Dave King and OldCo

[colinstein 294]

Whilst I agree that individuals who were part of the club were culpable, I think the stance of HMRC was and is indefensible. They made deals with Arsenal, Amazon and some coffee chain but it looks like they've cost us, the taxpayers, £millions. The cost of their actions plus the £10millions Murray offered them to go away is incomprehensible. My view is the dogged appealing further and further up the chain is simply to stave off any Inquiry for as long as possible. Eventually arses will be kicked but heads deserve to roll

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

Whilst I agree that individuals who were part of the club were culpable, I think the stance of HMRC was and is indefensible. They made deals with Arsenal, Amazon and some coffee chain but it looks like they've cost us, the taxpayers, £millions. The cost of their actions plus the £10millions Murray offered them to go away is incomprehensible. My view is the dogged appealing further and further up the chain is simply to stave off any Inquiry for as long as possible. Eventually arses will be kicked but heads deserve to roll

 

Well said. Don't forget LBG too.

It's all too easy to point the finger at 'people wearing Rangers ties' but I believe the actions of both HMRC & LBG (before & after Whyte) were deliberate and aimed to cause as financial damage to Rangers as possible & needs a public enquiry to expose those who were behind all of & their reasons for doing so.

[craig 5,195]

Well said. Don't forget LBG too.

It's all too easy to point the finger at 'people wearing Rangers ties' but I believe the actions of both HMRC & LBG (before & after Whyte) were deliberate and aimed to cause as financial damage to Rangers as possible & needs a public enquiry to expose those who were behind all of & their reasons for doing so.

 

Its been explained to you ad nauseum that HMRC were well within their rights to chase the EBT bill. The LBG situation was also explained to you. You simply refuse to listen, as is your prerogative, but put nothing of substance forward to defend your stance Rab - nothing other than, pretty much, "they are Rangers haters".

 

I guess though, similar to Celtic fans, if you say the same thing often enough you will at the very least be able to convince yourself it is the truth, no matter how little is based in fact.

 

A public enquiry ? Absolutely. Then we would find out once and for all who did what... or would we ?

 

At the end of the day I just don't buy the LBG thing - SDM owned the club and, whilst they may have pressured him to sell, it was his decision to make. Not theirs. They didn't force him to sell. HMRC, as I have said, I have had dealings with them in the past - and just because they treat two situations differently doesn't mean that they are "anti" one of the entities they have dealt with.

 

Whilst, on the face of it, Arsenal were doing the same thing as us.... do any of us know what the situation was with Arsenal ? It could quite simply be that HMRC felt that they were no better than a 50:50 to win the case against Arsenal whilst they thought they were a shoe-in against us (how wrong they were) - hence them agreeing to settle with Arsenal but not us. You also have the issue of different HMRC offices dealing with each case, so individuals viewing the same type of situation differently. There are so many variables that it is unfair to simply say "well, they settled with Arsenal so why not with Rangers" - we don't really know whether or not the only similarities in the two cases are that a) both are football clubs and b) they were EBT cases. The rest of the situations could have been wildly different.

[der Berliner 3,246]

Who are these relevant and confidential authorities though ? HMRC have very strict guidelines on information sharing (notwithstanding illegal leaks....) so just who would they be able to share the information with ? The data privacy act also restricts what information can be shared and with whom. I would suspect that unless there was some kind of legal case against Whyte at the time that sharing any of his information, including his tax arrears, would have been in breach of both HMRC and data act guidelines.

 

While it may sound too simple, HMRC is on the payroll of the government. So too is the Ministry of Justice, the one that looks after the industry, and the various police forces. You would expect the same level of confidentiality, if those get a note about some offender. Once HMRC sends tax enforcement people after someone, you would expect we have reached a point where we are beyond what is "simple data sharing". What you would probably look at is not any man-hunt and full-access to each and everything the "hunted" person did to all the sample authorities I gave above, but a warning that he is looked after and pursued by tax enforcers (sic!). I would asume that latter is not what all "people in dispute" with HMRC suffer, do they? And if it comes to pass that said person is about to do multi-million deals that actually require due dilligence, you would likewise expect that a certain amount of information will be transferred - if only a "be wary, he is being looked at".

 

Mind you, if you as a private person want to get a loan from a bank or buy something in installments (car, TV set, whatever), those dealing with you will check your credibility in advance. Now, how much of that was done by the SFA and Ticketus and all with regard to Whyte? How can HMRC "allow" that someone is deemed fit and proper in the same week as he's being chased by tax enforcers? Because of their guidelines? What did stop them to grab Whyte walking around Glasgow pre-takeover? Given the media about, that would have caused some sort of upheaval and would have made people start thinking. I'm not exactly blaming them for not doing anything, but it does leave you wondering nonetheless. Likewise that the info in Jackson's article took 3 years to see the light of day.

 

I really wish that we could accept that the fate that the Club has seen in the last 3 years is, as FS said earlier, down to those wearing RFC ties - it starts with SDM and runs through Whyte, Green, Ahmad etc. For all we attempt to blame HMRC, LBG, John Reid and everyone EXCEPT the custodians of our Club... the sad reality is that if our various Custodians had managed us appropriately we simply wouldn't have been in the position we found ourselves.

 

Sometimes it is OK to accept your culpability.

 

Craig, we were looking at the folk responsible for admin, not all people ruining Rangers' paths since 2011. There is no doubt that SDM has to shoulder blame and I doubt many are in dispute about that any longer. No-one is clearing the tie bearers either or is attempting to deflect blame from them. As we now know, hardly anyone bar perhaps Walter Smith can be deemed blameless. It is not even up to debate and it was essentially pointless from FS to bring it in or looking at percentages. Rather ... how it was possible that you had HMRC tax enforcers chasing Whyte on the one side of the street (as we know now), while SDM, LBG, Ticketus, SFA, SPL and many more walking the other side of it alongside Whyte utterly oblivious. Simple answer: because of HMRC guidelines! Neat, but does that really stop you from wondering? Not least why these tax enforcers - if not any other authority - was no-where to be seen during the takeover period? Again, not exactly paranoia ruling, but a bad taste in the mouth nonetheless.

Edited September 15, 2015 by der Berliner

[craig 5,195]

While it may sound too simple, HMRC is on the payroll of the government. So too is the Ministry of Justice, the one that looks after the industry, and the various police forces. You would expect the same level of confidentiality, if those get a note about some offender. Once HMRC sends tax enforcement people after someone, you would expect we have reached a point where we are beyond what is "simple data sharing". What you would probably look at is not any man-hunt and full-access to each and everything the "hunted" person did to all the sample authorities I gave above, but a warning that he is looked after and pursued by tax enforcers (sic!). I would asume that latter is not what all "people in dispute" with HMRC suffer, do they? And if it comes to pass that said person is about to do multi-million deals that actually require due dilligence, you would likewise expect that a certain amount of information will be transferred - if only a "be wary, he is being looked at".

 

On what grounds could they possibly data share ? They may have been trying to enforce the payment of tax but, at that point in time, they had not set the wheels in motion on proceedings against him - they simply were "chasing" his debt (unless I am mistaken). So they would have no grounds on which to share his information. Similarly, I know you are a smart person so I know you have heard of the term "Chinese walls" - just because you have a fellow governmental agency this absolutely does NOT give you the right to pass information onto another agency without going through the proper channels - I believe Data Privacy affords people that privacy. The question of confidentiality is moot when you are looking at breaching Data Privacy laws. Confidentiality is nothing more than an agreement, whilst Data Privacy is in the legislature. Data Privacy in all likelihood trumps confidentiality. Sending in the bailiffs doesn't give them the right to share information about someone, at least not to the best of my knowledge.

 

Mind you, if you as a private person want to get a loan from a bank or buy something in installments (car, TV set, whatever), those dealing with you will check your credibility in advance. Now, how much of that was done by the SFA and Ticketus and all with regard to Whyte? How can HMRC "allow" that someone is deemed fit and proper in the same week as he's being chased by tax enforcers? Because of their guidelines? What did stop them to grab Whyte walking around glasgow pre-takeover? Given the media about, that would have caused some sort of upheaval and would have made people start thinking. I'm not exactly blaming them for not doing anything, but it does leave you wondering nonetheless. Likewise that the info in Jackson's article took 3 years to see the light of day.

 

Those dealing with you on purchasing a car, TV, etc will check on you as you say... however, what I believe you are missing is that in order to check you credit.... you have to give them permission ! The reality is that if you want their credit then you will give them permission because not doing so results in not getting the credit you receive. So this is a very different situation and, with all due respect, a poor comparison. SFA had no real remit to check Whyte's credit lines. Ticketus ? So long as they had guarantees (which they got from the ST's.... didn't think about Scots law vs English law though....) then they also wouldn't have given too much of a care about credit worthiness. Where on earth do you get this "HMRC allowed him as fit and proper" - HMRC had absolutely nothing to do with him being considered fit and proper. That was the SFA's remit, not HMRC. Again, with all due respect, you seem to be mixing things up and laying responsibilities with people that they shouldn't be given to. Sending in tax enforcers, I believe, is something that needs to be hand delivered to a registered address - I don't think they can simply walk around the streets, grab him and say "here big man, you are due tax, this is your letter" - though I haven't suffered this fate so may ver well be wrong.

 

 

 

Craig, we were looking at the folk responsible for admin, not all people ruining Rangers' paths since 2011. There is no doubt that SDM has to shoulder blame and I doubt many are in dispute about that any longer. No-one is clearing the tie bearers either or is attempting to deflect lame from them. As we now know, hardly anyone bar perhaps Walter Smith can be deemed blameless. It is not even up to debate and it was essentially pointless from FS to bring it in or looking at percentages. Rather ... how it was possible that you had HMRC tax enforcers chasing Whyte on the one side of the street (as we know now), while SDM, LBG, Ticketus, SFA, SPL and many more walking the other side of it alongside Whyte utterly oblivious. Simple answer: because of HMRC guidelines! Neat, but does that really stop you from wondering? Not least why these tax enforcers - if not any other authority - was no-where to be seen during the takeover period? Again, not exactly paranoia ruling, but a bad taste in the mouth nonetheless.

 

You do know that a buy-sell deal can be achieved with HMRC having not a Scooby that it has happened, right ? All it takes is for the transfer of shares from one individual to another, filling in the requisite Companies Act forms (I believe a J30 form as the shares were fully paid up by SDM) and all of a sudden you have a new owner of a company - one that STILL owes millions to the tax man - but one that now owns a multi-million pound business.

 

Should it have been more difficult for Whyte to get ownership ? Maybe. But as FS said yesterday, when you start to put even more red-tape into the situation then the whole marketplace and share trading will simply grind to a halt. Something that neither Rangers would want, nor the UK populace, nor the economy as a whole.

 

I too have a very bad taste in the mouth at what transpired - but I am more of an internal type of person - I personally believe that had the people running Rangers done what they NEEDED to do then all of this could have been avoided.

[calscot 0]

Its been explained to you ad nauseum that HMRC were well within their rights to chase the EBT bill. The LBG situation was also explained to you. You simply refuse to listen, as is your prerogative, but put nothing of substance forward to defend your stance Rab - nothing other than, pretty much, "they are Rangers haters".

 

It's also been explained ad nauseum that just because you have the "right" or "entitlement" to do something, does not make it always make it moral or even expedient to do so. "Rights" can often be used in a way that are unfair or inconsistent and resulting in situations that not for the greater good, sometimes calling into question whether these "rights" have a validity, and should possibly be revoked, or updated. "Rights" can often be abused and therefore can be flawed.

 

All this comes into great question and focus when it comes to the actions of HMRC on Rangers. For me HMRC have shown that there needs to be reform in the way that they work, and amending of their rights, especially some of those that are not applicable in other areas of the law such as statute of limitations and back dating of rule changes.

 

It seems quite a bit of the stuff that those in "Rangers ties" perpetrated were also within their "rights". Doesn't make them right or in any way condonable. Some of the things that happen in business that seem to be legal but highly immoral, should perhaps be made illegal.

 

 

 

 

I guess though, similar to Celtic fans, if you say the same thing often enough you will at the very least be able to convince yourself it is the truth, no matter how little is based in fact.

 

Isn't that a bit out of order?

At the end of the day I just don't buy the LBG thing - SDM owned the club and, whilst they may have pressured him to sell, it was his decision to make. Not theirs. They didn't force him to sell.

 

People make decisions under duress (or coercion) all the time, it seems perfectly plausible they forced his hand seeing as they had his major company by the financial balls. Forcing maybe a strong word, but that arguing semantics. LBG certainly had the power to make Murray's decision to sell a lot more beneficial to him than to ignore them.

 

HMRC, as I have said, I have had dealings with them in the past - and just because they treat two situations differently doesn't mean that they are "anti" one of the entities they have dealt with.

 

But the fact that they are able to this with impunity, coupled with human nature, suggests that it is highly possible. We believe it with BBC Scotland and some journalists, why not HMRC?

 

However, it could be they "picked" on Rangers to show an example of what happens if you mess with and subsequently stand up to the tax man...

 

They certainly acted illegally, either to prejudice their case or something more sinister, which is very suspicious when considering their motives, and in that regard we don't know whether their Celtic-minded allies were just useful idiots, or like minded helpers.

[calscot 0]

I will contend that without the big tax case, most of the culprits listed would not have been able to damage the club.

 

While Murray, played a bit fast and loose with the tax, he had lawyers and accountants convinced it was ok. If HMRC had accepted the 10m offered which looks to me like about 40m more than they got, his legacy to the club would have been reasonably benign. He could have waited a few years and then sold to the current board members, once the SARS case was over.

 

As for Muir, without HMRC, there would not have been the same pressure to sell quickly, he was making sure Rangers were servicing the debt and LGB would be making a decent profit in interest while it was paid off at what seemed about 3M a year, leaving six years minus a Kingco takeover and share issue. Make it 10 years with the tax debt.

 

HMRC to me was definitely the key stone in the whole affair.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Well said craig

[craig 5,195]

It's also been explained ad nauseum that just because you have the "right" or "entitlement" to do something, does not make it always make it moral or even expedient to do so. "Rights" can often be used in a way that are unfair or inconsistent and resulting in situations that not for the greater good, sometimes calling into question whether these "rights" have a validity, and should possibly be revoked, or updated. "Rights" can often be abused and therefore can be flawed.

 

All this comes into great question and focus when it comes to the actions of HMRC on Rangers. For me HMRC have shown that there needs to be reform in the way that they work, and amending of their rights, especially some of those that are not applicable in other areas of the law such as statute of limitations and back dating of rule changes.

 

It seems quite a bit of the stuff that those in "Rangers ties" perpetrated were also within their "rights". Doesn't make them right or in any way condonable. Some of the things that happen in business that seem to be legal but highly immoral, should perhaps be made illegal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't that a bit out of order?

 

 

People make decisions under duress (or coercion) all the time, it seems perfectly plausible they forced his hand seeing as they had his major company by the financial balls. Forcing maybe a strong word, but that arguing semantics. LBG certainly had the power to make Murray's decision to sell a lot more beneficial to him than to ignore them.

 

 

 

But the fact that they are able to this with impunity, coupled with human nature, suggests that it is highly possible. We believe it with BBC Scotland and some journalists, why not HMRC?

 

However, it could be they "picked" on Rangers to show an example of what happens if you mess with and subsequently stand up to the tax man...

 

They certainly acted illegally, either to prejudice their case or something more sinister, which is very suspicious when considering their motives, and in that regard we don't know whether their Celtic-minded allies were just useful idiots, or like minded helpers.

 

Just because it is "immoral" (in your eyes) doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to do it. Not much else needs to be said on that particular matter. You have a complaint, then take it to the tax authorities and explain to them how you felt that Rangers were abused or treated immorally and they will simply point you to the HMRC guidelines. You still don't like it ? Take it to your local MP and have him canvass for change in the HMRC guidance. I wouldn't disagree that perhaps HMRC should modernize - but their legislation is massive and they also need to be very careful of unintended consequences. I don't think anyone believes that the HMRC guidance is efficient or even close to perfect.

 

You are indeed correct, SDM was absolutely well within his rights to sell the Club to Craig Whyte. He made a poor choice there though, as we all know.

 

As for making legal immoral stuff illegal - you would be there forever trying to amend the legislation and you would also have unintended consequences, almost certainly. A root and branch change of the tax legislation ? Whilst it would probably be the best thing to do it is impractical and virtually impossible to happen.

 

Out of order simply because I said "similar to Celtic fans" ? I was not suggesting Rab is a Tim, not by any stretch. But if you are once again offended by a nothing remark and Rab is too then I will happily apologise to him. I find you to be getting awfully precious recently cal.

 

LBG, in my opinion, still didn't force him to sell. Pressured is a far better word. If SDM felt that he was being unduly pressured then I am sure he would have had an Ombudsman that he could have complained to. You don't think that sort of thing happens all the time ? I certainly saw it with a client of mine where he owed the Bank TONS of money... they let it slide for as long as they could but eventually had no option but to call in the debts - he ended up losing the business. Were LBG trying to protect themselves ? Of course they were, and they are entitled to do so. Were they doing so illegally ? We probably will never know.

 

Can you provide the proof that HMRC "certainly acted illegally" please - I haven't seen any such evidence.

[der Berliner 3,246]

Can you provide the proof that HMRC "certainly acted illegally" please - I haven't seen any such evidence.

 

We read what we get presented from various sources and make up our own minds. It is not exactly "proper" to ask for "evidence" when you can be pretty sure that calscot will only have access to the same material as anyone else. But perhaps the following is enough evidence for you that somethings is very much amiss ...

 

Alastair Johnston, Rangers chairman at the time, pleaded with Murray not to sell the club to Whyte. He was subsequently axed.

Presented with the revelations last night, he said: “On the back of this, I would welcome a full-scale, independent investigation into the actions of HMRC around the Rangers issue.”

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-being-3992415

 

As for your reply to me above, no disrespect, but I'm not going to explain my reasoning again. I did it a few times in this thread alone and all I get is a constant "HMRC could not have done anything because of their rules". Upon which I commented as well. I see no need to do that again.