forlanssister

As far I know it is indeed as you surmise still LBG but stand to be corrected.

Whyte's plan (if that's the correct word) requires RFC to get a negative finding in the FTT, a positive result requires Whyte to provide funding to keep us going, money he simply doesn't have. I've no doubt Whyte will ride off into the sunset a fair few million better off than when he arrived, his reward for doing what both LBG and Murray couldn't countenance pulling the plug on RFC. There is absolutely no doubt that LBG were fully aware of Whyte's background and his modus operandi when they (not Murray) accepted the £1 after all they are bankers to his other companies and hold the charge over his castle. The unaudited accounts and failure to hold an AGM robs the shareholders of their once chance to hold him to account and ask pertinent questions. Those who think administration (God forbid even liquidation) is simply a case of wakening up the next day and we'll be debt free and everything will be hunky dory are in for one mighty shock, the ramifications will last for years.

Duly chastised.... In my wildest dreams I yearn for a positive outcome to the FTT then I awaken back to the real world where Carlsberg don't do Tax Tribunals. Attempting to clear up the financial carnage or taking advantage of the financial carnage for his own financial benefit to the detriment of the club itself the circa 26,000 shareholders and of course the fans, which ever one it is we have yet to discover. I do concede however if we actually win the FTT and his £1 bet pays off then I'll gladly give him kudos, my cap will be well and truly doffed. My ( admittedly extreme) scepticism of Craig Whyte would be drastically tempered if I could see any sign of him successfully running or turning around an ailing business but try as I may I can't find anything remotely positive in his business career only negatives. It would also have been tempered if I saw him abiding by the Shareholder Circular but alas I see no evidence of that either, a set of audited accounts would be a step in the right direction, an AGM where shareholders could have the opportunity to ask pertenant questions would be another (I concede it could be said the previous regime were not exactly fond of pertenant questioning either!) An actual libel writ being served against the BBC wouldn't go amiss either, and one to Private Eye after their latest issue should surely be in the offing too, but then the truth is the ultimate defence in libel actions. One of the reasons I like posting on this site as opposed to a couple of other larger Rangers forums I could mention is that here you can have a grown up adult discussion without an instant banning or accusations of "you're a Taig", "do one Timmy" or "you're just a KDS accountant", if earlier in the thread I have fallen below the standards of the site then I unequivocally apologise for doing so, it's not something I think I'm in the habit of doing. There may well eventually be a share offer of some description somewhere down the line but if comes after the formation of a newco in which only one existing shareholder will hold shares and 26,000 will see their holdings vanish and Bondholders collectively kiss goodbye to over £7m, then I think it may not exactly be a raging success leaving us with an owner who doesn't want to own us any longer alas an all to familiar tune.

The short bug eyed stammering boy ain't exactly taking his fiduciary duty to the 26,000 shareholders to seriously is he ?

Karma is a bitch!

So you are now saying the HMRC do in fact accept part payments just not from Mr Whyte ? There is absolutely nothing to stop Mr Whyte paying the amount he promised to pay in the shareholders circular and still appeal the penalty is there ? HMRC will not refuse to accept a cheque or cleared funds as payment of the balance of the "wee tax case" will they ?

Make your mind up, which one is it HMRC accepted a part payment or they refused a part payment?

How can there be a "shortfall" if as you say HMRC refused part payment the entire sum would be due, a "shortfall" suggests that part payment has been made and accepted. You are either stupid, ignorant or perhaps just shit stirring, my moneys on all three.

Here's the link to the findings of the FTT re AAM DOS scheme. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2010/TC00779.html It was as a result of those findings that HMRC sent RFC (and many other companies) an assessment for tax due for the DOS that they ran. I don not have unquestionable devotion to any regime (past or present) but also I'm not ignorant enough to blame Donald McIntyre for things that were nothing to do with him. Tell me then what is to stop Craig Whyte paying the bill you say he does not dispute and pursuing the penalty through the appropriate channels? absolutely nothing eh ?

If AAM had not lost their FTT in November 2010 there would have been no "wee tax bill", there was no liability until after that case when HMRC would have sent out and assessment, that assessment arrived during the period that due diligence was being carried out, hence the incorrect media spin that Whyte's agents discovered it during the due diligence process. There was no concealment of any liability re the DOS. Johnston's statement is factually correct. He could and should have paid the liability he said he would then appealed the subsequent fine, he hasn't therefore he has reneged on his promise/commitment (call it what you like). I very much doubt we would have received a fine of that scale had Whyte not decided to play silly buggers with HMRC.

Definitely was aimed at us, though I don't think it was really worth taking offence at I do concede if it was one of our players it would be all over the phone-ins and on the front pages in the morning such is the society we find ourselves now living in.

It was Leigh Griffiths

I find it strange Whyte would tell me (as a shareholder) in writing that he would settle it in full then renege on that commitment, but then Craig Whyte doesn't give a flying f*&k about me or any of the other 26,000 shareholders. Had it been paid and then AAM won their appeal to the UTT it would have repaid in full + interest, believe it or not it's not that strange an event in the world of taxation where some disputes take decades to settle.

That Whyte discoverd the "wee tax bill" is a myth, it only arose during the time Whyte was doing due diligence because Aberdeen Asset Management lost a FTT in November 2010 and now they're appealing to an UTT, so ironically enough we may end up not owing anything for the "wee tax bill"!.

Both the EBT's (big tax case) and the DoS (wee tax case) pre-dated McIntyre's employment by RFC but hey let's blame McIntyre!

No we don't know why Whyte was banned as a Company Director but it's safe to assume that to merit a 7 year ban it must have been a lot more severe offence than a mere "technicality". If Craig Whyte really has nothing to hide he can publish the Insolvency Service report into his banning, luckily for him it is exempt from FOI requests and third parties can only gain access to it by petitioning the High court in London. I think the apparent "murky" past allied to the present should be a concern to us all, but that's only my opinion and everybody else is entitled to hold their own opinion. Have to agree with you re going round in circles. History may indeed show Whyte to be the saviour ( and believe it or not I really hope he is!) because any other outcome is too unpalatable to contemplate. I'm not sure, we have more stability, as you say we still have HMRC hanging over us, and we've swapped a safe stable non onerous reasonably cheap term loan for something we don't know, we don't know if there was any arrangement fee we don't know the rate of interest charged we don't know any of the terms at all. We'll know come January 31 if you're correct in your assumptions re players, once again I sincerely hope you are. As a fan (excuse the plagiarism) but I think "we deserve better" than we are getting from the present custodian. Alas I have no faith in the current "board" ( if it's even worthy of being described as one) and while I certainly desire an AGM soon I'm unsure if there will be an AGM or a creditors meeting. *Admin* how about a combined "like" and "respectfully disagree" button!

My apologies you are correct in stating that it's not in the circular. A google search unfortunately just brings up RTC and other Tim sites which I'm not ignorant enough to quote as a source, but it is a Murray Group trust not an RFC trust and that's why it is being handled by Murray Group and not RFC. In my humble opinion the media have been unbelievably lenient on Craig Whyte since he stuck his head above the parapet (save the BBC documentary, I assume they have still to be served with the threatened writ).There was certainly no detailed investigation into Whyte's background by the press prior to or since the takeover (in defence of the Fourth Estate even the IBC's investigation has been proven to be woefully inadequate). All the press seem to do prior to the takeover was regurgitate Whyte's PR releases, £52m deal, "front ended investment" etc. etc. The OP in this thread just looks like another PR release rather than a proper article. The stadium improvements are the result of mortgaging our future catering income to Close Leasing in return for a one-off payment which means there will no catering income available to RFC for however long the lease with Close runs. Attempting to branch out to new markets sounds good but in reality is futile and would just be a case of throwing good money after bad, there is no vast untapped market anywhere for either us or the scum. Even if we signed the two Indians how many shirts could we honestly expect to sell in India certainly none at £40 a pop. Remember our ill fated venture into the Chinese market ? How much did we make out of that? Whyte delaying the AGM is simply a symptom of his modus operandi much like his non-disclosure of a 7 year banning order as a Company Director and the highly misleading statement to PLUS Markets confirming his banning. If the BBC programme about Whyte was factually inaccurate then why has he not followed through with his threat to sue, he couldn't possibly be scared of being cross-examined under oath by some of the country's leading QC's not with his brilliantly successful business career, could he? It's not standard procedure especially where there is an agreement to pay.

Have you not realised yet there is very little correlation between what Craig Whyte says and what Craig Whyte does. Assuming he is not talking to HMRC regarding the big tax case (EBT's) and that we (RFC) have already agreed to pay the wee tax bill (DOS's) although Whyte reneged on that deal, hence HMRC obtaining an Arrestment of Funds Order freezing £2.3m of RFC's cash, what could he possibly be talking to HMRC about ? the alleged £1.4m fine regarding the wee tax case if so then I guess he's perfectly entitled to do so or perhaps rather more worryingly he could be talking to them about overdue PAYE or NIC's (though I concede that there is no proof that we're behind with PAYE and NIC's, though someone may pose that question to the "board" at an AGM!)

The very question Paul Murray posed in the BBC documentary.

I think you're missing the point altogether, the reason the AGM is not going ahead is not because Craig Whyte wants to give the shareholders more information but rather because he wants to keep them in the dark and most certainly doesn't want shareholders asking awkward questions in an open forum. It should be noted that although an AGM can't be called at present because Whyte has not met the conditions required to call one, he can at any time call an EGM. It should also be noted that MIH are dealing with HMRC regarding the big tax case as clearly stated in the Shareholders Circular if Whyte attempted to talk to HMRC he would be in breach of the purchase agreement and would leave himself open to having to cancel the debt owed to his RFC Group Ltd.

Not quite gold but perhaps a £1million investment in Rangers Youth Development Limited, a £1million that when you invest you know you'll never see again. I make it 3 years 8 months or thereabouts. Last minute to make an offer or last minute to make an offer public?, I'd hazard a guess at the latter. I concur that he left it way too late to attempt to galvanise the support and badly misjudged the strength of anti Murray (David) feeling and those who were in the fans eyes guilty by association. As to "Why?", it's pretty clear both from the interview at the beginning of this thread and the one given to the BBC that he simply didn't think anyone was stupid enough to take on the potential liability without an indemnity. There is no doubt that the Paul Murray "bid to inject £25m of new capital was the best one for Rangers there is also no doubt that Whyte's £1 was far, far better for LBG, MIH and David Murray hence where we are today. The old board were at the mercy of a dictator who controlled 80 odd % and was content to let the club and its' fans take a tanking as long as the press left him alone, now we don't even have a board (worthy of the name), don't hold board meetings( and possibly even an AGM),and produce unaudited accounts. We are not on speaking terms with the BBC not because of anything they have said about the club but because they embarrassed Craig Whyte. ( I'm quite happy of the BBC ban per se but I'm not naive as to the reason behind it). The two executive directors are suing simply because of the reckless and naive actions of Craig Whyte, nobody expected them to survive the change of ownership and nobody disputes Whyte's right to remove them but the manner of his doing so was at best amateurish and at worst negligent and has garnered both unnecessary publicity and unnecessary expenditure

Are you seriously suggesting that RFC made illegal payments to Paul Murray whilst he was a non-executive director of RFC ?

The club had spiralled out of control long before Paul Murray joined the board in September 2007, look at the running of the club from September 2007 till the sale to Whyte if you're going to judge Paul Murray. Paul Murray was a non-executive director of the club he received no financial remuneration from Rangers for that role. The only non-executive to receive payment for being a non-executive was John Greig who received the princely sum of £1250 in 2009. Any journalist worth their salt would be questioning why given LBG's prior relationship with Craig Whyte why they, their placements on the board nor David Murray never informed the other members of RFC's board about the fact of Craig Whyte's banning as a company director and also why the shareholders and PLUS Market were not informed. Any journalist worth their salt should be investigating the source of funding for Liberty Capital in the BVI and whether it comes from one of the half dozen or so LBG subsidiaries in the BVI. Any journalist worth their salt would be investigating whether Whyte is a willing Patsy brought on board to do what neither LBG nor David Murray could be seen to countenance and picking up a few bob for his troubles or just a naive chancer way,way,way out of his depth. Who in their right mind buys a house for £1 in the knowledge that it could well take 50 million times as much to fix it? The "bid" you refer to was not a "bid" it was an offer to recapitalise the club with £25m (fully underwritten) new money which would have resulted in David Murray not receiving so much as one penny and having his shareholding diluted to such an extent that he would have became almost irrelevant but he would still have had to face the music if the big tax case hit the fan now he can turn round and say, "wisnae me gov" likewise LBG got off the hook, do you really think that either Murray or LBG could have publicly countenanced placing us into administration or even worse liquidation? If Whyte had done as he said he would and put his money where his mouth is then we wouldn't be in the state we are just now facing court actions on a weekly basis.

If Carter-Ruck had advised him he had a case he'd sue the BBC in England, maybe Mr Whyte is having cold feet at the prospect of being cross-examined on oath in open court by some of the country's leading QC's, who knows what skeletons may then fall out of the cupboard. It is far easier for the BBC via their counsel to tarnish whatever reputation he has in open court than it is on air. I would imagine the "chap" from the Insolvency Service was perfectly aware of the ramifications of what he was saying and was cleared to do so not only by his bosses but by his departments legal advisers. As things stand at present the report into Whyte's banning for 7 years as a Company Director is covered by an "absolute exemption" which means it cannot be released via a Freedom of Information request, however that could very well change if he takes the BBC to court and they convince a Judge to release it. Of course if there's nothing in that report that could cause concern for Rangers shareholders, (and fans) creditors et al then Whyte could release it himself, and then we may discover the actual "technicality".

Perhaps we'll get the chance to ask him pertinent questions at the AGM, then again probably not.