â??On Planet Charles, everything is somebody elseâ??s faultâ??

[BlueMazza 0]

Maybe we have missed it but has there been a public expression of sorrow for the massive non-payment of taxes, among other things, in the Craig Whyte era? Has there been any regret about putting the domestic game into convulsions over David Murray and the did-they or didn’t-they saga of the dual contracts which is now the subject of an SPL investigation and which will also be examined by the insolvency experts, BDO?

 

This is where Rangers have made matters worse for themselves. The deflection of blame has been rampant, the gist of the argument being: “Why should we apologise for the acts of two men?” Namely, Whyte and Murray. Because the sorry plight of Rangers is down to more than just two men, albeit the actions of Whyte brought on administration and now liquidation. Ironically, for all the talk of the big tax case, it was the more recent defiance of HMRC that brought the club to its knees.

 

This bit is just vile. Really? So we should be kissing your shoes for something we didn't do?

[andy steel 0]

Yes, you should. That's exactly what some people are looking for.

 

Aside from the obvious reason - few people grovel for the actions of others - natural pride precludes it; rivarly precludes it; and the hypocrisy of others precludes it.

[calscot 0]

My biggest remorse is that we have country with a tax system that totally depends on whether you "might or might not" give a loan which "might or might not" be paid back. Then let companies use that for 10 years to avoid tax in full view without complaining, and then finally give any company that used that too much a retrospective death penalty.

 

Absolutely ludicrous.

[Thinker 887]

My biggest remorse is that we have country with a tax system that totally depends on whether you "might or might not" give a loan which "might or might not" be paid back. Then let companies use that for 10 years to avoid tax in full view without complaining, and then finally give any company that used that too much a retrospective death penalty.

 

..and also lets a conman withhold a complany's tax for 9 months before publicly announcing they haven't received what they're due. Then, once the bill has built up to be too massive to repay in full, reject a compromise via CVA.

[smile 0]

..and also lets a conman withhold a complany's tax for 9 months before publicly announcing they haven't received what they're due. Then, once the bill has built up to be too massive to repay in full, reject a compromise via CVA.

 

Exactly there should be questions asked why HMRC didn't act sooner.

[GovanAllan 0]

Exactly there should be questions asked why HMRC didn't act sooner.

Especially when the guy involved had a track record with them for dodging payments before.

[craig 5,199]

My biggest remorse is that we have country with a tax system that totally depends on whether you "might or might not" give a loan which "might or might not" be paid back. Then let companies use that for 10 years to avoid tax in full view without complaining, and then finally give any company that used that too much a retrospective death penalty.

 

Absolutely ludicrous.

 

The big tax case is nothing to do with where we are right now though. You can argue it is but we are now in liquidation BEFORE the big tax case verdict has been announced.

 

We are in this situation because of the wee tax case, non-payment of PAYE & NIC over the last 9 months, the use of Ticketus for future funding and the non-payment of other creditors.

 

I have no doubt that the big tax case, were we unsuccessful, would have put us in liquidation - but as of right now that isnt playing a part in this.

[calscot 0]

The big tax case is nothing to do with where we are right now though. You can argue it is but we are now in liquidation BEFORE the big tax case verdict has been announced.

 

We are in this situation because of the wee tax case, non-payment of PAYE & NIC over the last 9 months, the use of Ticketus for future funding and the non-payment of other creditors.

 

I have no doubt that the big tax case, were we unsuccessful, would have put us in liquidation - but as of right now that isnt playing a part in this.

 

I prefer to see the bigger picture. I believe Craig Whyte did what he did to pre-emptively avoid the big tax bill and make it irrelevant. HMRC were gunning for us and have shown their intention - they wanted a big name example and they have achieved their goal.

 

What Craig Whyte did was a last ditch battle for survival, the big tax bill was the war.

 

It might not be the best example but if someone has a terminal disease and they illegally take an experimental drug might cure them but then die from poisoning - is their death just to do with the drug or was it in effect, really the disease?

 

It's a simple explanation that fits very well and I'm surprised so few get it but if that's not the scenario then please explain the last year to me.

 

I can't see what could else could have caused the last year and I can't think of any other cure bar winning the tax case and HMRC leaving us alone.

 

It's also very strange how the tax case should have been resolved by April at the latest and yet it still hasn't published its results.

 

I think Whyte was expecting a decision around then and so was running the club on empty just in case. If the tax case went for us then he could have paid the tax bill and carried on, albeit handicapped by the Ticketus deal. If it went against us then he hoped to solve the problems with administration and a CVA as there is no way we could pay that tax bill.

 

In the end you might look back and think that if we hung on there may have been enough time for a cure invented to save us or that if we didn't go the Whyte route we'd have died with a bit more dignity and less vitriol against us. But Whyte took that gamble and lost.

 

Sorry if I'm verbose but I'm not sure whether you just don't get where I'm coming from or whether you get it but disagree for good reasons that I don't yet get.

[der Berliner 3,286]

IMHO, and it may be warped, Whyte was brought in to do exactly what he did. CL money would have made the suffering starting late, but once the EBT case was about to go off, we'd probably in the very same position as we are now. I do not thank Whyte for what he did to us, but as rbr (methinks) recently said, he handed an essentially debt free and history intact team to the new owners. It will be a difficult year ahead, not least for the success-used fans, but there is a road ahead. And I for one do not think that Rangers will be the last team facing this financial meltdown problem.

[craig 5,199]

I prefer to see the bigger picture. I believe Craig Whyte did what he did to pre-emptively avoid the big tax bill and make it irrelevant. HMRC were gunning for us and have shown their intention - they wanted a big name example and they have achieved their goal.

 

What Craig Whyte did was a last ditch battle for survival, the big tax bill was the war.

 

It might not be the best example but if someone has a terminal disease and they illegally take an experimental drug might cure them but then die from poisoning - is their death just to do with the drug or was it in effect, really the disease?

 

It's a simple explanation that fits very well and I'm surprised so few get it but if that's not the scenario then please explain the last year to me.

 

I can't see what could else could have caused the last year and I can't think of any other cure bar winning the tax case and HMRC leaving us alone.

 

It's also very strange how the tax case should have been resolved by April at the latest and yet it still hasn't published its results.

 

I think Whyte was expecting a decision around then and so was running the club on empty just in case. If the tax case went for us then he could have paid the tax bill and carried on, albeit handicapped by the Ticketus deal. If it went against us then he hoped to solve the problems with administration and a CVA as there is no way we could pay that tax bill.

In the end you might look back and think that if we hung on there may have been enough time for a cure invented to save us or that if we didn't go the Whyte route we'd have died with a bit more dignity and less vitriol against us. But Whyte took that gamble and lost.

 

Sorry if I'm verbose but I'm not sure whether you just don't get where I'm coming from or whether you get it but disagree for good reasons that I don't yet get.

 

I dont want to be verbose myself cal but the bit in bold I find a bit incredulous.

 

You seriously are suggesting that Craig Whyte was "running the club on empty" ? Seriously ? He wasnt running it on empty, he was pushing it as the fuel (money) was ALL GONE (and who knows where...). The club didnt have the money to pay any of its bills. He was using HMRC's own money to keep the club functional. Regardless of what we think about HMRC, the club WERE deducting tax from player's salaries and the club WERE CHOOSING not to pay those taxes over to HMRC. That to me is VERY different to running the club on empty.

 

As I said in my final sentence, I have absolutely no doubt that if the big tax case went against us then we would be liquidated. But as things stand, the big tax case hasnt even been announced yet - and even in administration the club was technically insolvent - which means that the club's assets werent enough to cover the liabilities. How was the club going to pay its current liabilities ? From season ticket money ? How.... because he has pawned off 4 season's worth of those too. ST monies are the VAST contributor to the club's income - so if he had pawned that off and the liabilities were still in excess of the debtors, just HOW was he going to pay the creditors ?

 

You say Craig Whyte wouldnt have been able to pay the big tax bill, suggesting it is therefore the big tax case which is the pivotal point. However, just where is there ANY evidence that he could pay any of the rest of the creditors ? Where was the 14 million that was owed for PAYE & NIC ? Where is the evidence he had the funds to pay that ? There isnt any.

 

The big tax case would have seen us get to where we are now, undoubtedly. But to lay the blame for our current malaise at the hands of HMRC is nefarious at best.

 

We are where we are due to the actions of TWO men (yes, SDM and his financial mismanagement dont escape either) - but Craig Whyte's action of not paying PAYE, NIC, creditors and pawning off future ST's are what got us to where we are right now. Not the big tax case.