craig 5,199 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Asset stripping, you mean? Even worse. You're correct that I'm making big assumptions but companies are under an obligation to charge a market rate for their services so I doubt that they would take ownership and not charge rent. I dont believe they are obligated to. But where they dont HMRC would be all over them for charging less than the going rate and it is highly likely that an "imputed" revenue would be levied and added back for Corporate tax purposes. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I see the whole gang are here, pity Comeoffit got booted he would've loved this latest bout of hysteria. Who would you classify as the "whole gang". You are more paranoid than Gribz 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I dont believe they are obligated to. But where they dont HMRC would be all over them for charging less than the going rate and it is highly likely that an "imputed" revenue would be levied and added back for Corporate tax purposes. Sure, but given it's a publicly quoted company there will also be some requirement to charge the correct amount, even if it's to a sub. They could get away with it if they really wanted but everything we know about Green suggests he probably won't take that approach. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 What will it be next? Green's tie looks like it's been asset stripped? Were you as blase about Murray's asset stripping ? Edmiston House for example... owned by the club, pawned off to Murray and the club/Green's investors had to repurchase it... were you quite as happy about that. I am completely at a loss when our own fans dont at least consider that this could have disastrous consequences to us IF proven to be true. Whilst some ask valid questions - and, in fact, even state that they dont think what has presented is likely (as much in hope as expectation probably) - there are others, like yourself, who merely find it amusing and without any ounce of care that this could possibly have happened. Your pro-Green stance is blinding you to the possibilities that MAY have happened, and therefore blinding you to whether Green may be taking us for a ride. Most will hope not, but regardless, the questions still need to be asked. We would be failing in our duty to not ask, and expect, an answer to such questions. HAVE WE STILL NOT LEARNED FROM THE WHYTE DEBACLE ??? All is rosy, nothing to see here, sweep sweep 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Surprisingly you will actually see them advertised in the FT for example. Yep, seriously. 20k for 3 days a quarter I saw one at.... I felt like applying.... I get feck all for mine. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Thought it was only dodgy ex MP's who got those gigs. Maybe why I didnt apply 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Sure, but given it's a publicly quoted company there will also be some requirement to charge the correct amount, even if it's to a sub. They could get away with it if they really wanted but everything we know about Green suggests he probably won't take that approach. Agreed, it would be similar to transfer pricing. I thought that is what I said - in that they arent obligated to charge market rates but HMRC would sure as hell have them mark the revenue up to market rates by way of "imputation". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Charging rent virtually guarantees a revenue stream to provide dividends, no? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Were you as blase about Murray's asset stripping ? Edmiston House for example... owned by the club, pawned off to Murray and the club/Green's investors had to repurchase it... were you quite as happy about that. Although I'd argue that Murray paid a fair amount for Edmiston House so not asset stripping per se, but it would still have been better if we'd kept it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Were you as blase about Murray's asset stripping ? Edmiston House for example... owned by the club, pawned off to Murray and the club/Green's investors had to repurchase it... were you quite as happy about that. I am completely at a loss when our own fans dont at least consider that this could have disastrous consequences to us IF proven to be true. Whilst some ask valid questions - and, in fact, even state that they dont think what has presented is likely (as much in hope as expectation probably) - there are others, like yourself, who merely find it amusing and without any ounce of care that this could possibly have happened. Your pro-Green stance is blinding you to the possibilities that MAY have happened, and therefore blinding you to whether Green may be taking us for a ride. Most will hope not, but regardless, the questions still need to be asked. We would be failing in our duty to not ask, and expect, an answer to such questions. HAVE WE STILL NOT LEARNED FROM THE WHYTE DEBACLE ??? All is rosy, nothing to see here, sweep sweep I detested Murray for it, especially with having to hear how much of his own money he put in, ignored that he and his companies made a fortune out of Rangers while building up very dangerous debt. I'm not some puppy dog eyed follower of Rangers owners, I honestly never liked Murray. I'm too young to remember much of the 90s in fairness but I never felt when I started to understand these things that the club was safe under him or that he actually gave a toss, the only drive being his own ego. I probably gave Whyte the benefit of the doubt more than I should have simply because I was delighted to see the back of Minty. However, there's been conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about Green with nothing of substance to back it up, he's open about making money while also making the club healthy and successful, I'm not one to believe that bluenose tycoons are really waiting on the doorstep. Questions need asked yes but Green has had downright hostilty thrown at him from some quarters and even libellous stuff. The prospectus seemed clear to me this holding company will be controlling everything, I have no idea how that ties into another MIH senario. Is it worth clearing up? Sure, but for many it comes down to a we're doomed senario and will tie it into unfounded stuff like Whyte owns Ibrox. So i suppose what I feel is healthy skepticism is good, but some of the skepticism is unhealthy. Edited February 8, 2013 by simplythebest 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.