Feeno Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Im beginning to think that the media kept all this under wraps not to preserve the football club or its directors but or for the safety of the general public due to the madnes of the average old firm fan. The streets of Glasgow will be awash with panic and blood, along with the usual tramps and chip papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Bishop Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Pretty sure Rangers will win the case... how exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I've heard that the tax case went well for Rangers, and the Revenue have asked for even more time to put their case across. Law Lord is getting frustrated with HMRC and may annul the case completely if the HMRC don't get their fingers out. Just passing on what I've heard from a pretty credible source. I seem to recall that post was very similar to one posted on Follow Follow a few days ago, the poster having been outed as a troll on the RTC blog. The poster had previously posted pro RFC comments under a few pseudonyms, but all from the same IP address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beijingandrew Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 how exactly? The opinion of my tax law tutor and a number of fairly similar cases in which the tribunal found against HMRC. Still, I think winning the tax case for Rangers would be a bit like putting out a fire in your living room when there is a bigger one burning in your kitchen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Is it possible he has put the ?24 million aside to help pay the tax bill? What is for certain, if it was Romanov he'd have borrowed against ST sales from one of his own companies not a Chinese holding co. keeping the debt within family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The opinion of my tax law tutor and a number of fairly similar cases in which the tribunal found against HMRC. Still, I think winning the tax case for Rangers would be a bit like putting out a fire in your living room when there is a bigger one burning in your kitchen. Since the evidence has been heard in private it would be interesting to know what your tax law tutor bases his opinion on and how the similarity to other cases is judged. But you are right, a victory might well be Pyrrhic. Whyte seemed to be at least half hoping that an insolvency event triggered by the tax bill would with one bound set him free to start with a clean slate. That looks even more atttractive today compared to the alternative of staggering on selling STs into the ever more distant future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The opinion of my tax law tutor and a number of fairly similar cases in which the tribunal found against HMRC. Still, I think winning the tax case for Rangers would be a bit like putting out a fire in your living room when there is a bigger one burning in your kitchen. Dunno about that likes... Are you saying there is a bigger threat to their future than the tax-case? While this would delight me immensely, I would be astounded if that was possible, outside of nuclear strike or meteor collision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beijingandrew Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Dunno about that likes... Are you saying there is a bigger threat to their future than the tax-case? While this would delight me immensely, I would be astounded if that was possible, outside of nuclear strike or meteor collision. Well in my opinion they have an unsustainable debt anyway and have knackered their cash flow for 4 years. Was it not last year that Alister Johnston admitted that Rangers would probably go bust? I think it is emerging that Craig Whyte is not the "saviour" of the club that he was initially portrayed as and the club's position has improved very little if at all since Johnston admitting that the club was on the brink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I do not know if Rangers have won or lost the tax case. I hope it is the latter though. I can not add anything else to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 according to STV the Rangers shareholders trust today called for Whyte to set a date for the AGM, however Whyte says he cant until the accounts are signed off. Am I the only one who thinks Whyte is holding off the accounts being signed to avoid some very awkard questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Well in my opinion they have an unsustainable debt anyway and have knackered their cash flow for 4 years. Was it not last year that Alister Johnston admitted that Rangers would probably go bust? I think it is emerging that Craig Whyte is not the "saviour" of the club that he was initially portrayed as and the club's position has improved very little if at all since Johnston admitting that the club was on the brink. I agree that it is worse since then... But I think that the tax-case is a potential sword of Democles for the bunsies and I cannot see their re-emergence being anything like as much of a mere formality as some expect either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 according to STV the Rangers shareholders trust today called for Whyte to set a date for the AGM, however Whyte says he cant until the accounts are signed off. Am I the only one who thinks Whyte is holding off the accounts being signed to avoid some very awkard questions. No, you certainly are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 according to STV the Rangers shareholders trust today called for Whyte to set a date for the AGM, however Whyte says he cant until the accounts are signed off. Am I the only one who thinks Whyte is holding off the accounts being signed to avoid some very awkard questions. That and I think there will more awkward questions when accounts are released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beijingandrew Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I agree that it is worse since then... But I think that the tax-case is a potential sword of Democles for the bunsies and I cannot see their re-emergence being anything like as much of a mere formality as some expect either. Yes, I'm no expert but is there not a rule against phoenix companies for businesses in Ranger's situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwaysinourshadows Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 according to STV the Rangers shareholders trust today called for Whyte to set a date for the AGM, however Whyte says he cant until the accounts are signed off. Am I the only one who thinks Whyte is holding off the accounts being signed to avoid some very awkard questions. Whyte said that the accounts would be signed off by the 31st of January, that obviously hasn't happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Yes, I'm no expert but is there not a rule against phoenix companies for businesses in Ranger's situation? Hope so... I just reckon that if HMRC get a penny less than they are due then they will kick up a stink that the spineless sycophantic vultures at the SPL and SFA will not be able to beat down. If we end up unpaid over Wallace then I would also hope we raise concerns about their passage back to the top-flight too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beijingandrew Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Hope so... I just reckon that if HMRC get a penny less than they are due then they will kick up a stink that the spineless sycophantic vultures at the SPL and SFA will not be able to beat down. If we end up unpaid over Wallace then I would also hope we raise concerns about their passage back to the top-flight too... I hope it is illegal in relation to tax debts. http://www.phoenix-company.co.uk/pre-pack-administration/ This is exactly the sort of thing Whyte/Rangers may do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beijingandrew Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/nimmanual/nim12204.htm Found the rule against it. So IF they lose the tax case then pre-packed administration will probably not be an option. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Whyte said that the accounts would be signed off by the 31st of January, that obviously hasn't happened. I think he said that he hoped they would, or expected they would be signed off, rather than they would be. His excuse being the tax case and awaiting the verdict, don't know if that meant he was expecting a verdict at the end of the tribunal rather than when the tribunal board announce their verdict, which is expected in a couple (?) of months time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VALDOS Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I find it utterly insane that this ticketus were willing to lend them the money over a 4 year forecast, considering the precarious position they are in. If Whyte has slithered that money into an account not linked with Rangers, would that not mean he has pocketed himself a nice we chest of gold if they enter administration? He will be the bloke waiting to pick them up again once the administrators do the dirty work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsychocAndy Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 So, if I'm getting this right, the season ticket loan was paid to Whyte before he was the owner of Rangers, he then pays ?1 for Rangers and Lloyd's ?18million and then Rangers can't afford the first payment of the loan and pay ?3.6million instead. That would still leave ?2.4million unaccountable. If he is asset stripping Rangers, he is not very devious in the manner he is going about it. Is he a Celtic fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I find it utterly insane that this ticketus were willing to lend them the money over a 4 year forecast, considering the precarious position they are in. If Whyte has slithered that money into an account not linked with Rangers, would that not mean he has pocketed himself a nice we chest of gold if they enter administration? He will be the bloke waiting to pick them up again once the administrators do the dirty work. Ticketus will have the load underwritten in some way. Whyte claims it is through one of his companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clerry Jambo Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16851657 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Annual accounts not signed off by the auditors, no AGM at the moment - hmmm, I wonder if the "going concern" thingy has anything to do with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 So, if I'm getting this right, the season ticket loan was paid to Whyte before he was the owner of Rangers, he then pays ?1 for Rangers and Lloyd's ?18million and then Rangers can't afford the first payment of the loan and pay ?3.6million instead. That would still leave ?2.4million unaccountable. If he is asset stripping Rangers, he is not very devious in the manner he is going about it. Is he a Celtic fan? The time line all fits, any one of us could have bought Rangers under the same circumstances, used their own money to buy the club, gamble on the tax case...lose you make a profit, win you make a bigger profit, all for ?1 What should be be noted is the lies that Whyte tells and although the weegia swallows it there are some in the Rangers camp who now have woken up and smelled the coffee. an example would be why blame the tax man for the delay in getting the accounts signed off as he stated that this would be done on the 31st January, nothing at all has changed since that statement, its not as though he has something to hide by publishing them does he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I think he said that he hoped they would, or expected they would be signed off, rather than they would be. His excuse being the tax case and awaiting the verdict, don't know if that meant he was expecting a verdict at the end of the tribunal rather than when the tribunal board announce their verdict, which is expected in a couple (?) of months time. Whyte is running out of time. Audited accounts must be lodged with the SFA by the end of next month, or Rangers will be banned from Europe next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebeto Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I bet the SFA wouldnt have the guts to do this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Whyte is running out of time. Audited accounts must be lodged with the SFA by the end of next month, or Rangers will be banned from Europe next season. YIP, this is great news for us, as even if they win the tax case they still have to repay a large debt and no money from Europe would be devastating. NO Trophies or Europe = no glory, no glory = no glory hunters, no glory hunters = poor season ticket sales = longer time to pay back ?24m to ticketus The tax man will give a quick death if he wins, IF Rangers win this still equates to a slow painfull existance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Can someone clarify the scenario with Ticketus - did Rangers/Whyte receive 3 years of borrowing up front (following Whyte's takeover) as a lump sum or is it a deal to get finance over a three year period (I note Whyte refutes the borrowing 'allegation' in the Record by saying it's for 3 years not 4). If he did get the lump sum , how is it they seem to have such severe cash flow problems (which I assume they have as they had a few court cases recently). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I bet the SFA wouldnt have the guts to do this I agree with you bebeto, but it's not up to them, it's a UEFA rule. Teams must have audited accounts lodged with their respective Football Associations by the end of March, for them to be eligible to take part in the following seasons European competitions. UEFA will have the guts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebeto Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 They will have though as the result of the Tax case is due in March and this is supposedly whatis holding them up. Would love the courts to delay the result until 1st April just to screw them right up. Would love it especially as I live in Glasgow would love my pearly whites shinning through all the doom and gloom :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I agree with you bebeto, but it's not up to them, it's a UEFA rule. Teams must have audited accounts lodged with their respective Football Associations by the end of March, for them to be eligible to take part in the following seasons European competitions. UEFA will have the guts! On top of which Can you see Us or Motherwell of even Dundee Utd , not able to compete in Europe just so the SPL/SFA can let their beloved team in, against Ueafa rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaii Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Can someone clarify the scenario with Ticketus - did Rangers/Whyte receive 3 years of borrowing up front (following Whyte's takeover) as a lump sum or is it a deal to get finance over a three year period (I note Whyte refutes the borrowing 'allegation' in the Record by saying it's for 3 years not 4). If he did get the lump sum , how is it they seem to have such severe cash flow problems (which I assume they have as they had a few court cases recently). According to the Daily Ranger he got ?24.4m for 3 years tickets. They then asked for the first payment of ?9.5m but only ?3.5m was paid, so he agreed that the outstanding ?6m would be paid off by adding on an extra year of season tickets. Whether the Daily Ranger have got this right or not is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairneyhill Jambo Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Can someone clarify the scenario with Ticketus - did Rangers/Whyte receive 3 years of borrowing up front (following Whyte's takeover) as a lump sum or is it a deal to get finance over a three year period (I note Whyte refutes the borrowing 'allegation' in the Record by saying it's for 3 years not 4). If he did get the lump sum , how is it they seem to have such severe cash flow problems (which I assume they have as they had a few court cases recently). From what I can gather, Whyte received a lump sum which he used to buy Rangers. He couldn't afford the first "loan Payment" so he had to use another year of seasons tickets to get the extra money to pay the loan. In short, Rangers won't be getting any revenue from season tickets for the next four seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaii Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Oh, has anyone heard from the SFA as to what is holding up their "investigation" into whether or not Whyte should have been allowed to buy Rangers as he didn't disclose he was banned?? Would love to see the SFA paperwork as to how he passed the fit & proper person test. My hunch is that the SFA ddn't even ask him to take it and just waved through the sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 They will have though as the result of the Tax case is due in March and this is supposedly whatis holding them up. It's not actualky due in March, Rangers are just desperately hoping it reports by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john brownlee Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 going back to the original topic it about tax avoidance.... the government has just had a debate on tax avoidance and it seems if they the compamies or empolyees used an outside sourse to deliberatly avoid paying any Paye or NI. then it is classesd as avoidance and are guilty as charged no way back and will be dealt with in the approiate way by the HMRC, no appleal or delay. These payments will have to be paid to HMRC. and according to todays debate the government will support the HMRC all the way to get as many prosecutions as possible even going back as far as 13 years So the way I see it the huns haven't got a leg to stand on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Oh, has anyone heard from the SFA as to what is holding up their "investigation" into whether or not Whyte should have been allowed to buy Rangers as he didn't disclose he was banned?? Would love to see the SFA paperwork as to how he passed the fit & proper person test. My hunch is that the SFA ddn't even ask him to take it and just waved through the sale. A few weeks back the SFA said "consultations and discussions" were continuing (nothing as pro-active as an "investigation" apparently). I am guessing something on the lines: Stewart Regan - "Gordon, we have this issue someone has raised about your man Whyte. As an experienced football administrator, what's your view on what action we should take?". Gordon Smith - "Thanks, Stewart, I'd be happy to look into that and get back to you in due course, but of course we've got a lot on our hands at the moment." (I realise I've made Smith sound unrealistically articulate there). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE16 3LN Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Oh, has anyone heard from the SFA as to what is holding up their "investigation" into whether or not Whyte should have been allowed to buy Rangers as he didn't disclose he was banned?? Would love to see the SFA paperwork as to how he passed the fit & proper person test. My hunch is that the SFA ddn't even ask him to take it and just waved through the sale. I'm sure SDM didn't want to sell to Whyte, I assume because he knew he had no money, but Lloyds forced the issue saying if you don't sell we're coming in. Therefore, the deal may have got a nod and a wink from the SFA/SPL. Regardless, the SFA/SPL must come out of this smelling of s**** at the very least. Maybe they just bother themselves with the important issues like late payment of wages and leave the trivia to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 From today's Herald: http://www.heraldsco...l-club.16648763 Is it unthinkable that Rangers could cease to exist as a football club? Could it be Rangers themselves which close? The outlook is becoming so bleak for them even that cannot be ruled out with total certainty. Liquidation still seems an unlikely outcome but the prospect of the club going into administration has moved from unthinkable to looking pretty much inevitable. It may not be long now before a statement is released confirming that Rangers, drowning in debt, have been placed in the hands of an administrator. It's not about whether they win or lose the tax case against Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. They could sink before the outcome of that is known in March or April, or else they could collapse later even if the verdict goes their way. What's becoming clear is that Rangers are living a hand-to-mouth existence where debt levels are unsustainable, income does not match expenditure, and something exceptional such as the sale of Nikica Jelavic is necessary just to pay the bills and keep the wolves from the door for the next few weeks. BUT THEN WHAT? HMRC are all over Rangers. They aren't just interested in the big tax case, or the smaller one for an outstanding ?2.8m fee; those are legacies of Sir David Murray's reign. HMRC are also investigating an entirely new set of issues and concerns which pertain totally to the takeover by Craig Whyte and his subsequent actions as owner. They have interviewed former directors about the acquisition and about potentially outstanding VAT sums, including ?5m which will be due from what is being referred to as "mortgaging the season-tickets". Whyte has admitted using season-ticket projections for the next four years to secure loans worth ?24.4m from an agency, Ticketus. He has denied using that money to buy Rangers in the first place and claimed that was a separate ?18m from one of his companies. But if that is the case, where is the evidence of him investing serious money? Rangers' biggest spend on a player under him has been ?1.5m on Lee Wallace, some of which has still to be paid. Madjid Bougherra was sold for ?1.7m and Jelavic for around ?6m with, it is believed, ?3.5m paid up front. SO HOW IS THIS LIKELY TO UNFOLD? A club goes into administration either voluntarily or when creditors file a petition. Clubs first pay football-related debts (wages and fees to other clubs), then HMRC gets some of the money it is owed. Whyte may soon have to accept that he can no longer maintain Rangers as a going concern and pay the bills. WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE OF GOING INTO ADMINISTRATION? Going into administration amounts to a rescue package which nearly always allows a club or company to survive. A licensed insolvency practitioner, the administrator's intention is to maintain the club as a going concern. It would secure partial repayment for Rangers' creditors and should avoid the club going into complete liquidation and ceasing to exist. After the administration the club re-emerges with new directors and a refreshed balance sheet. But it is no easy fix: there would be job losses among the off-field staff and redundancies, too, for players. WHAT HAPPENS IN FOOTBALL TERMS? Rangers would be docked 10 points in this season's Clydesdale Bank Premier League ? no more, no fewer. That is an automatic and mandatory penalty imposed the moment the SPL receives court notice that a club is in administration. No vote or decision needs to be taken. The points come off immediately. Rangers would fall 11 points behind Celtic and be seven ahead of third-placed Motherwell as the table currently stands. If Rangers believe the league title is a lost cause without Jelavic (or any quality goalscorer, for that matter) it would be in their interests to go into administration sooner rather than later. If administration happens during the close season they would start next season on minus 10 points. Ten points will be docked in every season in which they remain in administration. A club can be docked more than 10 points in a season only if it goes into administration more than once in the same campaign. Rangers would also be prevented from signing any players, either permanently or on loan. They could sell players, though. Much as January was, then. COULD THEY BE RELEGATED TO THE THIRD DIVISION, AS LIVINGSTON WERE, OR DOCKED 25 POINTS, AS DUNDEE WERE? No. They'd have to be relegated from the SPL (virtually impossible even with a 10-point deduction) and come under the auspices of the Scottish Football League, which can impose far more severe sanctions for being in administration. The SPL punishment is 10 points. COULD THEY PLAY IN EUROPE? Every club needs an SFA licence to compete in the Uefa tournaments. That is granted only if the club proves it doesn't owe money to other clubs, its employees or Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. The SFA needs to see audited accounts before a licence can be granted to play in Europe. So far, Rangers have not submitted such accounts to the SFA. They have until March 31 to do so, although there is some leeway for up to two weeks after that. But unless those audited accounts land at the SFA Rangers will not play in Europe next season, whether they are in administration or not. WHAT IS THE HOLD-UP WITH THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS? This is another question that Whyte must answer. Last month he said that an audit of the finances would be complete "on or around January 31" but yesterday he told the Rangers Supporters' Trust that it had still to be done and, what's more, he could not call an annual general meeting until it had been finalised. Whyte says the delays relate to the HMRC tax hearing. That's a very vague explanation. IS COMPLETE LIQUIDATION AND THE END OF RANGERS LIKELY? Rangers going out of business altogether can no longer be entirely ruled out, although it is still thought to be an unlikely conclusion to the current situation. It would depend, if the club did go into administration, on whether agreement could be reached with their creditors over repayment term. If, for example, no agreement could be reached with Ticketus' parent company (if they were the preferred creditor, rather than Whyte) full liquidation would be possible. MIGHT ALLY MCCOIST RESIGN OVER THIS? A matter of daily speculation. His chances of winning the league look all but over without Jelavic, although he is in an almost criticism-proof position given supporters realise the conditions he must work under. Eventually he could feel he is on a hiding to nothing and decide to escape the stress of dealing with it. But if McCoist is deeply frustrated about Whyte he might feel he'd be letting him off the hook by walking out. Nothing is likely to happen until the summer, at the earliest. WHAT IS THE SFA'S ROLE? The SFA can suspend or terminate a club's membership if it goes into administration, which would prevent it from playing in any league, but it has never previously done so. WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN NOW? Whyte must explain why Rangers seem to be in meltdown. The biggest question is: if he didn't use the season-ticket money to buy the club, what happened to the ?20m-plus of supporters' cash? It hasn't gone on signings . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Interesting stuff Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 From today's Herald: http://www.heraldsco...l-club.16648763 A well written piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Jelavic has said today that he did not actaully want to leave Ibrox and actually asked to stay there, this contradicts Whyte's statement on Tuesday where he said Jelavic wanted to leave and they couldn't really stand in the way of an unhappy player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 From today's Herald: WHAT IS THE SFA'S ROLE? The SFA can suspend or terminate a club's membership if it goes into administration, which would prevent it from playing in any league, but it has never previously done so. The SFA's role should be to discourage this from happening again by finding a way to hammer Rangers. Chances of this happening... Nil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 going back to the original topic it about tax avoidance.... the government has just had a debate on tax avoidance and it seems if they the compamies or empolyees used an outside sourse to deliberatly avoid paying any Paye or NI. then it is classesd as avoidance and are guilty as charged no way back and will be dealt with in the approiate way by the HMRC, no appleal or delay. These payments will have to be paid to HMRC. and according to todays debate the government will support the HMRC all the way to get as many prosecutions as possible even going back as far as 13 years So the way I see it the huns haven't got a leg to stand on If it was classed as avoidance there would be no charge. Avoidance is legal; evasion is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 The SFA's role should be to discourage this from happening again by finding a way to hammer Rangers. Chances of this happening... Nil. Wouldn't put it as high as Nil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Draper Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 This thread is absolutely brilliant when you're feeling a bit down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 can we fix the thread title btw? it is pretty obvious they havent lost the tax case yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Can someone clarify the scenario with Ticketus - did Rangers/Whyte receive 3 years of borrowing up front (following Whyte's takeover) as a lump sum or is it a deal to get finance over a three year period (I note Whyte refutes the borrowing 'allegation' in the Record by saying it's for 3 years not 4). If he did get the lump sum , how is it they seem to have such severe cash flow problems (which I assume they have as they had a few court cases recently). Whyte said expenditure exceeds income (excluding Europe) by ?10m per annum so they are in a quandary. Firstly ?24m over 3 years means disposable gate income will automatically be down by ?8m for each of the next 3 years which will limit their spending. However if they have a good Euro run that will help but to achieve that they will probably have to spend even more money they do not have to acquire players good enough to have a sustained run. I think they will be frantically trying to square a circle unless a new white (not whyte) knight comes riding along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Whyte said expenditure exceeds income (excluding Europe) by ?10m per annum so they are in a quandary. Firstly ?24m over 3 years means disposable gate income will automatically be down by ?8m for each of the next 3 years which will limit their spending. However if they have a good Euro run that will help but to achieve that they will probably have to spend even more money they do not have to acquire players good enough to have a sustained run. I think they will be frantically trying to square a circle unless a new white (not whyte) knight comes riding along. Will the UEFA Financial Fair Play rules be in effect to impact Rangers? Also as noted earlier - they might not get in Europe as it stands for not publishing accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.