Judge Lord Hodge States The Reality

[craig 5,199]

 

 

 

Ain't that utter rubbish? Even if we lose the big case, we will challenge it and this could drag on for months if not years, so freezing money on the basis of a court case that will soon be finished (I assume) is a touch over the top, isn't it?

 

No, it isnt utter rubbish. The fact is, even if we appeal, we could lose that appeal and could still end up in insolvency. The judge's obligation is to protect the assets in case Bain wins his case due to legal proceedings. The timing of how long the appeal process takes is completely irrelevant. The fact that it could drag on for months OR years also means that the timing of the closure of the case could be relatively short term and, at the very least, is unknown. Given the unknown timing the judge cant make assumptions in that regard. Therefore he almost had to ring-fence the funds.

 

The threat of insolvency is a real one. It may be unpalatable to us but a 49 million debt to HMRC is highly likely to push us down that road.

 

Either way, the judge doesnt know what the outcome of that case will be, nor does he know the timing. Therefore he had little option but to ringfence those funds.

 

I would hope that IF Rangers win the case with Bain that they will actually demand he pays legal costs too.

[craig 5,199]

When Bain did get his increase, I remember Murray saying it was for his loyalty in working without any over the previous years. That's all I can remember about his big wage hike.

 

If that is the case then Bain himself could be in the clear. The club though may not as they would be in contravention of the Companies Act and may have handed Bain an illegal contract. One would then think that Whyte may have a case for negligence against the previous regime.

 

Again, though, I am no lawyer.

[Danny 0]

I've not read much of this as frankly I don't understand economics, business and tax finance when discussed to this level.

 

Can someone put it in dumb laymans' terms for a shmuck like me?

 

Are we seriously at risk of going under?

[craig 5,199]

Yes we are Danny. If we lose the tax case then we possibly would enter insolvency (effectively winding the club up). It is more likely than that, however, that we would enter administration (which is to protect the company against creditors, work out all the assets under an administrator and attempt to get creditors agreement on repayment on some terms less than par - so if we owed a quid we would look to pay less than a quid).

 

I would reckon Whyte has already planned for losing the tax case (he should have....) such that if we lose it we will enter administration, appoint a favourable administrator, Whyte will effectively buy the club AGAIN at a reduced cost to what the liabilities of the club are.

 

However, it must also be remembered that the club's tax advisers (from what I have read the guy retained is one of, if not the, most prominent of tax lawyers in the country) are very confident we will win the case.

 

If we win the case all should be good.

[Danny 0]

Seems a little clearer now. We seem protected to a level but not entirely. There is an outside chance the club as we know it could cease to exist. But that shouldn't happen...?

 

I think I know vaguely what's going on.

[Guest Dutchy]

If there's a need to raise money to continue the exsitance of our club, I belive even the Rangers fans will club together to help the wealthy save our club.

 

It's not as if there is no-one able to keep the club going, it's just having the will. As well as the strange machinations of tax and ownership law.

 

We will not go under!!!

[craig 5,199]

If there's a need to raise money to continue the exsitance of our club, I belive even the Rangers fans will club together to help the wealthy save our club.

 

It's not as if there is no-one able to keep the club going, it's just having the will. As well as the strange machinations of tax and ownership law.

 

We will not go under!!!

 

Whilst I hope you are correct lets not hope that SDM also had a share issue which allowed the club's fans to have a level of ownership in the club..... I dont think we even got as much as 5 mill from everyone combined, aside from SDM.

 

There is no guarantee that the club's fans would contribute, especially when you consider the hardships in the current financial climate.

[der Berliner 3,249]

Do we actually know why Bain was dismissed/suspended? Has it infact to do with these 2.8m HMRC deal that wound up during the take-over, something Bain should have been aware of?

[Guest Dutchy]

Whilst I hope you are correct lets not hope that SDM also had a share issue which allowed the club's fans to have a level of ownership in the club..... I dont think we even got as much as 5 mill from everyone combined, aside from SDM.

 

There is no guarantee that the club's fans would contribute, especially when you consider the hardships in the current financial climate.

 

That's true, in fact I think it was closer to only a £1 million raised by the fans, the rest being underwritten by Murray, but I think if it was a case of us going under or not, there would be more folk putting something into the kitty.

 

I was going to buy some shares in that last issue, but it was a £100 minimum. If you could manage a way to allow people to give what the can, I think you would raise quite a few quid, along with some of our more wealthy fans should get us through it. But remember, we've not lost the court case yet, so I feel we're still in a position of hoping for the best, so far anyway.

[Bluedell 5,342]

Yes we are Danny. If we lose the tax case then we possibly would enter insolvency (effectively winding the club up). It is more likely than that, however, that we would enter administration (which is to protect the company against creditors, work out all the assets under an administrator and attempt to get creditors agreement on repayment on some terms less than par - so if we owed a quid we would look to pay less than a quid).

 

Insolvency is extremely unlikely.

 

I would reckon Whyte has already planned for losing the tax case (he should have....) such that if we lose it we will enter administration, appoint a favourable administrator, Whyte will effectively buy the club AGAIN at a reduced cost to what the liabilities of the club are.

 

The whole takeover was designed to protect Whyte if the worst case scenario happens so he definitely has been planning for it.

 

However, it must also be remembered that the club's tax advisers (from what I have read the guy retained is one of, if not the, most prominent of tax lawyers in the country) are very confident we will win the case.

 

We don't know if they are confident of winning the case. They are always going to say that they are confident, even if they feel they have only a 10% chance of winning.