craig 5,195 Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 (edited) Craig - EBT's were a perfectly legal form of tax avoidance. Over 5000 UK companies used them. Why were Rangers singled out ? I believe we were deliberately targeted.The reason we(I mean oldco shareholders here) may not have taken the legal route is that the UTT is allegedly still to conclude following the HMRC appeal. Once that happens I'd be amazed if oldco shareholders didn't take legal action if,as expected, HMRC lose again No, we werent singled out IMHO. HMRC also sought monies from EPL clubs - Arsenal I know for sure settled with HMRC for EBT debts and IIRC Chelsea were another that settled with them. Which shareholders will take legal action and fund that legal action ? Edited September 6, 2013 by craig 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,246 Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 No, we werent singled out IMHO. HMRC also sought monies from EPL clubs - Arsenal I know for sure settled with HMRC for EBT debts and IIRC Chelsea were another that settled with them. Which shareholders will take legal action and fund that legal action ? SDM made HMRC an offer which they didn't accept. Why did they accept Arsenal and Chesea's offers then? BTW there were 26,000 oldco shareholders. I'd bet they DO take action once HMRC lose the UTT. Their shares are now worthless because when HMRC pursued Rangers tho' the BTC the club became unsellable(until you-know-who appeared). No BTC would have meant no Whyte 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
foggy dewhurst 0 Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 pathetic in the extreme . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 SDM made HMRC an offer which they didn't accept. Why did they accept Arsenal and Chesea's offers then?BTW there were 26,000 oldco shareholders. I'd bet they DO take action once HMRC lose the UTT. Their shares are now worthless because when HMRC pursued Rangers tho' the BTC the club became unsellable(until you-know-who appeared). No BTC would have meant no Whyte Maybe they felt they had a better case againsts us as we hadnt administered them as well as Arsenal and Chelsea - it isnt as simplistic as you seem to think it is. How will those 26,000 shareholders take legal action ? They cant raise a class action lawsuit because, as far as I know, there is no such vehicle under the law in the UK. So someone would need to lead the charge and foot the bill. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acemcl 0 Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 We were not pursued over our use of the perfectly legal (& still so today btw) EBT scheme, we were pursued over our administration & running of said scheme which, HMRC claimed, made the whole scheme ineligible under the terms they are operated under. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bradfield Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 "134 Million pounds was lost to the Scottish taxpayer when Rangers died and were liquidated. Now a year after their liquidation they are claiming the 5 stars of the liquidated club. This club has only won the now equally defunct SFA Division 3 of Scottish football and claims to the contrary are a disgraceful attempt to claim the history of a liquidated club. Transparency is needed. If they claim the oldco's history then they should pay its debts!" I hadn't actually read the full text of the petition before. Jeez Louise. And to give them their dues, the obsessed section of their support are normally pretty well researched when it comes to our supposed illicit activities. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,196 Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 As I said, bi-polar relationship with reality. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Maybe I'm mistaken, but the debt you speak of, thed ebt that got us into admin, was deliberately racked up by a criminal, not Rangers FC. Even though some non-Rangers-minded may argue with that. I for one see no reason to pay for said criminal. Likewise, you don't charge the Costa Concordia or the passengers or the staff for the careless actions of captain, helmsman and co, would you? I think we're dealing with two different strands here. One is the small businessman or woman, the guys who delivered the printing, fixed the cars and repaired the computers. These guys did work or delivered goods and services to Rangers in good faith; These guys should be compensated in full, with interest. Then we have the non payment of PAYE and National Insurance by Craig Whyte - the debt that drove us into Administration, if you like. You could make a valid argument that HMRC allowed this debt to build up far too long, and so helped ensure that we had no means of paying off such a sum when the time came to do so. The conspiratorialists among us <cough>Rangersrab</cough>would have you believe this was part of an orchestrated plan by Tims at HMRC and HBOS to ensure our demise - and he may well be right, who knows? In any event, HMRC were instrumental in our downfall and in the liquidation of the company that ran Rangers, due to the way in which they handled the EBT case - and so you could make a case of telling them to gtf, even though there's no dispute that the company that ran Rangers owed the payment of NI and PAYE. There's no such case to be made, however, for innocent civilians running small businesses caught up in this. These guys should all be fairly compensated by the current owners of Rangers. I'm not sure the Costa Concordia analogy works, though. The Captain was employed by the company; the company was therefore responsible for the actions of its employee. Whyte wasn't employed by Rangers and so Rangers isn't legally responsible for his actions - however, I suggest we are morally responsible to compensate those who suffered in their dealings with us. After all, we are the same club and our name is our most valuable asset. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Ger_1872 2 Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Did the RFFF pay off some of the smaller creditors up to the valu eof £1000 each? I recall reading something about that but i dont think it came to pass. I also think we should have paid all our debts in full. It would be the moral thing to do and would also be good to throw back in the faces of those who are hell-bent on degrading and dragging the Rangers name through the mud at every opportunity. Has there been a breakdown of all the debts incurred to each creditor? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Did the RFFF pay off some of the smaller creditors up to the valu eof £1000 each? I recall reading something about that but i dont think it came to pass. I also think we should have paid all our debts in full. It would be the moral thing to do and would also be good to throw back in the faces of those who are hell-bent on degrading and dragging the Rangers name through the mud at every opportunity. Has there been a breakdown of all the debts incurred to each creditor? They paid some small creditors, not sure if they got round to all of them 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.