Para 14.14 to 14.17 PPG (a Murray company) has two standard securities over the land occupied by the away end at Ibrox.
:agree:..and that`s just the wages we know aboot.........:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
While I wouldn't go as far as calling it a load of tosh it does look like the good professor has been either very selectively quoted or recruited into the propaganda machine. To make these statements without any sort of caveat about HMRC's (and other creditors') attitude to a CVA strikes me as highly irresponsible. There's a growing anti-liquidation movement (which feels like it's being orchestrated by Duff & Phelps) that just ignores any inconvenient facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
I would say there's a possibilty of a CVA, but it requires the goodwill of HMRC and others so liquidation still looks the most likely outcome.
The double contract investigation appears to have gone very quiet, as has the apparent attempted buy-out of St. Mirren - I'm surprised Buddies fan Chic Young hasn't been all over that :fibber:.
Curiously, the SPL's articles of association seem to have mysteriously gone missing from their website. :confused:
Is it just me, can anyone else find them?
From the thread so far it sounds like the tickitus deal was all about inflating the amount of non HMRC debt to force a CVA prior to the big and small cases being settled... Relying on a lot of political pressure on Hector to stop the tax man 'destroying the club'... .... Interesting times
PLAIN and SIMPLE
They have been cheating the system for years.
Just spend whatever you want and don't pay yer dues. Incredible that they think that ain't cheating
Hope they get suitably punished by SFA and SPL
Cannae see it tho.... They will bottle it !!!!
There was a big bit about this on Sportsound the other night with St Mirren director Ken McGeough, the guy that was accused of cooking up a deal with CW. The whole thing about a ploy to buy St Mirren in case the Huns get liquidated was a piece of nonsence. It did sound a bit murky because he was using Collier & Bristow as his lawyers but there was nothing in it at all according to McGeough. His busainess partner , Paul Davies i think, was involved with Rangers though but that was something to do with building a community gym and a separate issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I think the media just put 2 + 2 and came up with some random number because it was a good story.
In fairness to Chick he was all over it.
You can listen to the podcast here ....http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series...t#playepisode3
Don't think so. There would be no point in agreeing a CVA, coming out of admin and just going straight back in when the BTC hits.Quote:
Originally Posted by ...WentToMowAnSPL
Personally, I think all the chat about a CVA is just posturing to be seen as the true saviours who heroically did all they could. Liquidation and an asset sale to a PhoenixHuns still seems by far the most likely option. The Blue Knights seem unlikely to be the highest bidders for the assets if an asset sale were held now, so it's in their interest to keep the CVA option alive as long as possible so they're seen as the only game in town.
I heard that as well. You're being too fair to Chick. He attempted to skate over it all and any mention of the elephantine Rangers in the room was glossed over before Jim Spence butted in and asked the bleeding obvious. Ken McGeough may have been an innocent party in it all, if not he's a damn good liar, but the meetings between his partner and Withey and Whyte of the Hun sounded distinctly dubious. The idea of Whyte spending on a community gym when he was hunkered down withholding the Huns' PAYE seems just a bit ludicrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
I missed that - don't get Sportsound in the depths of Berkshire. It wasn't just the media though, the link with Whyte was mentioned in the second club statement on the St Mirren site. I'll listen to the podcast when I get the chance (off for pre-match refreshments before Reading v Leeds shortly) but for the moment I remain cynical about the whole thing. As I said earlier in the thread, at the very least Gary Withey should have been nowhere near the deal because of his conflict if interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
Agree with most of what you say here and it definately appears dubious and underhand. I just think that the main crux of the story that St MIrren were being lined up for Rangers to take their place is one conspiracy theory too far.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I probably was being too fair on Chick Young but somebody's got to!! I know its not a fashionable position to hold on here but I like listening to most of the Sportsound team even when I might disagree with everything they are saying.
Interesting times:
http://www.saintmirren.net/pages/?p=11540
The boy sounds as white as Whyte! They'll have to punt him!Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSmith
The boy sounds as white as Whyte! They'll have to punt him!Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSmith
It was frankly embarrassing when the 'succulent lamb' issue was raised by Jim Spence. Chic more or less said he and Murray were hand in glove but it is no more than good media practice to have sources you can get a story from. No problem with that but when the stories are so obviously one sided it's going to come back to bite the journalist. Roddy Forsyth said how he'd been black-balled by Murray for raising the Joe Lewis/ENIC issue when Lewis cautioned Murray about overspending. Forsyth quoted Murray after speaking to him and Murray said he'd spoken off the record and took the hump.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_the_angus_hibby
Newsnight Scotland last night had an expert in insolvency on the program who reckoned 12p in the pound would probably be enough to satisfy HMRC. This would mean any prospective buyer would need £25m to bring the huns out of administration. This is before the money needed to buy Craig Whyte's shares presumably :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Shame I can't pay 12p in the £ on my credit card bill :grr:
Yip 12p in the pound to all creditors including the small businesses. Yet within weeks,nay, days the new owners will be negotiating million pound deals on wages and signings. Nothing is quite as corrupt as this legal corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
I would very much 'hae ma doots' on that, Mr. Spike!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
There is no bidder on the scene who has the resources to continue the overspending on wages and players that has got RFC into this state. I would foresee redundancies flowing very quickly. Wages will not go back to current levels for years to come and what other football club will now deal with RFC when their most recent dealings yielded 12p in the £?:cb
Remember this isn't the real business world we are talking about Mr Ancient. The fans will very quickly be demanding CL glory and with a blank slate to work from hitherto unseen wealth of the buyers will be discovered and duly invested. Business as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Like many people I see the possibility of a CVA as mere wishful thinking on the part of various pro-Hun figures. For one I don't think HMRC are likely to accept such a paltry settlement as the one on offer. Indeed, if they did it would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the system. Of course one would not expect such concerns to figure prominently amongst the concerns of the Laptop Loyal. Perhaps, if our media were to concentrate on serious investigative journalism instead of sycophantically pandering to what they perceive to be the sectarian majority in this country, we would have a country fit for the Twenty First century: as opposed to one stuck in the Seventeenth.
:top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by calmac12000
They are bigger than Rangers but not realistic targets as they run in a league which makes it worthwhile for a sale to go through if they get into difficulties. Liverpool (in the past) and Man United have dodgy business models and the likes of Chelsea and Man City have been spending prolifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
The Premier League cubs down south are insulated by TV money. The dangers comes if they are relegated and when the parachute payments run out. Hence most of the clubs that HMRC have targetted are a tier below, the likes of Leeds United, Portsmouth, etc plus the lesser teams such as Port Vale and Darlington.
Rangers are a big name. Why else would there be so much media coverage down south. Did Channel Four news cover the problems of Dundee and Livingston? If Rangers are liquidated it will be a big news item on national media.
I don't think HMRC have been working at this case for years, employing top legal advice and their own senior staff to walk away with 10p in the pound.
This case is all about establishing ground rules for EBT's which have been operated by approximately 5,000 UK companies and setting precedents for future dealings with those companies.
It would be crazy for them to accept a minimal settlement with Rangers which would set the bench-mark for all the other company settlements.
I'm sure they will force liquidation on Rangers as a big stick to wave at the other miscreants.
Craig Whyte interview
http://www.clyde1.com/news/local/jim...w-craig-whyte/
As a Contractor, I was offered a similar sounding scheme to this EBT business. I would be paid 60% of my fee directly and the other 40% would be paid as a loan, from somewhere in the Channel Islands. This would mean that the 40% would not be subject to taxation. My worries were along the lines of 1) How could I trust them to ever pay something that is described as "discretionary", or to never ask for repayment if it's legally a loan? 2) How could it possibly be legal to avoid tax for payment that is quite clearly provided for work that I'd undertaken, and would be given to me for no other reason?
My immediate thought was that it sounded dodgy and if something sounds too good to be true, it normally is, so I declined. Now, I don't claim to be any expert on these things so surely if someone as thick as pig sh*t like myself can see through this, how come nobody at Rangers ever questioned it?
In saying that, if a court in England can decide that a payment to a football manager's pet doesn't sound in the least bit suspicious, maybe I should have gone ahead and said yes.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Wow! That guy is unbelievable!
Having the day off, I decided to exercise my mind to see if I could come up with Duff & Duffer's master plan that doesn't involve THE MIGHTY GLASGOOOOO RRRRRRANGERS going into liquidation. Here's my wizard wheeze.
An American VC, let's call them SClub7, set up two companies - let's call these Towering Wave 1 and Towering Wave 2.
TW1 buys Rangers for £1.15. It then sells the Rangers brand, player contracts and physical assets for say £25m to TW2, leaving all liabilities including major creditors, Ticketless and Hector, in TW1. With this £25m, they liquidate TW1 giving all creditors about 25p in the pound. A better deal than they could get if there is immediate liquidation.
Meanwhile, TW2 change their name to Rangers Football Club Ltd and reach an agreement with the SPL, SFA and Uefa that they are essentially the same entity as the football club ( or cheating tax dodgers as we know them ) as before and that their existing licence, status and trophy record remain.
Now, you may ask ' How do they get Craigie to agree to this ? ' . Well, go on then, ask.
Okay, they have given him £1.15 which equates to a 15% return on his original investment. They also give him a one way airline ticket to a South American country that does not have an extradition treaty with the UK. For good measure, they also give him a change of identity kit and lessons in Spanish/ Portuguese.
With CWG gone AWOL, I invite CavG to pick holes in this. :cb
I loved the " I could'nt pay HMRC for the VAT and Tax etc because the Clubs bank accounts had been frozen "
There had been money due from May 2011 to January 2012 that was not paid and it was the tax man's fault for freezing the accounts in February 2012. :confused:
He has the never to ask what planet HMRC are on ! Well clearly a different planet from you Craig but, coincidentally, they are on the same planet as the rest of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
What a pile of steaming ordure! The non-excuse for not paying their tax has to be the most repellent thing I have heard in this whole sorry saga.Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
I think I love Craig Whyte.
:embarrass
Thought this was an interesting interview
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...nd_05_04_2012/
I think he's talking about the two arrestment orders in September and October 2011 by Bain and McIntyre for £900k. Not being able to pay £900k doesn't impact much on the debt of £14.3m. It's very annoying when interviewers just let these comments pass without calling them for the rubbish they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Probably the most relevant interview I've heard during this drama.
When they insist on sending the most ardent Gers fans going to ask the questions it defeats the purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Saying that, surely of all of us, they'd be wanting answers? Guess it just goes to show the sports journos up here are bought and paid for.
IMHO, just been superseded by the former chairman of Leeds United, on BBC Radio Sportsound (check the RS website, it should be up just after 7 p.m.)Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
He says that the RFC problem will not be solved by well-meaning millionaires, but by a billionaire where total money does not matter.:greengrin
He also says RFC will take years to escape from this operationally and added that issues like the double contracts will not go away.
He's of the view as well that any Newco will face huge cashflow issues with the payroll as high as it is and that will mean significant depletion of the squad.:thumbsup:
CW was supposed to appear in front of the SFA today. He didn't turn up apparently.