Printable View
I agree with the gist of that, but my objection is Green cherry-picking the bits he wants to keep. On the one hand he claims his club have never played in the SPL and so can't be subject to SPL sanctions, but on the other hand he claims his club hold numerous SPL titles that mustn't be taken away - he can't have it both ways. And the breakdown of the sale price shows very clearly that he did not buy those titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
21000 poat
21001
Is anyone else reminiscing about bygone days of yore?
Specifically Christmas 07?
I wish this thread would be as meltdown as the huns but its got a perverse curiosity about it I keep looking for further good newsQuote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
Would like to know what that repugnant oaf Salmond was doing contacting HMRC on Whyte's behalf. The same Whyte who robbed hundreds of small creditors blind as well as the tax man. The same Salmond who wants to tear up the 1707 Act of Union that Orcs cherish.
Would it have been a problem if he'd made enquiries regarding any other major employer in a similar position?Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
I remember someone spilled something...and there was a Chelsea game on around then, but I couldn't for the life of me tell you at what time it started...
Anyone else remember that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Care to list one 'major employer' dodging tax that Salmond has lobbied HMRC on? I hear crickets chirping!
Will this do??Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ary-committees
All over the news this week, so it is obviously a 'major employer' :na na:
Salmond has lobbied HMRC on behalf of Starbucks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
I didn't know that.
Awright, it's early and I'm still asleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I'm sure Eck did some lobbying on behalf of Ha Ha Hearts though.
How exactly would the Currant Buns (old or new) qualify as a 'major' employer ?Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
They employ over 500 people. Don't get me wrong I hate the Huns with a vengeance and wish their club nothing but misery and pestilence, but Alex Salmond is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieFitbaTeam
That was before Duff & Duffer's drastic cost-cutting measures, after which they employed no fewer.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
I don't see Salmond's name anywhere here. And I doubt Starbucks were withholding their employees NI and PAYE contyributions. Oldco are subject to criminal investigation, Salmond lobbying for criminals. :rolleyes: I think Sturgeon did it before with a serial benefits cheat, so not the first time. :wink:
Their last accounts showed only 256 employees and that has been slashed to 255.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
To be fair to the politicians of all parties they backed right off once they knew what the old Rangers had been up to.
This. When they first went into administration, all the politicians (including Cameron at PMQs) were calling for Rangers to be saved. They piped down as soon as it became public knowledge that Whyte had deliberately avoided paying PAYE and VAT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I haven't seen it yet but according to Radio Scotland this morning the Herald is reporting Craigie boy is preparing to fight for his share of the assets.
Tasty.
I think he may have Tupe'd over to our side.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
To be honest - and this isn't a specific dig at Salmond or anyone else - I would have a problem with politicians pleading for leniency for any company which has cynically avoided tax to gain advantage. In the case of Rangers, they sought to gain an advantage over their competitors (thus affecting their businesses), by not meeting their liabilities (our money). No problem with local representatives trying to help businesses operating honestly who have come upon difficult times, and could do with some support, in terms of repayment schedules etc..., to see them over the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
It was always rumoured that he had security over the assets. My suspicion is that the whole thing was a White/Green/D&P stitch up from the very start, with each party getting something decent out of the deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
As time has gone on, and it's transpiring that they are yet again headed for disaster, and possible financial loses, I think that the "not so holy" trinity have started to look out for themselves and not averse to "shafting" the others.
I reckon it's going to culminating in a lot of mud slinging and potential court cases.
I thought that Starbucks were being condemned for morally questionable but perfectly legal tax avoidance. Rangers completely evaded it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Sounds good. Genuinely hope they die for good. Zombies are not to be encouraged.
The security was not a rumour, Stevie. It actually existed, and was registered at Companies House. However, such a security can only be exercised if there was a debt. IMO, and in D&P's too, there was no debt due to CW or any of his companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
I agree about the shafting bit.... that's going to be quite entertaining. :greengrin
You have to remove their heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
herald article belowQuote:
Originally Posted by green glory
FORMER Rangers owner Craig Whyte is preparing to claim millions of pounds from the remains of the old club that collapsed earlier this year. The controversial businessman is hoping for a huge payout from the sale of the assets to new owner Charles Green's Sevco consortium.
Whyte told The Herald he believes the RFC Group he used to buy the club and pay off its £18 million debt – using future season ticket sales – held a valid security over the Ibrox outfit's assets sold to Mr Green for £5.5m.
If successful he will be placed ahead of other creditors when the remaining money brought in by the liquidation of the failed Rangers company is distributed.
Whyte said: "Everyone knows there was a security there. All these things are being dealt with."
A recent progress report by administrators Duff & Phelps showed the old company had around £2.3m of funds – although a further £2.8m is estimated to be owed through outstanding transfer fees and millions more could be realised from outstanding litigation.
The administrators were also pursuing an unquantified sum held by Uefa as a result of players participating in matches for their national teams.
In their report Duff & Phelps also said they believed Whyte's company was not owed anything.
London ticket agency Ticketus bought the season ticket rights from Whyte and is pursuing him for more than £20m paid to RFC Group to help him complete his disastrous takeover of Rangers. That money was used by RFC Group to pay off Rangers' £18m debt with Lloyds Banking Group.
The EBT scheme that Der Hun used was perfectly legal, it is the way in which they abused it that has caused the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie Reid
Don't forget about the net loss of around 15 players who didn't TUPE. That's what's got the wage bill down to £6 million from £30 million and made Green's newco a financial success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I was talking about the non payment of tax that caused HMRC to put them into administration, not the EBTs.Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah