der Berliner 3,246 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 If we go into administration it will be because of the HMRC case. So HMRC will also be a creditor, and a larger one (probably) than Craig Whyte. Methinks - as has been pointed out over at FF - that Whyte is the only "secured creditor", while HMRC and the rest are just creditors too. He gets first pick and HMRC and the rest will effectively get next to nothing. The only real way for HMRC to get any money of substance is to do a deal with Whyte. Now, I can't say that these people are all "in the know", but it appears that there is a certain consensus with regard to what HMRC can expect should we enter any form of administration. Hence my remark above. At the end of the day, all the media speculation is based on the notion that we actually lose the case in the first place. A case that is actually nearer to 36m (i.e. confirmed 24m + 12m penalty) than the much-quoted 49m. Not that this makes any great difference, unless there is a deal to be cut. Speaking of which, someone mentioned a deal to be offered to the tune of 8.5m this week, anyone else heard that? On a sidenote, another poster mentioned: "Andrew Thornton QC has driven a coach through HMRCs case" that is from a legal observer quoted on rangers tax case. That quote was lifted from a response on a Paul McConville blog. I'm not sure how serious you should take that comment. Hm ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 A case that is actually nearer to 36m (i.e. confirmed 24m + 12m penalty) than the much-quoted 49m. What about interest? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,246 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Yeah, but I am not sure whether the initial claim actually included that. As I said, whether it will be 36m or 49m, it will be equally difficult to handle. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Methinks - as has been pointed out over at FF - that Whyte is the only "secured creditor", while HMRC and the rest are just creditors too. He gets first pick and HMRC and the rest will effectively get next to nothing. The only real way for HMRC to get any money of substance is to do a deal with Whyte. You might want want to be a bit clearer in what you post next time. In your original post you said that Whyte was the "only real creditor" - that is far, far removed from what you say above. Whyte may be the only secured creditor but to suggest that unsecured creditors are not real is incorrect. They are very real. The only major difference between a secured and unsecured creditor is that a secured creditor will get all of their funds back prior to the "divvying up" of the remainder of assets between the rest of the unsecured creditors. I am not convinced that he is the only secured creditor. Did we not recently just mortgage some kind of contract ? Anyone know if that was secured ? I thought it was. Now, I can't say that these people are all "in the know", but it appears that there is a certain consensus with regard to what HMRC can expect should we enter any form of administration. Hence my remark above. At the end of the day, all the media speculation is based on the notion that we actually lose the case in the first place. A case that is actually nearer to 36m (i.e. confirmed 24m + 12m penalty) than the much-quoted 49m. Not that this makes any great difference, unless there is a deal to be cut. Speaking of which, someone mentioned a deal to be offered to the tune of 8.5m this week, anyone else heard that? I am not convinced that there the consensus are correct regards what HMRC can expect to collect.... unless they know what the market value is for Murray Park and Ibrox (and even then market value isnt necessarily an indicator as to what you can expect to sell an asset for). Another reason that I have doubts about your paragraph above is that we have no idea what penalties HMRC would levy on the liability. If the liability is 24 million they have the ability to levy a 100% penalty on the liability. That would take your 24 million case to 48 million - and that is before you talk about interest, as BD points out above. Nobody knows for sure what HMRC would levy for a penalty in the event we lose the case. I think that it might be in the best interests of both RFC and HMRC to come to some kind of deal. But it depends on the magnitude. I hadnt heard of the deal you mention. 8.5 million would be, IMO, a decent deal for RFC. Closes the book on a thorny issue and allows us to move forward without the spectre of administration hanging over our heads. On a sidenote, another poster mentioned: Hm ... Hopefully that is true. But there are two sides to every story. I wont be comforted until there is official announcement that we have won the case or settled. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Yeah, but I am not sure whether the initial claim actually included that. As I said, whether it will be 36m or 49m, it will be equally difficult to handle. Looks to me like the numbers you posted (36 million being 24+12) are liability plus penalty (50% penalty). If my assumption is correct then interest will NOT be included. HMRC dont charge a penalty on interest. The way the calculation works is liability plus penalty = X. Interest is calculated based on X and added to X. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Craig, the secured creditor thing is what I was trying to put across the other night when I was drunk. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 If Rangers enter administration then fail to strike a deal with their creditors, the prospect of starting up again as a new company becomes a realistic possibility, but one UEFA is alert to. Of course UEFA are alert to it. they will have received about 5000 timosapians e-mails to them including Graham Spiers and McGobleabigyin. Seemingly McGobleabigyin, was preaching we only have 200.000 pound left to cover the daily costs. Funny how they can't find any information on Whyte but they have inside information on our bank balance. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I'm leaving the tax issue to those have more knowledge on these issues than I have. Regarding the media, it wouldn't surprise me if what is getting out there and how it is portrayed is not all it seems, and I would imagine that CW is pulling more strings than we think. Could be that "balanced investigative journalists" like Andrew Smith - who after all, are not all that interested in getting out of the office/home to either balance, investigate or even perform any journalistic function - are being used in this present end game. Wouldn't that be be a gas. Phil, Andrew, Keevins and all the rest have been scammed into printing what we want them to. Anyway, back to Andrew Smith, I agree with Zappa that AS has huge history in gushing about Celtic. In that case, it's surprising that he chose to talk about the Rangers tax case yesterday instead of talking about the catastrophe facing Celtic regarding their present squad and technical and corporate management. In my opinion, and from what I can gather, Celtic are in a very dark place. Damned if they do and damned if they don't - on many fronts. Most importantly , they don't have a united fan base. They are split, and have big agendas that will not go away. We have very interesting times ahead this year. I hope CW will steer a firm course, and hope that our anchor holds strong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 When we win this tax case the bheasts will be sunk for many a year. They have no money a huge wage bill and need to cut costs in January which means one of their better players going, Hooper I would wager. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 When we win this tax case the bheasts will be sunk for many a year. They have no money a huge wage bill and need to cut costs in January which means one of their better players going, Hooper I would wager. Allan I think we need to cut costs as well. It's an issue that every Scottish club is facing. The good news is that - pound for pound - we have a lot of quality. I think we could afford to offload a couple of high profile players and still be very competitive. We also have our youth programme now seriously bringing through some great talent. The long and the short is that we realise that we have huge problems to face. The Tims realise - and overemphasise our huge problems - but are not facing the bleak future that they face. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.