Dave181

Not really that accurate an assumption as less than 70% of shareholders voted. I know this is not likely to happen but if 100% voted that would aggregate roughly to approx 18% assuming that all shareholders deemed to be against King made sure they cast their vote during the AGM process. Of course this is only my opinion but some RFC supporters are happy to just sit back and let others do the job of ridding our club of vermin.

Being reported elsewhere no response yet made to bid

That should read ***"their pursuits" - not "there"

The reluctance to divulge the info tells us everything we need to know. HMRC have dug a hole for themselves and don't want to be seen to climbdown in there pursuits but by continuing to put forward the same arguments the result is most likely to be replicated each time it's appealed. In my opinion the Law should be amended in situations like this to only allow a further appeal if new "evidence" is forthcoming and not just the same "we think they got it wrong" line they continue to be allowed to pursue.

I think they stated at the time of the FTT that they would "appeal, appeal & appeal again!!".... The question I would like answered is how much is this costing the taxpayer? What's the betting that it's now higher than the £10MILLION offered by SDM to settle

The scale of offence is completely irrelevant in this case. It is all about tax law interpretation and principle. Doesn't matter whether or not it was 1 pound or 1 billion pounds. And even if Carloway rules against RFC the sad reality (for HMRC) is that they will be chasing a debt from a company which will ultimately be liquidated - if they win they will be small pennies on the pound.

 

Likewise, why the SFA would be concerned is beyond me. Caroloway can rule on the law and can levy fines on a legal entity. But that doesn't necessarily mean the Club. Not sure how the courts would expel us from football...... Seems like scare-mongering to me.

You do realise this article is from 2012