Rangersitis

I suppose it is how you look at it. For me it says clearly they were liquidating Rangers because it was the only way they could investigate the person responsible for our financial affairs, At that moment that was Whyte. It could be that he also meant Murray but the fact remains we were Liquidated so as an investigation could be made and that was my point. It is crazy to me that you can't allow a company a CVA and investigate it at the same time.

There can be an investigation following a successful CVA. The spokesman claimed that it would 'restrict the scope'. Without further clarification as to what he was specifically referring to, it's all just supposition. HMRC appear to have been vindicated by their decision as the BDO pot appears to be far bigger than the £8.5m that Green and his cronies were pretending to offer.

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/105837-rangers-liquidation-now-inevitable-after-cva-bid-rejected-by-hmrc/

That passage does not cover what you originally claimed. For a start, Whyte had not been there for 'years' and neither had he been guilty of tax fraud as everything had been recorded. The non-payment by Rangers was a civil matter, not criminal.

You could have included the following tract from the same STV article that you linked.

On its website, HMRC states that among some of the "exceptional reasons" it would reject a CVA is that a company has "funded their business or lifestyle by consistently withholding Crown monies" such as tax.

That is where the historical non-compliance aspect would be covered.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Whoever comes in, I hope that they haven't already indicated to the club that they want to hold on to the players who escaped the recent cull. Other than the inexperienced younger players, they all need punted.

I think I'll disagree with you here, but you'll agree that attempting to read between the lines as to HMRC's intent is purely subjective.

Let's see if we can agree on the facts, as I have garnered them.

1. Whyte was seen to have owed HMRC, on a personal basis as distinct from his actions with Rangers, approx. £4M. This was a long-running saga which HMRC had great difficulty in pinning him down on. In fact, they believed he was a flight risk.

2. Since acquiring Rangers Whyte caused a debt of approx. £14.5M to be owed to HMRC ( and HMRC watched it happen - why did they not intervene earlier? ). This was the accumulated non-payment of employee taxes and NI deductions, plus interest and penalties. Up to this point Rangers had no history of non-payment of taxes apart from the WTC, which they finally agreed was in fact owed but had not as yet been paid. This could be added to the £14.5M bringing the total to approx. £18.5M.

3. Under the CVA ( CG was offering something like £8.5M I believe ), HMRC as a creditor would have received perhaps 5p/£ ( I don't know for sure ), however, under liquidation they would get nothing. Now for the piddly amount owed by Rangers under the WTC do you reasonably accept that this is why HMRC forced Rangers into liquidation?

 

Here's a quote from the Telegraph from the administrators - "Clark added: "It was with HMRC's approval that a proposal was placed before creditors for consideration.

"However, it is the commercial view that the level offered within the CVA was not enough to merit departure from their normal policy of seeking a detailed investigation via a liquidator.

"However, we have been left in no doubt by HMRC the fundamental reason for the rejection of the CVA proposal is the historical non-compliance with tax liabilities by the former owners and directors of the club." ( you might argue that that historical reference is directed at Rangers before Whyte, but I believe it is directed at Whyte as owner and director. I base that on the fact I haven't seen HMRC go after any other directors or SDM )

And one from CG - "I can understand HMRC deciding that football clubs which do not pay their taxes need to be punished, but by effectively banning Rangers from Europe for three years all that will happen is that there will be less revenue generated by the club and consequently less money paid over to the taxman.

"Also, I do not believe that by opting to vote against the CVA proposal, HMRC will generate more cash by pursuing those they believe as responsible - but that is a matter for them." - CG knew Whyte was skint.

 

So, from what I see there I would have thought that HMRC would have been doing the public, who are after all their bosses, a better service from a monetary point of view by accepting the greater amount in the CVA proposal. However, from the bolded parts we can see that HMRC were more concerned with getting greater investigative powers using the offices of the liquidator.

Now this is where we either agree or agree to disagree, but I don't think that HMRC were after SDM, AJ, John Grieg or any of the others. I believe they only want Whyte because I think they have a history with him, probably more than is seen in the articles, and they need the increased powers of the Liquidators office to nail him.

As I say, a purely subjective opinion.

Paul Clark and Charles Green. Jesus wept!

I see it simply as the club needs cash input from the Rangers fans,count me in,initially to help us move forward.I know we've been f*cked over before and will make a lot of fans very weary buying a ST,but surely the fans can see we have people on the board who will do everything possible for the benefit of Rangers FC,regardless of what cash Kingco puts in!,it's a no brainer for me!. I've never withheld my ST money to see what manager is appointed or what players we sign!,but even now with the shit we have been through with the last thieves where we knew they were stealing our money to line their own pockets the new board will not do that!.

Each to their own, but I will wait for them to come good on at least a few of the numerous promises before deciding on my next move. It has been an inauspicious start.

HMRC should never have been allowed to reject the CVA. Without the BTC they were not the main creditor and they subsequently lost the BTC

The BTC had no relevance to the CVA as the HMRC didn't include it in their claim. The proposal failed because their vote against meant that the 75% needed for approval couldn't be achieved.

If you read the articles the intent of HMRC was to nail Whyte. The total money owed on the WTC and by Whyte's non-payment of tax and NI premiums, is almost superfluous to their intent of chasing down Whyte. Apparently if they force liquidation they can have a better chance of prosecuting Whyte than they do if they accepted the CVA.

Rangers operated a tax avoidance scheme for two former players, Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer, between 2000-01 and 2002-03 known as a 'Discounted Options Scheme' - commonly referred to as the "Wee Tax Case". HMRC issued Rangers with a bill of about £4m for outstanding amounts owed from the discounted options tax scheme, which was settled, but was not paid.

As you know the BTC was against Murray/MIH and they were waiting for a verdict from the FTT when the liquidation occurred. A complete non-influence on the rejection of the CVA and subsequent liquidation.

No, the intent of HMRC was to recover the monies which they were owed by RFC, not Craig Whyte. If prior to February 2012 Whyte had sent them the total that you claimed he owed, Rangers would still have suffered the same fate.

HMRC's guidelines on CVAs are quite clear. They will not support proposals put forward by companies with a history of poor compliance and late payments. The ongoing disputes from the time of SDM helped lead to the failure of the Voluntary Arrangement.

Individuals who have a bit about them will make their own decisions on what to spend their income on with very few relying solely on a couple of legal decisions. I dare say that the court action taken by SD this week would have been the route that most large organisations would have followed if they feared that confidential and sensitive information was going to be made public.

While thing was a con perpetrated by Whyte green and duff and Phelps.

Exactly. The BTC wasn't even relevant in the club entering administration. That was down to a further £9m which had been deliberately withheld from HMRC.

From his letter: "So, the average price for a ticket for season 2015-16 is £411 representing a relatively modest 5% increase..."

Well, there is a discrepancy somewhere. I shall leave it at that.

The manager will be appointed long before any final season ticket sale tally so no excuses there.

 

Like I say King has said he'll make up any ticketing shortfall so if we say we'll sell 30,000 then that leaves him £6.15m to find for this season on top of £12.3m brought in by those 30,000.

Is the average season ticket priced at over £400? King stated at the launch that 45,000 sales would bring in roughly that £12.3m.

No, pretty sure it was from around 15 years ago.

 

I don't think we sold as much in 2007/08 because we couldn't produce enough strips.

Thanks, Frankie. I knew that the supply problems in 2008 had curtailed sales. It makes sense that figures around Advocaat's time would have been high due to the brand 'bounce' across the world. I don't think anyone apart from Adidas and Nike have that sort of pull.

No idea. I've naively accepted King's figure without further investigation. I'm very, very sorry. But, after further research, I think I can now confidently assert that sales have gone from 'lots' making us decent money, to 'fuck all' and making us fuck all. Of course the difference is that if we sell lots, we still make fuck all. I'll be saving my money and it looks like there's a fair few bears who think the same.

The first two words would have been plenty.

Stupid statement.

Yes, that was my whole point.

Let's hope it's as successful this time

If there is nothing more than a vision, then it won't be. A large body of the support have been scunnered by a succession of empty promises and will not be swayed by noise emanating from the RST or RF.

Desperate stuff.

Oh aye, the RF statement is a ringing endorsement of the current deal and clearly urges everyone to buy as much from SD as possible. The RST may not be speaking for all Rangers fans on this but seeing as we're 450,000 downs shirt sales, it would seem there's a few who share their broad view.

There is little doubt that shirt sales have fallen dramatically over the years, but in what year was this figure of 500,000 sales achieved? Couldn't find reference to it anywhere.

It was true when green said it. Trouble is he was saying it to have more cash to steal.

 

its the motives that are different

I didn't say that it wasn't true or that the motives were the same. I was commenting on the fact that the style of the message and the lack of substance that accompanies it are not a million miles apart to that which Green employed so successfully.

Have Rangers actually given notice that they are terminating the arrangement with SD?

When he said nothing the same people complained.

 

It's just an excuse for an attack.

He hasn't said anything new, nor has he provided anything tangible for the unconvinced to enthuse over. The only thing that is missing from that piece of recycled Traynor nonsense is a reference to the Champions League anthem!

Same rhetoric minus the Yorkshire accent.

What is the repayment date then when these costs are incurred ?

There is no repayment date on the first tranche within the agreement, but from 2017/2018 all sponsorship revenue goes to RRL.

That doesn't mean he will have proven they don't have the funds. It will merely prove they like the idea of a 5 million quid, interest free, in perpetuity loan.

What is it with this claim of 'in perpetuity'? There may not be a specific percentage charge on it, but there are costs involved when it is not paid back.

Then it is surely this the club has to challenge and not some disclosure dealings?

IMO,we should refuse to pay on the unsold shirts and take it from there,courts or whatever.

There is obviously more than this,but it would be a good starting point.

It was 'the club' which signed off on the deal. Unless they have proof of wrongdoing by SD, they wouldn't have anything to challenge them on.

Maybe so,But they cant force people to buy football strips,no matter how smart they are.

The club pay for any unsold shirts. It's a fine gesture, but pretty futile at the end of the day.

Our stature is not dictated by our current league

It is. Perhaps not in the last three seasons because of the circumstances of being entered into the bottom league, but being in the second division of a footballing backwater on merit, that can't be wrapped up any other way.