forlanssister

The club itself had already accepted that the "wee tax bill" was due and did not pursue their right of appeal, Whyte knew we had agreed to pay it, but I suppose you could argue due to the wording used is all that he agreed to do was to pay the money to settle the bill to Rangers but not necessarily pass it onward to HMRC! Aye, that's a clause and a half that would keep the lawyers in the clover for a very long time.

Don't know if it would make any difference or not. I would imagine it would be up to the Administrator whether to continue with the appeal or not, there are others on here with a far superior knowledge of the relevant law than me but I think if we find ourselves in administration before the big tax case is concluded it would make sense for the Administrator to withdraw the appeal and accept the bill and get it included in the administration, but whether he could legally do that I simply don't know, but as you allude to it seems pointless to go into administration and come out of it again to face the HMRC all over again. To your second point I suppose because "the wheels of Justice turn slowly", I'm not sure quite what you mean by "deal with Bain and McIntyre" but I don't think their respective cases are progressing unduly slowly.

It seems to be becoming increasingly apparent that Administration could arrive before the decision of the FTT is delivered, the "big tax case" can be spun out for a long time yet but can Rangers cash last the year without any apparent line of credit?

When was Whithey appointed a director of RFC as I can't find any notification regarding it?

Whyte spent long enough doing due diligence and that includes going over the main employees contracts so he knew what their contracts were. Whyte did not follow either due process or employment law when he sacked them, telling the world through the media that there "was no way back" was either ignorant or naive. I have no problem with him replacing either of them and they would have been expecting to move on. The normal course to follow would have been a mutual consent and a pay off but Whyte opted to wash the dirty linen in public and throw good money after bad. (e) The Rangers FC Group is to contribute to the Club the amount required to meet a liability owed by the Club to HM Revenue & Customs in relation to a discounted option scheme tax; Now what part of the above statement from the Circular to Shareholders do you have trouble comprehending. The tax bill for the DOS only became due this year after HMRC won a court case related to a similar scheme, that's why there never was a contingency for any previous years accounts, there were a lot more companies than RFC hit with tax bills for DOS's. Fair enough. Changed from Warners to Anderson Strathern in the middle of the Bain case, I understand they changed QC's too but stand to be corrected. Here's the circular read it for yourself http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/4d/76/0,,5~161357,00.pdf We'll soon find out how much of the £5m "additional working capital" and £5m for "investment in the playing squad" actually materialised. Oh and what happened to the money that was going to be "front ended"? (e) The Rangers FC Group is to contribute to the Club the amount required to meet a liability owed by the Club to HM Revenue & Customs in relation to a discounted option scheme tax; If it had been paid then HMRC would not have been granted an Arrestment would they? The correct procedure would have been to do as they promised and paid the bill they could still have appealed any penalties but they have reneged on their promise to HMRC just as they reneged on their promise to Levy and Macrae. We offered Hearts £300k initially for Lee Wallace and ended up paying £1.5 million I know he's a half decent player but £1.5m for an SPL player with less than 12 months left on his contract, 5 times the initial offer? The David Goodwillie farce period. The farce of having a centre half travelling via planes, trains and auto-mobiles to make his début in one of our most important games of the season with a group of players he's never met let alone played with. Well we'll soon find out for sure won't we ? I see bad in Whyte's takeover because no matter how hard and how often I look I can see no good in it for Rangers only for Whyte. Whyte will make Murray seem like a Paragon of Virtue and I'm not claiming the gift of second sight in saying that. So far the media have given Whyte an unbelievable easy ride, during the takeover all they did was unquestionably push Hay & Mckerron's spin. Whyte's had more stories spiked in 6 months than Murray had in 20 years. Suddenly because there is a programme going to be aired that shows Whyte in a non to flattering light the BBC are banned only the gullible will believe that he's standing up for the club and not himself.

He's also the second biggest shareholder which may explain the situation (then again it probably doesn't)

LOL...that would be one for Mulder and Scully!

Save of course for Dave King, which begs the question if he cannot be removed due to some agreement when he initially invested or even connected with the divestment of Murray Sports when it appeared his holding increased slightly.

Sorry meant single "executive" director (apologies for causing any confusion). I'd be well f*&ked if private companies needed more than one director (plus a company secretary)..

But we have over 26,000 owners not one. While strange as it seems a single director does appear satisfy the Companies Act would it satisfy Rangers Articles of Association ( and would it ever matter if it didn't)? I've absolutely no doubt that we are being wound down (and have been since the day Whyte handed over his £1) but here's the crux if we go into administration before the due process of the "big tax case" (for there are still avenues available if the verdict were to favour of HMRC) is concluded then Murray's and the previous regime become irrelevant for it will be as a result of Whyte's actions (and inactions) that finally bring us to our knees.

I concur with you that it appears we only have one executive director and have absolutely no doubt that is the way he wants it.

Some former directors may well have raised their concerns to be noted in the minutes, some may even have asked for independent advice, some were not even members of the board when some of the actions took place, i.e both the EBTs and the DOS schemes pre-dated MacIntyre's stint as Finance Director yet there is no doubt the excrement hit the rotating cooling device on his watch. How on earth can his culpabilty ( if indeed there is any) be calculated. It's certainly one hell of a f*&king mess and in the end the only loser will be RFC the only winner the lawyers.

He doesn't own the whole of the company (yet anyway). That too is my understanding of the current situation but hey we may both be wrong!

The handling of the sackings of Bain and MacIntyre surely has to be classed as a failure? Not being able to prevent the arrestment of monies by HMRC, Bain and possibly MacIntyre surely is a failure? Being sued by your Solicitors and needlessly running up further expense surely falls into the failure category? The constant changing of legal representatives is surely a sign of failure too? The apparent reneging on the "guarantees" in the Shareholder Circular is surely a sign of failure? The failure to settle the "wee tax case" despite written undertakings to do so is surely a sign of failure? The farcical events that unfurled in the transfer window is surely a sign of failure? The apparent imminent "insolvency event" (totally irrespective of the "big tax case") well if that's not a failure what is? Bit of a pattern developing there, no?

They should be very suspicious indeed it's a massive red flag. Whyte will have departed the scene and sunning himself on some Caribbean beach before the majority finally waken up.

Yes he's a non-executive director.

If it's not true I'm sure Whyte will sue the BBC eh?

It would appear so yes, not exactly the paragon of the Cadbury Code of Practice is it ?

Director of football isn't the same as either an executive or non-executive director. Changes in Directorships have to be announced to the market, hence the changes http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/plusCompanyDetail.html?securityId=10824

There has been no formal notification that either Russell and Smith are in fact actually directors.

It could 2 or 3 years away as you say buth then again it may be 2 or 3 days away or maybe even 2 or 3 hours away. Administration does not need to wait for the outcome of the Tax case.

Possibly RFC Group Ltd might not need to hold an AGM but I'm pretty certain RFC do (though I stand to be corrected). I'll be amazed if an AGM is held before a creditors meeting.

Not if we were to suffer an "insolvency event" first. Pray tell when and where?

I sincerely doubt we will see another AGM.

Our biggest problem is that the "ordinary" supporter is content to blame everybody associated with the old regime for all our ills and has treated Whyte with blind faith when there is absolutely nothing in his business history to justify that faith, has anybody ever seen one example of the Venture Capitalist's success? Greig's resignation is more symbolic than anything else but that symbolism doesn't mean it should be dismissed out of hand, McClelland's resignation is of greater importance because despite what the "ordinary" supporter thinks McClelland is no fool and unlike Whyte is held in high regard in the business community.