Preferred Bidder in 24 Hours!

[calscot 0]

As I described in my blog, Murray is no innocent, but he is not responsible for us being in administration. The blame there is solely Whyte and his illegal activities at Ibrox, which forced this administration, which as I said, he is bizarrely being let off the hook by HMRC who say he's done no worse than forgetting to pay his energy bill.

 

And as I keep trying to explain, the reason we are in administration is purely due it being pretty much the only way of surviving the big tax bill - via a CVA or liquidation/newco. CW knew that and decided he was man enough and mean enough to do a very dirty job and get paid handsomely for it.

 

The big tax case is the cause, the rest is just the effect.

 

Murray followed a dream, an irresponsible dream, one we all bought into, and engaged the use of EBTs which are not illegal.

 

I doubt many of us bought into the "irresponsible dream" as we all assumed the spending was affordable or that it was out of Murray's pocket.

 

EBT's are not illegal but they always had the possibility of the tax being called in with huge penalties and interest. It's unlikely the EBT's were run as the tax man intended and it all hinged on the dodgy premise that the payments were discretionary rather than obligatory.

 

It's also possible for Murray to have been plain stupid in selling to a charlatan. So desperate to get shot of the club, he sold to the first man who showed genuine interest and who 'didn't go away'.

 

Murray was stupid for employing the EBT's as they were just too dodgy and risky and the consequences too dire for the club. He probably thought he'd gotten away with it and so used them again and again as the normal way of payment of a large slice of the top wages. He was basically playing Russian Roulette with the club.

 

Murray sold up for a pound to the first person that came along as he knew the BTC was looming and he didn't want to be the one to deal with it and his companies couldn't afford any liabilities they may have had due to being guarantors. With the BTC the club was a poisoned chalice (which he concocted) and he wanted rid.

 

Whyte just took advantage of the opportunity of the situation but his best case scenario hasn't crystallised - CVA, sale and big sum for his shares.

[der Berliner 3,327]

In the end, you can just hope that Whyte is not silly enough and demands ridiculous sums of money. Like it or not, he will make money from this deal. Yet, even he will be sane enough to understand that this is not some minor company with 100odd people going to the wall.

[Frankie 8,199]

In the end, you can just hope that Whyte is not silly enough and demands ridiculous sums of money. Like it or not, he will make money from this deal. Yet, even he will be sane enough to understand that this is not some minor company with 100odd people going to the wall.

 

Whyte is interested in one thing - cash and lots of it.

 

He will get it somehow IMO and he won't care who is hurt to ensure it. Putting companies out of business is his day job.

[Danny 0]

And as I keep trying to explain, the reason we are in administration is purely due it being pretty much the only way of surviving the big tax bill - via a CVA or liquidation/newco. CW knew that and decided he was man enough and mean enough to do a very dirty job and get paid handsomely for it.

 

The big tax case is the cause, the rest is just the effect.

 

I disagree. The Big Tax Case is based on HMRC claiming we evaded tax. They have no categorical proof of this, unless there's something we don't know about. Hence I believe the case could have been settled quietly, potentially out of court. I don't agree at all with your claim about Whyte's function. And I do like how you're pretty much portraying him as nigh-on benevolent.

 

I doubt many of us bought into the "irresponsible dream" as we all assumed the spending was affordable or that it was out of Murray's pocket.

 

Eh, no, we just didn't care. Not a single person raised any question about it, all we saw was shiny players coming in. And that's all fans want to see. How could we seriously believe £70M was affordable on the level of income the SPL generates? We turned a blind eye to it, and I include myself in that.

 

EBT's are not illegal but they always had the possibility of the tax being called in with huge penalties and interest. It's unlikely the EBT's were run as the tax man intended and it all hinged on the dodgy premise that the payments were discretionary rather than obligatory.

 

Pure conjecture. And it's exactly why HMRC don't have a strong case.

 

Murray was stupid for employing the EBT's as they were just too dodgy and risky and the consequences too dire for the club. He probably thought he'd gotten away with it and so used them again and again as the normal way of payment of a large slice of the top wages. He was basically playing Russian Roulette with the club.

 

Again, conjecture. You have categorically made up your mind that the EBTs were used for evasion. Without any evidence. It's why the BTC is so weak.

 

Murray sold up for a pound to the first person that came along as he knew the BTC was looming and he didn't want to be the one to deal with it and his companies couldn't afford any liabilities they may have had due to being guarantors. With the BTC the club was a poisoned chalice (which he concocted) and he wanted rid.

 

Whyte just took advantage of the opportunity of the situation but his best case scenario hasn't crystallised - CVA, sale and big sum for his shares.

 

A great deal of 'ifs buts and maybes' masquerading as fact in your post dear fellow.

[Bears 0]

As I described in my blog, Murray is no innocent, but he is not responsible for us being in administration. The blame there is solely Whyte and his illegal activities at Ibrox, which forced this administration, which as I said, he is bizarrely being let off the hook by HMRC who say he's done no worse than forgetting to pay his energy bill.

 

Murray followed a dream, an irresponsible dream, one we all bought into, and engaged the use of EBTs which are not illegal.

 

It's also possible for Murray to have been plain stupid in selling to a charlatan. So desperate to get shot of the club, he sold to the first man who showed genuine interest and who 'didn't go away'.

 

Sorry but youâ??re very wrong. DM got it all wrong.

[capstans 0]

The reason we are in admin as opposed to already liquidated is because Whyte beat HMRC to the punch, they would ave had Deloitte bury us.

[chilledbear 16]

I see there may be a problem with the exclusivity money.

[calscot 0]

I disagree. The Big Tax Case is based on HMRC claiming we evaded tax. They have no categorical proof of this, unless there's something we don't know about. Hence I believe the case could have been settled quietly, potentially out of court. I don't agree at all with your claim about Whyte's function. And I do like how you're pretty much portraying him as nigh-on benevolent.

 

As some of the financial guys on here point out, this is a civil case and it's up to the judge to decide what is likely rather than beyond reasonable doubt. It has been reported (I'm not sure if it's true) that HMRC would appeal and appeal again if they lost, rendering the outcome of the case irrelevant. We could have been in limbo for years without being able to function properly and then liquidated if we finally lost or were given too large a bill by the outcome. If that is true then I can see the point of big pain now and then over and done with.

 

If my conjecture is wrong, what the hell is Whyte's game? At least mine makes sense. Liquidating a club for no reason is a bit far fetched for me.

 

I'm not saying Whyte is benevolent but it looks like he's doing a job that needs to be done. Just because it doesn't fit into your model of hatred of him doesn't mean that it can't be true. There is such a thing as "necessary evil" and the saying "I must be cruel only to be kind". I think he probably sees it as an overall win-win situation.

 

The way he's gone about things has been pretty mercenary but it doesn't mean we can't ultimately benefit. But all this explains why he won't walk away without attempting with all his ability to extract a sizeable pay-off.

 

Eh, no, we just didn't care. Not a single person raised any question about it, all we saw was shiny players coming in. And that's all fans want to see. How could we seriously believe £70M was affordable on the level of income the SPL generates? We turned a blind eye to it, and I include myself in that.

 

Speak for yourself. Plenty of us would have complained if we knew the reality of what was happening and indeed a few did.

 

There was money coming in from all over the place at the time from Murray, King and Lewis etc as well as the CL. Our turnover was one of the biggest in Europe - and in fact, until TV took over we were in the top 20 for decades. We basically thought we were loaded - if Liverpool or Marseilles could afford something, we thought we could afford a sizeable percentage of that, even though we knew we couldn't actually match them.

 

You have to remember this was a time when we thought clubs were properly run and we didn't have to worry about the finances. What you're saying is one of those big myths where you think everyone is the same as you. Most of us love lavish spending but we're intelligent and mature enough to realise it's not good if you overspend and it causes problems when have to pay a load of money back later because you can't really afford it now.

 

I've done enough explaining of this point in the past with plenty of analogy, but you continue to treat your extreme view as a fact for everyone.

 

Pure conjecture. And it's exactly why HMRC don't have a strong case.

 

I don't think any of us know how the case will go but I've dealt with it earlier. Judges in these case can rule against you by saying, "I think in all probability you are not telling the truth." The point about the appeal also still stands.

 

Again, conjecture. You have categorically made up your mind that the EBTs were used for evasion. Without any evidence. It's why the BTC is so weak.

 

Your conjecture about how I've made up my mind is completely incorrect. I think they were considered a jolly good way of avoiding tax but I think it relies on a little bit of a white lie or a lot of trust - and that's what the whole tax case is deciding on. If you are right then why is it taking so long?

 

A great deal of 'ifs buts and maybes' masquerading as fact in your post dear fellow.

 

And is yours any different? Make a decent rebuttal FFS!

 

Pot calling the kettle black there except I don't masquerade anything as fact. My "facts" come from what I read online - here and elsewher, and I take them with a pinch of salt, challenge them and then try to make sense of them. I've never claimed anything else. Yes I make conjectures, which is what everyone is doing on here, including those more expert in financial matters. I think I make a fair effort to make them make sense. There is no other way as no-one seems to know the whole truth.

 

To state that people are using conjecture is just stating the bleeding obvious. However the way you do so, implies that you think you are the only factual one who is 100% correct. Isn't that a bit arrogant? I doubt you know any more than I do and yet you pontificate on your blog like you know more than everyone else.

 

I think you need to try be more explanatory and persuasive about your thinking rather than your pretty empty and dismissive post.

 

What you don't even seem to understand, is that if someone posts something that makes more sense than my current conjecture, I will adopt their's. It's a free upgrade to a better understanding. However, I find others make up their mind and that is it - they remain entrenched.

 

Make a lot more sense with your own conjectures and I may start agreeing with you.

[GovanAllan 0]

I see there may be a problem with the exclusivity money.

Just posted in another thread CB, Miller will walk if we don't back him but he wants his £500,000 back if that's the case. Going to be left with nobody who wants us.

[Danny 0]

Sorry Cal, until you post your opinion as such, rather than painting it as factual, it's hard to rebut.

 

One small example:

 

CW knew that and decided he was man enough and mean enough to do a very dirty job and get paid handsomely for it.

 

You seriously telling me this is just you illustrating your opinion? You've stated this as a categorical fact - no grey area.

 

And your posts are full of it - it's hard to know where your opinion starts and ends. Hence it is difficult to reply to.

 

And given you're basically throwing my argument back at me and screaming that 'you're using conjecture too - extreme views at that' - it makes debate slightly tricky.