simplythebest 0 Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 The 1 quid would have been for the FTT case only, not the KNOWN debt such as PAYE & NIC. Exactly, so it was largely irrelevant as far as the CVA vote was concerned since the other stuff was high enough a percentage to block it. Main wonder is if we could have traded our way out of trouble without the tax case hanging over. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Exactly, so it was largely irrelevant as far as the CVA vote was concerned since the other stuff was high enough a percentage to block it. Main wonder is if we could have traded our way out of trouble without the tax case hanging over. Given we had managed to get our LBG debt down from 30 to 10 million I suspect we could have still traded out of it, albeit through difficult times. But for that we needed not just the BTC hanging over us but a non-charlatan owner i.e. NOT Craig Whyte 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,114 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I think we are all guessing here. My problem is that I never really "got" HMRC's reasons for turning down the CVA and this issue is only one of the questions that I would like answers to. If the expert was correct, then Ticketus would have had the final say, regardless of what HMRC thought of it. The way things turned out that would have been better for everyone concerned, creditors and Rangers alike. 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 think we are all guessing here. My problem is that I never really "got" HMRC's reasons for turning down the CVA and this issue is only one of the questions that I would like answers to. If the expert was correct, then Ticketus would have had the final say, regardless of what HMRC thought of it. The way things turned out that would have been better for everyone concerned, creditors and Rangers alike. The expert is wrong. Either that ir he didnt elaborate. We KNOW, and it was accepted, that we didnt pay 14 mill of PAYE & NIC. You CANNOT mark that down as 1 quid in a CVA. Not possible as it is a KNOWN liability. The 1 quid, I am pretty certain, was in reference to the EBT. I stand to be corrected though 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,114 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 The expert is wrong. Either that ir he didnt elaborate. We KNOW, and it was accepted, that we didnt pay 14 mill of PAYE & NIC. You CANNOT mark that down as 1 quid in a CVA. Not possible as it is a KNOWN liability. The 1 quid, I am pretty certain, was in reference to the EBT. I stand to be corrected though I agree it was in relation to the EBT but CW's run up debt to the taxman was still less than Ticketus so with an estimate debt of £1 plus CW's debt, Ticketus are still the biggest creditors and in favour of CVA. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,269 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 In all of this the question that needs answered is how Whyte managed to get the club in the first place. Don't believe SDM was duped. All roads leads to LBG & the two bhoys in charge of its Scottish business division at the time. Was SDM blackmailed into selling to Whyte ? If so by whom ? Whyte was an accident waiting to happen. His colourful business history was well known. It was in the Daily Telegraph on the day he got Rangers - long before Daly's documentary in Oct2011 about him where Regan claims he first learned about it 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I agree it was in relation to the EBT but CW's run up debt to the taxman was still less than Ticketus so with an estimate debt of £1 plus CW's debt, Ticketus are still the biggest creditors and in favour of CVA. HMRC still had a big enough debt to be able to reject the CVA. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I agree it was in relation to the EBT but CW's run up debt to the taxman was still less than Ticketus so with an estimate debt of £1 plus CW's debt, Ticketus are still the biggest creditors and in favour of CVA. HMRC still had a big enough debt to be able to reject the CVA. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,114 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 HMRC still had a big enough debt to be able to reject the CVA. Do you know this for sure? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 Do you know this for sure? Yep, 25% of the debt is enough to block such an arrangement. It's not just about who is the biggest creditor. 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.