SPFL: Take the 5 stars of the Oldco Rangers off the Newco's shirt.

[der Berliner 3,234]

Quite right. We are the same club, and it doesn't matter if it's under different ownership.

The club, albeit whilst being run by a crook, racked up debts to lots of innocent businesses and the club should pay those debts*, irrespective of who the new owners may be.

 

It's not legally required for us to do so; but it is morally.

 

* Except to HMRC; they can go fuck themselves.

 

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?

[calscot 0]

They would ? Even without paying anything towards the big OR wee tax case, Craig Whyte was at the same time racking up an additional 15 million in PAYE/NIC debt. What gives you the confidence that he would have paid debts ?

 

Without HMRC and the BTC there I don't think Whyte would have taken over. I believe we'd have been attractive enough to be sold off to more legit owners and the Lloyds debt repaid and Rangers run properly as a going concern. We'd then be ripe for a share issue that would have rewarded the owners in the same way as Green & co and given us capital investment and possibly a cash buffer instead of needing rolling credit. If nothing else King would now be looking to invest.

 

If you take away the bunglings of HMRC and SARS then a likely reality would be that King would have bought us off Murray for that infamous pound 9 (or even the £6M asking - £24m for a debt free Rangers would have been a bargain).

[craig 5,195]

Without HMRC and the BTC there I don't think Whyte would have taken over. I believe we'd have been attractive enough to be sold off to more legit owners and the Lloyds debt repaid and Rangers run properly as a going concern. We'd then be ripe for a share issue that would have rewarded the owners in the same way as Green & co and given us capital investment and possibly a cash buffer instead of needing rolling credit. If nothing else King would now be looking to invest.

 

If you take away the bunglings of HMRC and SARS then a likely reality would be that King would have bought us off Murray for that infamous pound 9 (or even the £6M asking - £24m for a debt free Rangers would have been a bargain).

 

The bungling of SARS ? I presume you didnt read King's admission that he was unco-operative in their investigation and, if he had another opportunity, would have been co-operative ? Or that he said SARS were harsh but fair ? Or that he accepted a liability for tax and fines imposed by SARS ?

 

What bungling did HMRC have ?

[calscot 0]

What Ticketus did was probably illegal and certain immoral. I don't think you ever owe someone who tried to scam you any money. Ticketus have no moral claims against us and the fact their scamming partner scammed them doesn't really give them much of a moral high ground against Whyte.

[calscot 0]

The bungling of SARS ? I presume you didnt read King's admission that he was unco-operative in their investigation and, if he had another opportunity, would have been co-operative ? Or that he said SARS were harsh but fair ? Or that he accepted a liability for tax and fines imposed by SARS ?

 

What bungling did HMRC have ?

 

Both of them went about their business in a strange vindictive way which was always going to be lose-lose on both sides. I'd say that is bungling. Wasn't the SARS lead guy censured for his complete incompetence?

 

HMRC could have taken the 10m Rangers offered and saved the tax payer well over £30m while severely harming a national institution and royally shafting our national sport. If that's not bungling then I need a new dictionary.

 

I assume you're playing devil's advocate...

[RANGERRAB 3,254]

Questions still needs answered i.e.

 

was SDM forced to sell to Whyte by LBG? if so by whom at LBG & for what reasons ? Was it Fullerton & Kane?

why did HMRC pursue the BTC when EBT's were a perfectly legal form of tax avoidance ? HMRC haven't won an EBT case yet as far as I know

Did someone use his contacts to get HMRC to pursue the BTC in order to financially cripple Rangers ? was it Reid?

Were LBG & HMRC part of a co-ordinated masterplan designed destroy Rangers? if so who masterminded it ? Reid?

How did Whyte manage to get away without paying PAYE/NI for as long as he did when normal businesses would have been brought to book much sooner by HMRC?

why did the SFA take no action against Whyte for not paying PAYE/NI when they were advised about this by JT long before administration?

And finally did the SFA know about Whyte's background when he got Rangers ? if so why didn't they act

Edited September 6, 2013 by RANGERRAB

[craig 5,195]

What Ticketus did was probably illegal and certain immoral. I don't think you ever owe someone who tried to scam you any money. Ticketus have no moral claims against us and the fact their scamming partner scammed them doesn't really give them much of a moral high ground against Whyte.

 

Did Ticketus try to scam us ? Or was it that Whyte scammed them ?

 

Whyte was selling ST's to them for up front money. And, apparently, SDM had done the same thing previously. If they were scamming shouldnt the authorities be on their case ?

[craig 5,195]

Both of them went about their business in a strange vindictive way which was always going to be lose-lose on both sides. I'd say that is bungling. Wasn't the SARS lead guy censured for his complete incompetence?

 

HMRC could have taken the 10m Rangers offered and saved the tax payer well over £30m while severely harming a national institution and royally shafting our national sport. If that's not bungling then I need a new dictionary.

 

I assume you're playing devil's advocate...

 

King was being un-cooperative. They have been found to have at least had a case in tax law to have chased him - because they won an award against him. So how does the vindictive come into play ? Genuine question as I havent followed the whole case. But King admitted his culpability and also admitted he handled things poorly. The SARS lead guy was removed due to his incompetence I believe, but that doesnt mean SARS were vindictive. It also doesnt suggest that they "bungled" given they eventually won a hefty award.

 

Our HMRC case effectively became a test case for HMRC which could have led to billions of pounds in increased tax revenues for them so I think they were always going to push it as far as they possibly could. Should they have accepted the 10 million ? Probably. Why didnt they ? Because then the case doesnt go before the law lords and have a verdict, which is what HMRC wanted as they could then use it as precedence against a bunch of other companies. Unfortunately HMRC is still being run from England and I dont think we were high profile enough for them to step in. Galling ? Yes, absolutely. Outwith their remit ? Probably not given nothing has come against them and we havent sued either. The leaking of evidence though is a different situation....

 

I am playing a little bit of devil's advocate for sure - but I also personally happen to believe that we have to raise our hands and say that much of our shortcomings have been of our own making. Boom and bust under SDM was the catalyst to everything else. We have to be mature enough to accept that had we been run properly in the first place (including the EBT's etc - because if all administration were done properly then HMRC would have had NO case) then we wouldnt have been in the mire we were. We (the custodians of the club) were effectively the architects of the club's downfall.

 

Others were culpable, but the buck stops with the club for me.

[craig 5,195]

Questions still needs answered i.e.

 

was SDM forced to sell to Whyte by LBG? if so by whom at LBG & for what reasons ? Was it Fullerton & Kane?

why did HMRC pursue the BTC when EBT's were a perfectly legal form of tax avoidance ? HMRC haven't won an EBT case yet as far as I know

Did someone use his contacts to get HMRC to pursue the BTC in order to financially cripple Rangers ? was it Reid?

Were LBG & HMRC part of a co-ordinated masterplan designed destroy Rangers? if so who masterminded it ? Reid?

How did Whyte manage to get away without paying PAYE/NI for as long as he did when normal businesses would have been brought to book much sooner by HMRC?

why did the SFA take no action against Whyte for not paying PAYE/NI when they were advised about this by JT long before administration?

And finally did the SFA know about Whyte's background when he got Rangers ? if so why didn't they act

 

Re the EBT's...yes they were a legal form of tax avoidance... if administered properly. There are plenty of tax loopholes if administered properly - and if you dont administer properly.... you will have HMRC looking for tax. It is the way things have been for many years.

 

Re non-payment of PAYE/NIC - not necessarily so. Often times HMRC wont look at your PAYE/NIC payments until the end of the tax year and just do an annual reconciliation. Dont believe that it is looked at every month, because it isnt. We had a history of always paying so it would have suggested to HMRC that we would still pay by end of the tax year. Should they have been more on the ball ? Probably. Does it often happen that companies dont pay when due but dont get asked about it till the end of the tax year ? More often than you would think.

[RANGERRAB 3,254]

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