Breaking: Green, Whyte And Whitehouse to appear at Glasgow Sheriff Court tomorrow

[Bluedell 5,329]

Contingent liability ? LOL. You mean a non-existent EBT tax bill

 

Easy to say that after the decision.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Was he on the Board at RFC ? I think he was but my memory fails with all the intricate web of nonsense we have suffered.

 

He absolutely was, which is surely a blatant conflict of interest.

[der Berliner 3,219]

Easy to say that after the decision.

 

That was and is Rabs much like many more people's (including mine) stance on the matter ever since it was brought against us. That "we" won all cases thus far is essentially just proving the points thrown at HMRC time and again.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Breach of his fiduciary duty to the shareholders of RFC plc ? Given that he pocketed £1m from Lloyds/HBOS for services to them not RFC plc.

 

Interesting question. Banks put people on company boards all the time and they are there to look after the bank's interests primarily, and they, in general, would not be breaching their fiduciary duty by doing so.

 

It depends on what the £1m was for but it could be for something that was not strictly in respect of his duties as a director. It could be argued that finding a buyer, for example, and being a director are 2 different matters and therefore performing one may not impact on the other.

 

For example, someone could be a director of a company and a trustee of a elated pension scheme. A director tries to minimise expenditure, whereas a trustee tries to get as much cash from the company as possible. It's possible for someone to perform both duties and not be in breach of their fiduciary duty.

 

I'm not convinced that Muir could be charged with this unless there's a lot more evidence that I'm not aware of but receiving the cash in itself wouldn't be a breach per se.

[Little General 80]

being reported that Whyte, Ahmed and Paul Clark are being hauled in as well.

 

what a deadline day!

 

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/6616761/Rangers-5-set-for-court-this-week.html

Edited September 1, 2015 by Little General

[Bluedell 5,329]

That was and is Rabs much like many more people's (including mine) stance on the matter ever since it was brought against us.

 

The decision wasn't clear cut and there was a case to answer. Having read through the various documents, I certainly wasn't 100% sure that we'd win the case, and given the decision wasn't unanimous, tends to back me up on that.

[craig 5,195]

He absolutely was, which is surely a blatant conflict of interest.

 

Thank you Sir. In which case it was a blatant case of conflict of interest. I always find it curious when someone is clearly a "placeman" on a Board of one company to protect the interests of another - as soon as the person becomes a Board member of the company they have a fiduciary obligation to the company on whose Board they sit - which in essence will, on occasion, mean that they will be expected to make decisions which are to the detriment of those whom they are to protect for the betterment of the company they are a Board member of.

 

It is an interesting conundrum, even though Companies Act is clear.

[craig 5,195]

That was and is Rabs much like many more people's (including mine) stance on the matter ever since it was brought against us. That "we" won all cases thus far is essentially just proving the points thrown at HMRC time and again.

 

Winning the case does not make it a fictitious liability.

[calscot 0]

What you're basically advocating has the effect of placing Ibrox into the hands of HMRC via an act of gratuitous alienation.

 

Like I said, I'm not so knowledgable in this but looking it up, it looks like that would be for the courts to decide. It seems to me that if the whole business can be bought for £5.5M including Ibrox and Murray Park then 18M for the stadium and possibly the training ground could be a reasonable and not a gratuitous sum used to pay off debts and keep trading. There also seems to be the case that the HMRC liability wasn't proven and therefore the company was solvent and from what I've read that means that they could even make it a gift. It also seems to say to my lesser knowledge that if we had a floating charge to the bank then those assets become irrelevant to other creditors like HMRC.

 

Again you're doing your MO of empty one liners, rather than explaining anything, and to me that makes you 0 for 2... but I'm the kind of person who would rather be educated by someone more knowledgable, than be their target for point scoring. I am certainly not envious of expert knowledge in these kind of subjects as I find them tediously boring (as my favoured subjects of things like programming and physics will be to others); however, skimming the surface becomes a bit interesting when it comes to my football club.

[RANGERRAB 3,253]

The decision wasn't clear cut and there was a case to answer. Having read through the various documents, I certainly wasn't 100% sure that we'd win the case, and given the decision wasn't unanimous, tends to back me up on that.

 

So do you think it's perfectly acceptable for HMRC to go round issuing tax bills to companies for amounts to which they are not entitled?

Edited September 1, 2015 by RANGERRAB