TRS: Rangers, Hearts and the Case of Wee Thistle

[Mountain Bear 0]

1. What was different about our EBT scheme compared to the thousands of UK companies who used them as perfectly legal tax avoidance until the loophole was closed in 2010?

2 Rangers debt was 3 percent of the MIH debt of £700m yet the bank seems far more concerned with the Rangers debt. why?

I believe it gave even more money to SDM after he'd sold Rangers to Whyte.Again why ?

3.from CA's I know you late pay PAYE/NI at your peril. Do it once and you get a stern warning .Do it twice and they'll invite themselves into your business. TBH I think HMRC knew what would happen once Whyte got Rangers

4. I seem to recall D&P stating on more than one occasion the actions of the individual had to be separated.However my main concern is how he got Rangers in the first place. AJ's words at the time of Whyte's takeover will haunt me til my dying day

 

1. Does it matter though? Maybe they just wanted to pick a fight with a high profile case which would make other entities think twice about using or defending EBTs. The point is we either didn't understand the risk we were taking properly, or consciously decided to accept it, with horrible consequences.

 

2. We've discussed this many times before. HBOS would have done anything NOT to have been the creditor who had to pull the plug on Rangers. That would have been commercial suicide in Scotland and would have made any potential impairments from the rest of MIH pale into insignificance.

 

3. Again, perhaps you're right. They gave us the rope...but we didn't have to hang ourselves.

 

4. See 2. I've got a lot of time for AJ and he's called it correctly on a lot of issues, but in terms of the legal position, if he thinks the corporate entity isn't liable for the actions of its execs, he's just plain wrong. Wishful thinking I'm afraid.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

1. Does it matter though? Maybe they just wanted to pick a fight with a high profile case which would make other entities think twice about using or defending EBTs. The point is we either didn't understand the risk we were taking properly, or consciously decided to accept it, with horrible consequences.

 

2. We've discussed this many times before. HBOS would have done anything NOT to have been the creditor who had to pull the plug on Rangers. That would have been commercial suicide in Scotland and would have made any potential impairments from the rest of MIH pale into insignificance.

 

3. Again, perhaps you're right. They gave us the rope...but we didn't have to hang ourselves.

 

4. See 2. I've got a lot of time for AJ and he's called it correctly on a lot of issues, but in terms of the legal position, if he thinks the corporate entity isn't liable for the actions of its execs, he's just plain wrong. Wishful thinking I'm afraid.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

1. Yes it does matter if a chairman of a rival club used undue influence to get a government body to take such action.As I said earlier thousands of UK companies used EBT's. What was different about Rangers?

2 At the time of the 'sale' to Whyte Rangers debts were reducing year on year. That must have been bad news for somebody.

3 no one gave anyone rope. Whyte acted alone. why do you use 'we' ?

4 as I said earlier the key issue is how Whyte got Rangers in the first place

 

You might not think there was anything untoward about how Whyte got Rangers. I do. I lost all my shares in the oldco and I strongly believe that this was orchestrated by corrupt individuals in high places with a hatred of Rangers who saw their opportunity and took it.

[Mountain Bear 0]

1. Yes it does matter if a chairman of a rival club used undue influence to get a government body to take such action.As I said earlier thousands of UK companies used EBT's. What was different about Rangers?

2 At the time of the 'sale' to Whyte Rangers debts were reducing year on year. That must have been bad news for somebody.

3 no one gave anyone rope. Whyte acted alone. why do you use 'we' ?

4 as I said earlier the key issue is how Whyte got Rangers in the first place

 

You might not think there was anything untoward about how Whyte got Rangers. I do. I lost all my shares in the oldco and I strongly believe that this was orchestrated by corrupt individuals in high places with a hatred of Rangers who saw their opportunity and took it.

 

We're going to need to agree to disagree on the conspiracy theory Rab.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zappa 0]

2 Rangers debt was 3 percent of the MIH debt of £700m yet the bank seems far more concerned with the Rangers debt. why?

 

MIH started disposing of major assets over a year before our administration. The one which made it onto the forum here in terms of SDM 'news' was the sale of the Bothwell Street building in January 2010.