the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 the notion they were going to be looking at anything other than whyte in detail was a fanciful notion of the old board haters that holds no water now. not that it ever dud imho. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 If you want to be a fast draw, you should shoot first instead of wasting time insulting your target... you don't think someone who can reload a revolver with one hand knows when he has time to talk and when its time to shoot? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 the notion they were going to be looking at anything other than whyte in detail was a fanciful notion of the old board haters that holds no water now. not that it ever dud imho. Then why did they say recent years rather than months? You think they didn't/don't want to look at a regime that they believe owe them 74 million? I think HMRC have handled our situation disgracefully but spare me the David Murray love. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I will say Green like many seems to have forgotten Whyte's non-payment of tax, was there not an article saying D&P should only have put HMRC down for £1? Sounds like nonsense. indeed they do seem keen to rewrite history to rub out whytes wrongdoing. as for the one pound thing who knows it was an expert who said it and if it was a possibility its exactly what should have been done. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Then why did they say recent years rather than months? You think they didn't/don't want to look at a regime that they believe owe them 74 million? I think HMRC have handled our situation disgracefully but spare me the David Murray love. David Murray wasn't a director in recent years. nor did any regime owe them 74 million. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 indeed they do seem keen to rewrite history to rub out whytes wrongdoing. as for the one pound thing who knows it was an expert who said it and if it was a possibility its exactly what should have been done. I don't care who is an expert or not, unless that tax bill is being disputed in a tribunal as well how is it possible to just pretend a debt doesn't exist. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 David Murray wasn't a director in recent years. nor did any regime owe them 74 million. He was chairman until 2009, although by then I suppose you can debate how many years 'recent' means. I made it quite clear what I meant, they believed they were owed it and probably still do with them considering an appeal. It's fanciful to claim Whyte is the only person at Rangers last few years they suspect of wrong doing. The merit of the suspicions is another matter, the EBT verdict certainly weakens the case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Not sure about that BD, if I remember correctly they said they rejected it to allow investigation into our financial running of recent years, not just the few months Whyte was in charge. Although considering the FTTT verdict I don't know what those investigations will be like now. Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "The reasons HMRC have given to us for their decision to vote against the proposal are as follows. HMRC has cited its general policy of not agreeing to a CVA where there is strong evidence of non-compliance by a company with its tax liabilities. I'm sure that they would not want to limit themselves to just the period that Whyte was in charge, but given the deliberate non-payment of tax during his time they would take a much stronger view on that when deciding about a CVA than a potentially dodgy tax avoidance scheme. They want to discourage others from funding their business through tax non-payment and then starting up again in a pre-pack. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 He was chairman until 2009, although by then I suppose you can debate how many years 'recent' means. I made it quite clear what I meant, they believed they were owed it and probably still do with them considering an appeal. It's fanciful to claim Whyte is the only person at Rangers last few years they suspect of wrong doing. The merit of the suspicions is another matter, the EBT verdict certainly weakens the case. I think it means 3 years. if true it may or may not just include Murray. regardless up to whyte in that 3 years we were a well run business that paid the tax it was due to pay. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I will say Green like many seems to have forgotten Whyte's non-payment of tax, was there not an article saying D&P should only have put HMRC down for £1? Sounds like nonsense. The 1 quid would have been for the FTT case only, not the KNOWN debt such as PAYE & NIC. 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.