I thought Duff and Phelps were involved in Craigy boys takeover as well ? Perhaps they should suing themselves as well. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Printable View
I thought Duff and Phelps were involved in Craigy boys takeover as well ? Perhaps they should suing themselves as well. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Presumably not including Collyer Bristow?Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
I think we can fairly say the SNP are doing a better job than labour in pretty much every sphere of government, local or national. As for Whitey, I think he's done a magnificent job so far!Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Are the administrators not just trying to keep Rangers alive to fulfill their fixtures and avoid other sanctions, before putting them into liquidation?
Don't see what the point would be in doing that. They are keeping them alive, in order to maximise the chance of selling them on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs07p
And to line their own pockets at the expense of the creditors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs07p
I don't see any benefits in only keeping them alive only to fulfill fixtures, but it seems D&P are prolonging the administration unnecessarily. The bids are in, they should be naming the preferred bidder IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Yet I am struggling to see what they have achieved on that front....with the club seemingly making further losses and as yet no confirmed bid.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm confused as to just how they are being kept alive, if as they seemed to state the club is still running at a loss who is covering that loss and looking at their list of creidtors I also struggle to understading just how the club is functioning in any sensible manner at all.
Had to laugh at McCoist getting a but uppity about the delay the other day saying they needed to organise pre season friendlies and a tour....urmmm you might need the club to still be in existance first Ally!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Liquidation before the season end means all their fixtures are void and automatic relegation with no opportunity to plead for special treatment.
I think they still expect to be in the SPL next season.
Given that the BK have moved the goalposts themselves with their throwing the toys out, I'm not surprised that the admins have delayed again. That said, the admins now have a time pressure. The longer the process goes on, the more likely they are to run out of cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs07p
I think we may see a decision on the preferred bidder very soon, perhaps this week.
The question of whether or not they are running at a "loss" is, IMO, almost irrelevant. At this stage, it's all about cash. They were able to negotiate the reduction in salaries, which gave them the cash-flow to trade until the end of the season, and to give them time to find a buyer. That cash is still there, and that is how they are still operating.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
The problem now, though, is that the end of the season is approaching fast. Income will all but disappear... although they will probably have SPL prize-money to come.... and the question of the players' salaries will re-emerge. Some salaries will go back to what they were, some players may walk. The cash flow will become critical at that point. If there is no clear buying process in place, I can see the admins circling the wagons and winding things up.
Was just having a ponder there. Now I understand that the big tax case is is to establish whether the huns have been underpaying taxes by illegal means and the amount of back tax that 'should' be due in the event this is decided. Would the outcome of this case be proof of double contracts also?
If so, the very fact that expulsion from the league isnt the only thing being talked about is an absolute scandal. Pheonix companies etc.. is just a load of bull*****.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
If they went into liquidation now, or for any reason were unable to fulfil any fixtures, before the end of the season it would be curtains, no way back, they'd be toast, history – even for the 3rd division. Deed!
Keeping them on a life support machine means they may come out of the coma but I think the common thought is they are already brain dead.
Whilst the BTC verdict may be evidence of double-contracts, it may not be proof. I am not sure to what extent the Tribunal will publish their deliberations; there is, after all, a confidentiality issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuanH78
If I were in RFC's seat (albeit, cleaned thoroughly first), I would argue that the Tribunal verdict (if it goes against them) only states the tax position, and does not of itself prove double-contracts.
The SFA are investigating the double-contracts as a separate, specific, matter. They may, of course, be influenced by the BTC; in that light, I don't think we will see the SFA's verdict until after the BTC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think the SFA delegated the double contracts issue to the SPL so as the SFA can act as an appeal tribunal.
Of course Doncaster could have the double contracts in triplicate on his desk and still conclude nothing is proven.
I don't think all fixtures would be voided as the phase one fixtures are now complete. It would result in the top six becoming a top five and a 37-match series for them. The bottom six would not be affected.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Ah, you're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
And you're also a cynical get :greengrin
Actually, for me Doncaster is a ray of hope. I think, being an "outsider", he will want to show that justice is done and seen to be done.
Wish I had your faith. He wants to maximise income for the SPL and he sees Rangers being there as crucial.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It's two different issues though. The talk about phoenix companies follow follows on from RFC being in liquidation - nothing to do with the big tax case, it's about whether any club should be able to liquidate and re-emerge in the SPL as a new company. The question of double contracts still has to be considered as a separate issue. What would be scandalous (and what I think could happen) is if a new 'Rangers' club took the old Rangers place in the SPL and didn't have to answer the double-contract charges because they died with the old club.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuanH78
Maybe that's what you were getting at though.
I beg to differ here. The findings of the tribunal would be a legal decision that 'wages' were paid outwith the PAYE system and so were a contractual obligation. The idea of written double contracts becomes a red herring - the requirement as I understand it is for disclosure of all contractual obligations, not just 'side letters' so the decision will already have been made for the SPL. For them to ignore such a decision by a legally convened tribunal would be bizarre IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I have a feeling that the Broadcasting contracts were negotiated by Doncaster and he sees them as his baby. For that reason he is desperate to keep Rangers in the top flight otherwise his incompetence in allowing the inclusion of the four OF games clause with no apparent plan B will be exposed to an even greater extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I wonder if that was also why he was so keen on the 10-team SPL - there were already noises about Rangers financial problems and a distinct possibility that they would drop to the bottom six, thereby losing one of the derbies.
Okay, so if I understand you, that would suggest that the SPL, although conducting their own investigation, will wait for the BTC verdict before they issue theirs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I would have thought so. The BTC findings ought to be a substantial part of their investigation even if it isn't as conclusive as I think it should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
What I am not clear about, and I mentioned it earlier, is the extent to which the Tribunal publishes the evidence. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but if all they do is publish the verdict.......
I will do some digging, unless you know the answer off the top of your heid?
Edit... their website has all the cases on which they have ruled. http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...x/default.aspx On looking at some of the cases there, I think the decision will be fairly explicit.
No, I don't know that. I would think they would have to give fairly detailed reasons for their decision though, for the puroses of both explaining it to both sides and for future reference (although I believe the tribunal's decision would not set a specific legal precedence).Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That's my understanding, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
It follows from that, that HMRC might not be able to rely on this case in dealing with other clubs. It would, however, give them a lot of ammunition.
In case you missed my previous edit:-
Edit... their website has all the cases on which they have ruled. http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...x/default.aspx On looking at some of the cases there, I think the decision will be fairly explicit.
Think Regan at the SFA is some hope (especially as he answers to Platini at UEFA). Doncaster on the other hand is already deliberately attempting to subvert the rules to get NewHuns in at any price (imo).Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think that you are right here. Whether he likes it or not, he will have to satisfy UEFA that SFA affairs are being conducted properly and with due reference to Financial Fair Play. The sale of Jelavic, whilst still owing money to Rapid Vienna wil be a big issue at UEFA. They have come down hard on other clubs that have broken the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Ultimately, I guess that UEFA could ban all Scottish clubs from participation in Europe. Imagine the
reaction at Darkheid !
This is exactly what I was getting at, this seems to be how Rangers new identity is being positioned- if this turns out to be the case, things become so farcical that it is difficult to see a recovery of Scottish football integrity within a generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
The very fact that the governing bodies are doing their damndest to ease RFC's sufferings is already doing untold damage. Lack of leadership and the ability to make the 'hard, but righteous' decisions is damaging Scottish football daily IMO
As mentioned above, Dunfermline chairman John Yorkston stated on RS last night that if they ever get to vote on the issue, the Pars will vote against the Hun newco.
Interview starts about 10 mins in to the latest podcast:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/scotfoot
Of course, you can hardly move for huge banner headlines splashing this extremely important but bad news for der Hun. :rolleyes:
Telling (imo) where he says they have been informed at the last meeting that it's an SPL board decision. The Doncaster railroad in full effect. :rolleyes:
C'mon Rod, do the decent thing and publically back Yorkston's view. :agree:
JeMeSouviens Telling (imo) where he says they have been informed at the last meeting that it's an SPL board decision. The Doncaster railroad in full effect
My undersatnding from the rules posted on here (quite a few pages back) was that the members voted on this first, and needed all 11 to back a Newco, and the boards duty was to implement this decision.
Have I misread this previously, or are the board interpreting the rules to suit themselves ?
No and Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingertosser
Apparently the scam Doncaster & co intend to pull is:
- NewHuns started up, so there are briefly 2 sets of Huns.
- OldHuns transfer SPL share to NewHuns.
- OldHuns are liquidated.
They reckon that the rules regarding the transfer of the share of a liquidated club don't apply, since OldHuns' share will be transferred just before they are actually liquidated. Also the rule about no relegation when a member club is liquidated is also avoided (because the OldHuns will no longer be a member club at the moment of liquidation).
Why Dunfermline and Hibs, one of which will lose out big time, aren't all over this I have no idea. :confused:
What are the rules on one club transferring its share to another, where neither is in administration or liquidation?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I think that the new TV deal was introduced to kick any attempts to expand the SPL to 14 or 16 teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
The other agenda was always to go back to 10 teams even though virtually no supporters want this to happen.
Doncaster lied continually to the press with a series of press statements to the effect that reconstruction had been agreed when there were clearly teams holding out against this.
I just get the impression that they are determined to foist a Newco Rangers on the SPL and then cut back to ten teams within the next couple of years, possibly via a complete league reconstruction and merger between the SPL and the SFL.
Scottish Football is entering its death throes.
It will be nice to go out on a Scottish Cup win though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It should also be noted that SPL articles state NewHuns would have to get the SFA onside, which might be harder. I'm not sure what the SFA criteria for full membership are like?Quote:
TRANSFER OF SHARES
11. Except where such transfer is occasioned by the promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL the consent of the Board shall be required before the transfer of any Share shall be registered.
12 The instrument of transfer of a Share may be in any usual form or in any other form which the Board may approve and shall be executed by or on behalf of the transferor and, unless the Share is fully paid, by or on behalf of the transferee.
Quote:
SFA ARTICLES
96. Nothing in these Articles shall relieve any Member of the Company from its obligations as a full member club of the SFA to comply with the applicable articles of association of the SFA for so long as it remains a member of the SFA. Each Member shall (in so far as it is lawfully able and permitted by the exercise of its voting powers to do so) procure that the Company observes and complies with all relevant articles of association of the SFA applicable to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Don't know if there is a phrase, 'legal corruption', but if there's not then there should be.
:confused:
Can a company in administration start up a new company ?
Can a company in administration transfer anything without the creditors consent ?
So, remind me, the "Board"... that isn't the 11-1 scenario is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
It would be the shareholders of the new company (eg the BK's , or Billy the Ng) who would start up the NewCo. They would buy the assets of the old company as part of the purchase agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingertosser
no it's the 6 apologists, most of whom have already backed a Newco being readmittedQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
No it's the 6 stooges: Ralph "(not exactly a) Dream" Topping, Doncaster, plus club reps (currently Celtic, Well, St J, D Utd). In the event of a 3-3, Ralph "the worst living Hibby apart from Brian Kennedy" Topping has the casting vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
According to the SFA website, the Licencing requirements for SPL clubs are the same as we have spoken about before.... ie the UEFA standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I am not sure how a completely new club would be able to satisfy those requirements, particularly the financial ones.
so do newco1 (BK etc) just buy the assets they want and leave the rest behind ?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
or do they have to buy everything and then start a newco2 again and then transfer the good stuff ?
The former.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingertosser
They would probably want the properties, the players, the SFA licence and the SPL share. (oh, and the "history" :greengrin)
They can start a newco at any time. Indeed, they may have already for all we know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingertosser
If OldHuns are liquidated they (NewHuns) make an offer for the assets they want (stadium, training ground, players' registrations) to the liquidator. The liquidator then uses that money to pay a dividend to creditors. Everything else dies with OldHuns
That would only work if NewHuns buy the assets of OldHuns whilst it's in administration, I think. In a liquidation, I think the players' contracts revert to the SFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
That is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Do the administrators have the power to sell off assets against the will of the existing shareholders including Craig Whyte and the creditors including HMRC and Ticketus (and HoMFC)?
That seems close to what happened with Leeds United.
Not without a CVA.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
So that means that any NewHun will have to deal with Craig Whyte unless they go for the nuclear option of liquidation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I can't see it will make a lot of difference. I don't think that there is a lot of value in Rangers' playing staff in the current economic climate. Most Championship sides are feeling the pinch and will not be paying silly wages and transfer fees. I can't think of many Rangers players who will fit into the Premiership easily.
Whittaker maybe? Davis has been there before and failed to make an impact. Wallace possibly assuming Alex McLeish keeps his job?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Dont know if these particular SFA gems have been mentioned yet relating to a Uefa Club Licence which would seem to exclude Newhun FC;
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resource...icence (2).pdf
Have to a member of the SFA for three years before you can apply for one, a requirement to compete in the SPL.
AND Rule 3.3.1 "3.3.1 UEFA Licence Awards for Scottish Premier League Clubs (SPL)
A Licence cannot be transferred from one legal entity to another."
See page 154 post 4620.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quite damning, by my reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
Next question.... is it correct that an SPL member needs an SFA Licence? Please say yes.
As the governing body, it would seem self evident. Hence the reason to register accounts and contracts.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
What I hoped. Sorry, just trying to get all the silly questions sorted before Chick asks them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
And I'm still in my post-holiday fug, so the brain isn't properly working yet. :greengrin
Brian Kennedy made an improved offer for Rangers according to BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17683898
Just after more free publicity and more shots in the paper/online of him looking like a fud in his Ray-Bans. He's clearly a time-waster.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
A time-waster yes, but he's giving them hope when there is none. Sooooo cruel.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
Hell awaits Huns!!!
This is worth a wee read too CWG. Vindicates what you have been saying all along about HMRC's aversion to CVA's.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://web3dlaw.wordpress.com/2012/0...agreements-25/
I sincerely hope that the guy writing that blog is not a lawyer. He has immense difficulty in stringing two sentences together and making sense. Sorry, but that blog is a mess. IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
It was the events that took place that I was interested in, rather than the syntax to be honest. HMRC appeared to fight very hard against the CVA and had their claim diluted by the administrators (tax on image rights:- HMRC claimed £11m, Administrators recognise:- £1 (one pound))Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
By disregarding the £11m the administrators pushed through the CVA much to the chagrin of HMRC.
...which can't happen at Ipox, regardless of the outcome of the BTC, due to the sums involved, and the portion therein owed to HMRC already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
CVA only possible with HMRC approval, which is unlikely to be conferred to say the least. Liquidation is inevitable, and then the fun really starts.
I still find it presumptious to assume that Rangers will be one of the top two in the SPL this time next year.
I'm not so sure about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
At the moment, the estimated debt is £134m, which contains an estimate of HMRC debt at £75m; £15m of that is uncontested, and presumably £60m is the BTC.
If the BTC goes Rangers way, total debt is reduced to £74m, of which £15m is due to HMRC. If the rest of the creditors vote for a CVA, and that's almost 80%, it will be passed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That £74m - £15m includes the sum due to Ticketus who will fight tooth and nail not to lumped in with the other creditors by either joining with the successful bidding party or by going to the English Courts and eventually the Supreme Court to have the Scottish Courts decision on their status overturned.
Every time Duff and Duffer try loosen the Knots der Hun are tied up in another noose is tightened. :greengrin
Whether they like it or not, though, they ARE a creditor. That's the key here.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
If they want to vote against the CVA, that's their prerogative. However, by any definition, RFC owe them money.
Just saw some rumours doing the rounds that Rangers have lodged liquidation papers with companies house. I'd imagine this is probably incorrect information but thought I'd put it out there to see if any one else has heard this. I've not been able to find the actual source of this but there's numerous mentions about it on twitter.
AFAIK, the company has to call a creditors' meeting before it can do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny
As I expected then... nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny
It is a false alarm , the new papers lodged at Companies House by Duff and Phelps relate to the Creditors Statement of a couple of weeks ago.
I wish the Tax Tribunal would publish so the Yams can get their very ugly letter from HMRC as well. :aok:
IIRC a few weeks back, the creditors meeting was scheduled for 20th April. Duff and Duffer have said they want a preferred bidder nailed down by tomorrow too. We'll maybe see some apocalyptic decisions being made in the next 24 hours.
Coincidentally tomorrow is Hitler's birthday.
Please don't use the words "apocalyptic" and "Hitler" in the same post :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by green glory
The first creditors' meeting, AFAIK, has to be held within 10 weeks of the start of the administration. That 10 weeks is up next week, hence the scheduling.
Your numbers are slightly out there CWG.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The £134M is best case BTC verdict and max penalties putting total HMRC debt at £93M or 69%.
Worst case Huns win BTC and Ticketus included as £27M creditor: total debt is £55M with HMRC at £15M or 27%.
This all happened when I was away, so maybe i didn't get the figures right. I relied on the headline figures from BBC, rather than the font of all knowledge that is Hibs.net :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I thought HMRC were in for £75m IN TOTO, including the BTC and the uncontested part?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-17628749Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Rangers' administrators estimate that the club's total debts could top £134m.
The figure is revealed in an administrators' report to creditors published on the club's website.
A total of more than £93m is being claimed by HM Revenue and Customs, relating to the so-called big and small tax cases, and unpaid VAT and PAYE.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-...-west-17600284Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
This is the story I was talking about. Almost got it right. Initial proposals have been put to the creditors, who have till tomorrow so signal their agreement or not.
Tomorrow is clearly an important date, and hopefully we'll start to see them pushed ever closer to the abyss.
Hun Apocalypse!
Okay, ta.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
What is clear is that the HMRC debt, ignoring the BTC, is going to be round about 25%. That is important, IMO. The admins will try and minimise the percentage (as they appear to have done in the Portsmouth case); HMRC will argue for a higher percentage.
That debate, in itself, will be interesting.
Fingers crossed the FTT verdict will be back by then and Hector will be armed to the teeth. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm pretty sure, on the figures I was aware of - and others have posted here - that the only way hun will get a CVA is if HMRC do not oppose it. HMRC have significantly more than 25% of the outstanding debt, enough of a %age to remove hun wriggle room.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
BTC is almost certain to go against them. That will settle it. If the hun somehow win the BTC then what chance HMRC both a) not appealing, and b) voting for 8p/£ in a CVA.
It's all over.
You got an insider?Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
Gonna come back to the HMRC percentage again. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
The total HMRC debt in the admins report is £93m. Of that, I understand that £75m is for the BTC, £4m for the Wee Tax Case and the remaining £14m for uncontested debt.
Soooo... if RFC win both the BTC and the WTC...... HMRC's debt reduces to £14m, out of a total of £55m. ie 25.5%
You can sense my cynical unease here, can't you? :rolleyes:
Yes and no. 'Yes' in that I know a couple of journos who have said that the outcome of the BTC is known to more than just the three judges and they know someone who knows someone, etc., who know the verdict, and that verdict is the hun are going to take a big skelp from Her Maj. 'No' in that, trying to put aside how repellent I find just about everything to do with hun, is that based on my (limited, but nonetheless vocational - former editor of business magazines in both UAE and Qatar) knowledge of these things, the political ramifications and how appalling it's going to look if the hun win BTC (added to the fact that HMRC have already said they will appeal an acquittal), I don't see any other outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
This combination of factors, and others of relevance discussed elsewhere on this thread, lead me to the 'liquidation is inevitable' conclusion. Even by their own admission, many people who think the hun are going to dodge a bullet are basing this on the club's standing and influence (ill-deserved, but tangible nonetheless) and 'a feeling', rather than the facts themselves. A credo with which I have a great deal of sympathy, it has to be said, but I'm (reasonably) confident the facts will win the day and, this being so, cheerio.
When you unround the figures the the admitted amount due to HMRC is actually about 25.93% of the £55m, but that is before the amounts due to employees and season ticket holders which have yet to be determined. Assuming they complete their fixtures the ST holders shouldn't be a problem but the amounts due to employees needs to be around £2m to take HMRC's debt below the 25% level. I suppose much depends on how they negotiated those wage reductions here.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
On the tax cases, I thought the wee one had been decided and the question was about the amount of penalties. Similarly, from what has been written, the big tax case liability is unlikely to be zero and the tribunal is more about details of indivual contracts rather than the whole principle.
I can understand (and share) your concerns but there would have to be a lot of creative accounting to get that debt below 25%.
I accept the challenge! :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I suspect someone at Duff & Phelps is already on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
May it be Mr Magpie, may it be!!:rockin:Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
What the Portsmouth administrators did was to wrongly classify a debtor as a creditor. This pushed up the debts and helped to ensure that HMRC remained just below 25% of the total.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
The Hun settled with HMRC on a WTC figure of £2.8M, they were only disputing the penalties.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ry_790386.html
Looks like Singapore Bill is getting fed up with Ibrox Circus and who could blame him.
Imagine a Club with the stature of Rangers F C not playing fair with Johnny Foreigner. :greengrin
I can't read the full story... too mean to subscribe :greengrin... but it looks like it's Ticketus he's p'd off with, not RFC.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Imagine them trying to recoup their investment, eh no?
Am I correct in thinking that Hector's meter is still running at the judicial rate of interest of 8% ? Or is it suspended pending the decision by the FTT ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
So the Knights who say Ng are now the Knights who say No.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/
A fascinating analysis of Rangers financial position through to the end of June which will have CWG and Cav drooling all night, no doubt.
His conclusion is as follows :
' For there to be an attempt for a “Rangers” to survive, Duff & Phelps would need to sell off the assets of Rangers Football Club PLC to a buyer in sufficient time for that purchaser to organise a license to play in the SFL/SPL, and for all arrangements to be put in place for a team to start next season.
The longer Duff & Phelps succeed in keeping the doors open, the less chance there is for a new owner of a “Rangers” to get everything in order in time for preparation of fixture lists for next season, for example.
I am coming to the view that there is almost certainly not going to be a Rangers, nor indeed a “Rangers” playing in Scottish football next season (apart from the team from Berwick of course).
The best, and possibly now only way to get over the hurdles of time and potential legal challenge to any sale as mentioned above, would be for a person or consortium looking to save “Rangers” to buy an existing club, and rebrand it, moving it, ideally, but subject to agreeing rent with the owner, to Ibrox.
It appeared that Rangers may have tried this with St Mirren and there are rumours that Cowdenbeath could be ripe for takeover. We will need to wait and see. '
Now who do me know at Cowdenbeath that might be receptive to such discussions ? :cb
Have I missed something here?
I haven't wadde my way through 170 pages of threads to catch up but from reading a few recent posts is it correct that HMRC are accepting £2.8 million in settlement of the PAYE and NI unpaid since Craig Whyte came to power, which was reported at £9 million, and increasing to £14 million with interest and ongoing non payment?
If that is the case, that alone should be enough to get Rangers kicked out of the SPL, because they quite blatantly have not paid their dues. I know that HMRC are no longer preferred creditors but surely there is some SPL rule covering running your club in a financially questionable way. How does this square with UEFA requirements for proper governance?
How can they get away with not paying taxes when all other clubs have to? Is HMRC going to make a pro rata refund to all SPL clubs to equalise the playing field?
Anyone able to throw some light on it?
Brian Kennedy told to bolt and admin say a 2nd offer is that bad it won't be accepted.
Yet he was rangers hero by Keith Jackson only yesterday :)
Aye, Kennedy told to GTF by Fud and Feltch, and preferred bidder needed by end of play tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulSmith
Tick tock Huns :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
What happened at Portsmouth explained here;
http://web3dlaw.wordpress.com/2012/0...agreements-25/
HMRC didnt exactly roll over and take it and one can only hope they have learned from this episode and are better prepared for the days ahead because of this.
What a mistaka-ta-maka!Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
When they going to do us all a favour and turn the life support machine off?
Where did you hear that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Famous Fiver
It sounds like a right load of codswallop to me.
Yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Famous Fiver
The £2.8m was in settlement of the Wee Tax Case.
The £14m, for ongoing PAYE and VAT, is still due. It will be rising by the week.
The Big Tax Case (for £49m or £75m, depending on who you believe) has still to be decided.
Great Monty Python quote!!:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Cleverest quip I have heard on hibs net this week.
From the RTC blog, the HMRC claim is for £24M of unpaid tax. Interest is due for every day it's overdue and has been comounding nicely (the EBT payments in question go back as far as 2000/01), penalties will be imposed dependent on just how much of a bunch of cheating ****bags they were.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod