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

[calscot 0]

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.

 

Sorry Craig, but you're arguing semantics here. How verbose do you want me to be? You're pretty much saying what I meant by "running on empty". He was running the club as long as he could without putting in a penny ie "filling it up" - and not paying tax extended the range. Surely you know what I mean? Or do I have to go on?

 

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 -

 

I've already mentioned that everyone, including Whyte expected a decision a long time ago...

 

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 ?

 

I'm lost here. It's irrelevant to my scenario as he probably expected to lose the tax case or was planning for that. If we won the tax case, according to Whyte it would be irrelevant as HMRC would "appeal, appeal and appeal again." The guy went for broke - literally. Administration was his end-game all along IMO.

 

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 point is: without the tax case Whyte would not have been able to buy the club AT ALL. Murray and Lloyds would not have been so desperate as to sell to a guy like him - they'd have listened to the board.

 

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.

 

I've explained time and again about why I think HMRC are ultimately guilty - you haven't once rebutted those explanations, but do I have to repeat them?

 

HMRC should NOT have had tax loopholes based on "discretion". They should not ignore aggressive use of loopholes for 12 years without complaint before suddenly changing the rules asking for all the back money times three which they know the company can never afford. They should not single out a company to kill to make an example when it would benefit the taxpayer to make an affordable deal.

 

You may argue that that's just the way it is but it's not an argument for what we are discussing. We are discussing blame, and it looks to me that HMRC are guilty of creating the whole problem. Do you really think what they did was morally correct? I see it as incompetence crossed with entrapment.

 

It's like having a sign for free parking on condition of some obscure discretion, letting people park there for 10 years and then retrospectively charge them £60 a day and then triple it with interest and penalties. You apply it to any other situation and it's plain wrong. In fact if it was someone occupying your house for ten years, they'd now OWN it. I don't know why you don't get that.

 

At worst SDM was at worst just a naughty boy - he wasn't some super-criminal deliberately breaking the law like a violent bank robber. He thought he'd found a clever loophole which was legal. I'm sure you must have used some kind of loophole yourself at some point or know people who have. People do it all the time with expenses etc. It's bad but not really that bad. HMRC makes the rules and he just tried to play cleverly with them but HMRC don't seem to respect their own rules.

 

It obvious to me that Craig Whyte thought he had a solution that was highly immoral but could just work and make him some money. He's like the rats and pestilence that come to a city or the looters after some government bombs it. You want to blame them instead of the stupid war.

 

I don't know how to explain it more and can't understand why you don't get where I'm coming from as your arguments don't give a more fitting explanation for what's going on. They just make it sound completely random ie Rangers were doing fine, then Craig Whyte came along and killed the club because he felt like it...

 

If you have a better explanation than mine then explain it to me, and if I see that, I'll adopt it no problem. I go for the explanation that make the most sense, not one just because it is mine. Please convince me!

[calscot 0]

Can I just point out some things again.

 

We would not be in this situation if:

 

1. HMRC didn't have a very obscure tax loophole that depended on "discretion".

2. HMRC cracked down immediately on aggressive use of that loophole.

3. HMRC didn't expect companies to pay unclaimed tax from up to 12 years ago.

4. HMRC were proportionate in their claim compared to the crime, their complicity and the affordability.

5. HMRC wanted to maximise the return for the taxpayer.

6. HMRC didn't single us out to make a high profile example.

 

That's quite a few things to answer for. All they needed to do was quickly say to Murray, "naughty boy, stop that" and I'll bet he would have behaved. Instead they contrive a situation to kill our club.

 

If HMRC were social services, there would be a lot of sackings right now:

"What? You knowingly let this go on for ten years without saying anything? And now the child is dead after you personally pulled the plug?"

[calscot 0]

I'll just add that if there was no tax case, we'd have had bidders queuing up to buy Rangers for £24m - £18m to Lloyds and £6m to Murray. Some front-loaded investment in addition would be a no-brainer.