Darthter 542 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 You are wrong: it is the lack of funds to enable us to pay our liabilities that put us in administration. You don't get put in administration just because you don't pay taxes. However, you can if it looks like you aren't able to pay your debts - like your taxes. From STV website 14th Feb: Rangers have gone into administration after HM Revenue and Customs took them to court over an unpaid £9m tax bill. The Ibrox club officially appointed its preferred administrators Duff and Phelps on Tuesday afternoon, the day after lodging a notice with the Court of Session confirming their intention to do so. Administrators Paul Clark and David Whitehouse took over the 140-year-old club at 2.50pm on Tuesday after the court action. They revealed since the club has not paid £9m in PAYE and VAT tax since Craig Whyte's takeover in May 2011. Source Ultimately the club were FORCED into administration by HMRC due to the outstanding PAYE/NI issue 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 From STV website 14th Feb: Source Ultimately the club were FORCED into administration by HMRC due to the outstanding PAYE/NI issue What is your point? That does not disagree with anything I said. What you are doing is taking a special case and making it general. You seem stuck on this tax thing and can't see the real issue. Rangers were forced into administration due to NOT PAYING A DEBT - AND looking like they are not ABLE to pay it. That debt HAPPENED to be tax. It could have been ANY outstanding debt that the company could not afford to pay. If Rangers COULD pay the debt, they would NOT be in administration. Instead they would be a court order to seize the funds and then another to make them pay. If Rangers HAD paid the tax, they would most probably have been in administration EARLIER as another creditor (or more than one) would have likely made the petition. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The way I see it: due to a crap European season we were looking at a multimillion pound loss <snip> So our biggest problems before Whyte were - a loss making operation and then the impact of the two tax cases. <snip> The things that put us in the shit are the two tax cases. That's why Murray wanted rid and no-one wanted to buy. <snip> ultimately Murray's tax dodging that put us on the gallows. Looking at the points above: A poor show in Europe didn't help anything, but according to reports, Whyte hadn't paid ANY PAYE/NI since he took over in May - several months before the Euro exit. Therefore debts were already being run up before Euro money even entered the equation. The big tax case has no influence on the day to day cash flow of the club. No decision has been made & therefore at present, no money is owed. This was still the case before Whyte took over, yet the club were still reducing their bank debt and paying their bills. Granted the existence of the big case and the uncertainty surrounding it has been a stumbling block for potential investors. As for the tax dodging....Murray always paid the PAYE & NI contributions - Whyte hasn't. Therefore, ultimately is has been Whyte's tax dodging that has put us in this situation. That coupled with the dubious manner in which finances have been handled since Whyte took over - why does there appear to be so many millions unaccounted for. Also Murray always have the accounts produced & audited on time, with the AGM following shortly after. Now, with Whyte in control....there's no accounts or AGM, wich results in no Europe an less income. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Rangers were forced into administration due to NOT PAYING A DEBT - AND looking like they are not ABLE to pay it. The point is Where did that debt came from??? Who ran it up??? The answer is Craig Whyte!!! The club was forced into Admin due to debts incurred since Whyte took over. The previous owners were in the process of reducing the overall debt. Since Whyte has taken over, he has increased the clubs debt substantially, while at the same time reducing a very important & substantial revenue stream. The effect the admin process will have on those debts is yet unknown. It MAY turnout that while the pre-admin debts have increased, the post -admin debt may actually reduce overall - but @ what cost to the club & its reputation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 A poor show in Europe didn't help anything, but according to reports, Whyte hadn't paid ANY PAYE/NI since he took over in May - several months before the Euro exit. Therefore debts were already being run up before Euro money even entered the equation. Have you ever heard of the concept of money being "fungible"? There is a pot of money from earning, there a bunch of bills needing to be paid. He was running up one debt by using the money to pay for others. If there was enough money, all the debts would be paid - at least through court action. As there is not enough, we're put in admin. The big tax case has no influence on the day to day cash flow of the club. No decision has been made & therefore at present, no money is owed. This was still the case before Whyte took over, yet the club were still reducing their bank debt and paying their bills. I agree with this but it doesn't mean that this season is the same. We have the wee tax bill and bugger all European income. Like I said elsewhere, we may have broken even without the wee tax bill. As for the tax dodging....Murray always paid the PAYE & NI contributions - Whyte hasn't. Therefore, ultimately is has been Whyte's tax dodging that has put us in this situation. That coupled with the dubious manner in which finances have been handled since Whyte took over - why does there appear to be so many millions unaccounted for. Also Murray always have the accounts produced & audited on time, with the AGM following shortly after. Now, with Whyte in control....there's no accounts or AGM, wich results in no Europe an less income. If we're done for tax dodging then Murray was a tax dodger whether he paid PAYE or not - weird argument. If you rob from Peter to pay Paul, you are still a thief even though you didn't rob Paul. The millions unaccounted for are from the Ticketus money - which as you say should generally have no influence on the day to day cash flow of the club. Getting some of that money is another story but that money is irrelevant to whether the club could break even. That is an exceptional input of cash. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The point is Where did that debt came from??? Who ran it up??? The answer is Craig Whyte!!! I really don't understand you. Whyte ran up the debt to pay other debts. You seem to thing some debts are special and others don't count or something. Whyte didn't "run up" those debts even a little bit. Those debts were there whether Whyte was in charge or not. He didn't run up the debt, he just didn't pay it. The club was forced into Admin due to debts incurred since Whyte took over. The previous owners were in the process of reducing the overall debt. That's true but doesn't have the significance you think. Can you give me evidence that those debts would not be there under a different owner. I fail to see how PAYE would not be due under a different owner or most of the other debts. I doubt our out-goings have increased this year significantly more than previous years. The debts seem to be the normal debts, we just don't have the money to pay them. Since Whyte has taken over, he has increased the clubs debt substantially, while at the same time reducing a very important & substantial revenue stream. The effect the admin process will have on those debts is yet unknown. It MAY turnout that while the pre-admin debts have increased, the post -admin debt may actually reduce overall - but @ what cost to the club & its reputation. I seems to me that Whyte has only increased the debt by borrowing from Ticketus to pay Lloyds. However, I thought we were choosing to ignore things that don't affect the day to day running for this season? Whether that debt is valid is another discussion. I think the wee tax bill makes a difference combined with lower income streams due to European and domestic cup runs. There may be other missing money that Whyte has syphoned off but we don't know that as yet - except for the Arsenal shares - but that again doesn't affect the day to day running. You seem to be blaming Whyte for a situation that was already there. What is actually guilty of is exploiting that situation for his own gain. Whether it was a necessary evil for the club to continue, albeit after being disgraced, will be judged on the outcome of the big tax case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I really don't understand you. Whyte ran up the debt to pay other debts. What other debts??? From the outside, the previous owner/board were paying their debts - to who ever & on time. Whyte takes over & suddenly we have no cash to service any debts & have to resort to non-payment of PAYE/NI in order to cover those. How often over the past 5 years has the club publicly been taken to court over unpaid bills??? The sale of the Arsenal shares - £230k....would make a massive impact on the club just now - where is it??? Stuck in one of Whytes other companies!!! Jelavic cash - where is it??? has it been received & spent already??? Whyte's contract obligation to invest £5m (I think it was) for running costs - where is it??? As I've stated before....the club was financially fragile before Whyte took over - it was sailing VERY close to the edge, but very slowly it was edging back. Whyte takes over and suddenly there is no money & apparently no business plan to keep the club running. IMHO, Murray passed on a very fragile but stable entity....Whyte took a sledgehammer too it!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 What other debts??? All our liabilities for the year on a month to month basis. From the outside, the previous owner/board were paying their debts - to who ever & on time. Whyte takes over & suddenly we have no cash to service any debts & have to resort to non-payment of PAYE/NI in order to cover those. Whyte was paying most of the debts - just not the tax one. There is a shortfall of cash which has been the case for most years since DA arrived. What is the difference? What the previous owner did was borrow money to pay the debts. Whyte has borrowed money but not given it to the club. How often over the past 5 years has the club publicly been taken to court over unpaid bills??? I can't see how that's relevant. We basically have had the bank and SDM settling bills we couldn't pay. The sale of the Arsenal shares - £230k....would make a massive impact on the club just now - where is it??? Stuck in one of Whytes other companies!!! Jelavic cash - where is it??? has it been received & spent already??? You seem to be changing the issue. The money should be irrelevant as they shouldn't have been sold. It seems, Whyte has pocketed the money and Rangers haven't seen it. But that's a different issue and not related to what we're talking about - unless you're having a different discussion to me that wasn't apparent in your earlier posts. Whyte's contract obligation to invest £5m (I think it was) for running costs - where is it??? It doesn't exist. But again that is irrelevant to the issue in question. As I've stated before....the club was financially fragile before Whyte took over - it was sailing VERY close to the edge, but very slowly it was edging back. Whyte takes over and suddenly there is no money & apparently no business plan to keep the club running. IMHO, Murray passed on a very fragile but stable entity....Whyte took a sledgehammer too it!!! Maybe you should start a new thread as we're now not talking about the same thing. I think you need to look more into what state the club was in before Whyte took over. The club was fragile but the sword of Damocles was hanging over its head with the threat of unpayable tax bills. Whyte seen an opportunity to remove that threat and put some money in his pocket. His methods are unsound and look pretty unethical and certainly unpopular but probably effective in the end. What is left of Rangers at the end is anyone's guess. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong....wasn't it the non-payment of PAYE & NI that essentially forced us into Administration??? You are wrong: it is the lack of funds to enable us to pay our liabilities that put us in administration. I think that you are basically saying the same thing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) I think that you are basically saying the same thing. I would say one is specific, the other is general. The former leads to supposing that not paying the tax is ONLY reason we are in administration, which is not true. There is a bigger picture. When you run out of money it's not just because of the last pound you spent. I'm saying you're skint when you run out of money. He's saying you're only skint in the case when you've no money after you've paid your taxes. Edited March 8, 2012 by calscot 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.