der Berliner

BTW, as I did last season, I can encourage each and every Bear to sign up for Rangers.TV (for me it is pounds 34 a year) to listen to all Rangers games' audio commentaries (by Tom Miller and a Rangers media lad), view Blues News and some interviews et al (watching games costs extra). This money will go straight to the club, as confirmed by the chief editor of Rangers media*. *These are the club employees, not those of the Rangers Media supporters website ... just in case.

Yep. Kennedy always maintained that he'd be there to stave off the newco thread. How that or the above-mentioned three bidders (of whom I think Kennedy is one) could affect any negative outcome of this CVA bid is the bone of contention. In many ways, we sure have to keep some strong guts for the next 5 days or so, as we will be subject to all sorts of hysteria and horror-mongering. I cannot say I'm positive about the whole scenario, but as Green has said, HMRC knows the plot long enough, even before the CVA proposal. There is no need for them to wait till the last possible moment to say No!. So there's hoping that they will agree and put us out of this misery.

Right now, we have bigger issues to look at, but we sure should keep the prime hate-mob in mind come next season.

I doubt that there was any irony intended, as GA spoke about years to come. The past, apart from Whyte's reign, is pretty much up to debate (not least since even we don't know whether the EBTs were used correctly or not).

Does it matter what we think? The question is what can actually happen? I've also asked the question whether a new bidder with a better CVA might jump in before any liquidation or newco decision is being done. From the way the admins and Green sound, it is either CVA or newco by June 14th. And IMHO it has always been a decision of getting something or nothing, no matter who concludes the administration process. Does, on the other hand, anyone on here think that HMRC would indeed go the full monty and wind Rangers up to get a few million more? Because one chap did not pay his tax and PAYE as he should have for about a year?

Somesuch should be remembered in days to come.

The point remains whether they can stop the process now? It's not like they had no time to do it by now. NB: As for the headline: where do these reporters think have we been these last five months?

If TBK, or Kennedy or King for that matter are serious in their bid to save Rangers FC, why don't they back Green's proposal for now? Or indeed get on board and accept that for the time being, someone else then they themselves will be at the helm ... even though that is not certain. All you see is one trying to crawl over another to get a foot in, only to note when it is too late that the ship they are aiming to captain is already sinking and any helmsman will get wet feet. And while I am at it, there are only very few businessman about who can guide the club through this process out of their own purse. So King slagging off Green for not being able too is rather silly indeed.

HMRC is listed with various numbers. Schedule 6 lists them as unsecured creditors with pounds 14,372,042, whereas Schedule 8 has them with pounds 21,376,767,00.

(Again, please add a date to the topical header. There have been numerous statements by D&P, Green, Whyte et al. Replies get them up and down and one hardly knows whether one is up to date or there's just an opinion to an older one. Cheers!)

I would be surprised if HMRC did not tell D&P the correct figures themselves, or at least what they estimated it would be. Apart from that I was under the impression that part of the small case money was already ring-fenced long before we went into admin and thus would be there ... somewhere. As I asked before, is there actually a time-restriction with regards to back-dating any claims, e.g. the EBTs. Like 5 or 10 years before any claim goes out of the window?

Obviously, if he has the money, he might be upset if Green goes on with his proposal of no director owning more than 15% of the club ('s shares). While I am at it ... if Green indeed has ownership of the shares now, does these shares need to be floated on a stock market to be sold or can it just be decided to hand them over (i.e. 15% each) to some investors who pay a fixed sum (e.g. 5m each) which go straight into the club's accounts?

... says who exactly?

... while D&P were given wrong information "by the club" (I "like" the club bit) when estimating the initial debt. + + + (Ignoring the quote option, so the text is not "italicized") Rangers administrators blame HMRC penalties for £4m tax bill increase By Mike Farrell 7 June 2012 18:31 BST Rangers administrators claim the clubâ??s tax bill has increased by £4m because of interest and penalties added by the authorities. According to a report released earlier this month, the Ibrox club now owe HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) an estimated £18.3m for non-payment of VAT and PAYE in the nine months following Craig Whyte's May 2011 takeover. The penalties have added £4m to the tax debt originally specified as £14.3m in Duff and Phelps's statement to creditors released in April. Mr Whyte deducted the tax from employees' wages but did not hand it over to HMRC, instead using it as a source of working capital at Ibrox. On Thursday, a spokesman for the administrators claimed that the increase in the club's tax liability was not the result of any failure to pay PAYE or VAT since they were appointed on February 14. The administrators also said the figure had risen as a result of "new information coming to light" which differed from what the club's owners had given them. The spokesman said: "The £14.3m figure was Duff and Phelpsâ?? calculations based on the information provided to them by the club at the time. "The £18.3m takes into account HMRCâ??s full claim as creditors apart from both the big and wee tax cases. "A substantial part of that increase is down to penalties and interest being added by HMRC for non-payment. It is also to do with new information coming to light in its claim, which differed from the information provided by the club to the administrators initially." The administratorâ??s spokesman said "all tax has been paid on behalf of Rangers since their appointment on February 14" and stated the increase was not in relation to new debts built up since the insolvency firm was appointed. When administrators were called in earlier this year, the HMRC debt was estimated at £9m by the administrators. But this rose to £14m in Duff and Phelps' first report to creditors the following month, Rangers owe HMRC around £3m for the 'wee' tax case, which centres on the clubâ??s use of a discounted options scheme to pay players Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer from 2000 to 2003. The club is also awaiting the first tier tribunalâ??s decision on the 'big' tax case, in which Rangers are appealing against HMRCâ??s decision that the way they used offshore employee benefit trusts (EBTs) breached tax law. Under Sir David Murrayâ??s ownership the club paid part of the salaries of staff and players using loans from the trusts between 2001 and 2010. The use of such trusts was not illegal, but the way in which Rangers allegedly (inserted by dB) deployed them to pay wages found them in breach of the rules according to HMRC. Legislation introduced last March was designed to clampdown on the schemes by imposing tax-charges on loans from the trusts. According to administrators, Rangers could face a tax bill of up to £75m if they are unsuccessful in the tax tribunal case, which concluded hearing evidence in January and is still to report its findings over the use of EBTs. ... sayest STV + + + This will only change the payout HMRC gets from an approved CVA, I assume, but may well endanger them accepting it? Then again, they would have known the figure all along anyway. (You do "like" the penalty percentage used here. Would any bank et all do this, hell would break lose ... )

@ admin ... can we please add a date to the topic header of each of such "statement threads"?

Perfect basis for more doom-spinning ...

I would assume that this is all the normal legal technicality babble, but someone will sure read something dreadful into this and tell the world ... Question is ... should the CVA fail, can someone jump in with a better CVA bid for "the company" before it is either being liquidated or turned into a newco?

I might not get lauded for this, but I see no reason to rename Murray Park. To me it was Auchenhowie all along and no matter people will turn it these days, not least with the events leading to the current crisis, SDM brought MP into existence, brought years of success to Rangers FC that goes hand in hand with the squads training there. It is not like a statue we errect for some great deeds or whatnot. Struth never saw it, Cooper never saw it. If they need remembering, they shall get a stand named after them, or a statue errected. If not much good comes out of people's mouths about SDM's tenure, no-one can deny that he build a state of the art training facility at Auchenhowie that was used and will be used by Rangers players past, present and future. It was in the end much more that brought the club to its knees than solely SDM's EBT stuff or overspending, so people should weigh it all up and hopefully will come to the same opinion of mine. EDIT: And no, I won't debate this.

Leggat's quality and seriousness goes up and down like there's no tomorrow. We as a support should keep the McCulloch incident breweing though. Something far less sinister got Dallas the sack and I see no reason why it should be different with Regan. Double standards at work and here we have something to beat the living shyte out of him ... and the relevant unbiased press reporting.

Can't see the article being listed on NewsNow - Rangers. If it is, people on here should click it there to make it a "Top Story" and thus make it a little more sticky on the right hand side. We ... as in: Gersnet ... could offer to have the article copied on the main site, so it will spring up again and possibly reaches a wider audience.

Do I have to bribe them to finally cross the Elbe river and come to Berlin et al. Our visit would easily fill at least half of the Olympiastadion in my home town.

What exactly did Hugh Dallas get the sack for again?

Squeaky bums time, sure enough. You'd hope that the players will at least see out the outcome of the CVA and speak to Ally afterwards before deciding their future.

Again ... once we do indeed exit administration via the CVA - who has as yet not changed in value (so for we have been fed with assumptions and hearsay, while the Green folk only have to put the money required in at the last moment, so to speak) - will Leggat eat his humble pie for the amount of sane to hilarious statements he made about Green, his statements and D&P's involvement?

I blame it on the summer break!