The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Jamboelite]

19 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

JV you could then give a brief summary of what he is saying 

He says none of the directors/shareholders  knew the share issue was happening until the press release.

 

Sounds like bollocks to me.

[RobboM]

2 hours ago, Jamboelite said:

He says none of the directors/shareholders  knew the share issue was happening until the press release.

 

Sounds like bollocks to me.

These will be the same directors expected to imminently resign back in his 14 July blog? Much as I enjoy all the stories about Rangers ongoing struggles I wouldn't put too much faith in his impeccable sources

[cannonfoda]

No court updates today?  could do with some lighthearted reading

[Footballfirst]

35 minutes ago, cannonfoda said:

No court updates today?  could do with some lighthearted reading

 

Here's a list of comments from SFM

Quote

The first case scheduled between RFC 2012 v Henderson & Jones has been cancelled for today  I've no idea why but it may be that some agreement has been reached on disclosure of the £24m Collyer Bristow agreement.

Nothing happening at the Court of Session in the TOP case at the moment.  Nor is there any information about a delay. King was apparently listed as a witness in the proof hearing, although that's no guarantee that he would be called. 

For all we know discussions may be taking place about King complying with the court order. If that's the case then the first we might hear about it will come from the Rangers website.

Counsels now coming into court now so we might get some action after all.

Counsels have been called into the judge’s chambers and the court has been vacated. So once again we have no idea what is going on.

While discussions are going on in Lady Wolffe's chambers Mr King has been spotted having a coffee in the cafe at St Giles.

I can only suspect that King has either blinked or put an alternative on the table, and that is being considered at the moment. If an agreement is reached we may not be party to it today.
Edit: just being called back into court now.

Hearing discharged until a "technical" issue of law raised by King's side is resolved. A one day debate to discuss the matter has been scheduled for 3 October. It will also be referred to the Lord Advocate to see if he takes a view on the issue.

The issue was not described in court but may relate to "competency"

Just spotted King and Blair in Parliament Square heading off somewhere. A journalist tried to have a word with King but he didn't engage with him.

Back to speculation on the "competency" point. The need for referral to the Lord Advocate would suggest that it could well be an issue about jurisdiction over civil or criminal contempt.

Either way the can has been kicked further down the road once again.

There could also be further issues about who hears the case down the line if the Lord Advocate does get involved given he is married to Lady Wolffe.

The "Competency" issue was apparently only raised yesterday, so sounds like another piece of brinkmanship by King.

The TOP side also had additional issues to be considered, which were accepted by the court. These were from two days ago, so I assume them to be related to the pending share issue.

King and Blair leaving the scene of the crime!
https://i.imgur.com/p0bZBuQ.jpg

In general, TOP's role is not to interfere in the day to day operations of a company, including fundraising / debt repayment etc.  Their remit is to protect the interests of all shareholders in a takeover situation.

I would expect the share issue to proceed as planned. The Concert Party are clearly aware of the conditions that TOP will accept with regard to the issue of new shares, as their individual subscriptions for new shares keep them at exactly the same percentage holdings as they currently hold.

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Footballfirst

[cannonfoda]

Cheers FF.

 

House of Cards yet again.  When will it all fall down?

[Jamboelite]

I can see why courts are busy and lawyers rich with the amount of rearranging dates?

Edited August 16, 2018 by Jamboelite

[Homme]

Contempt of court thrown out

[Captain Slog]

I get that the concert party percentages will be unchanged, but what about the smaller investors - won't their percentages drop if some new investors are coming in?  And if Lady Wolffe rules against King on October 3, could that retroactively have any implications on the earlier offer?

 

Sorry if I'm being thick, I did do a one year course on Contract Law for work back in the nineties, but spent most of my day releases, er 'studying' in that bar at Wester Hailes.

[Don Dan]

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-chairman-dave-king-hearing-postponed-due-to-legal-issues-1-4785243

[Footballfirst]

38 minutes ago, Homme said:

Contempt of court thrown out

No it wasn't. It did not proceed today because Lady Wolffe decided that a point of law raised by King's side needed to be resolved before a substantive hearing or "proof".  The point of law related to "competency". I assume that relates to the question of whether or not such contempt actions relating to the takeover code should fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session. If it is ruled that the CoS doesn't have jurisdiction, then the TOP will most likely take it to the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

[Homme]

3 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

No it wasn't. It did not proceed today because Lady Wolffe decided that a point of law raised by King's side needed to be resolved before a substantive hearing or "proof".  The point of law related to "competency". I assume that relates to the question of whether or not such contempt actions relating to the takeover code should fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session. If it is ruled that the CoS doesn't have jurisdiction, then the TOP will most likely take it to the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

 

Apologies i seen a headline in a rangers leaning article

[Don Dan]

Does King never get sick of being here defending court cases it must cost him or someone a fortune. 

[Footballfirst]

19 minutes ago, Homme said:

 

Apologies i seen a headline in a rangers leaning article

 

Fake News I'm afraid.

[132goals1958]

1 hour ago, Captain Slog said:

I get that the concert party percentages will be unchanged, but what about the smaller investors - won't their percentages drop if some new investors are coming in?  And if Lady Wolffe rules against King on October 3, could that retroactively have any implications on the earlier offer?

 

Sorry if I'm being thick, I did do a one year course on Contract Law for work back in the nineties, but spent most of my day releases, er 'studying' in that bar at Wester Hailes.

 

There is provision within the Companies Act relating to Minority shareholders protection but it seems the mendacious one doesn,t really really bother about respecting the law.

[Footballfirst]

25 minutes ago, 132goals1958 said:

 

There is provision within the Companies Act relating to Minority shareholders protection but it seems the mendacious one doesn,t really really bother about respecting the law.

 

The share issue will dilute their holdings, but there is nothing they can do about that as a resolution authorising such a share issue was passed by the holders of more than 75% at the shares at the last AGM.

 

The argument that the minority shareholders will have is about the failure of King to comply timeously with the TOP/CoS rulings, then to see their stakes diluted by the latest share issue. That same share issue could enable the various shareholding percentages to be gerrymandered in such a way that King would no longer be obliged to buy out anyone's shareholding.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Footballfirst

[jock _turd]

This has to be the most infuriating case ever... nothing ever happens to the clunt  !

[132goals1958]

3 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

The share issue will dilute their holdings, but there is nothing they can do about that as a resolution authorising such a share issue was passed by the holders of more than 75% at the shares at the last AGM.

 

The argument that the minority shareholders will have is about the failure of King to comply timeously with the TOP/CoS rulings, then to see their stakes diluted by the latest share issue. That same share issue could enable the various shareholding percentages to be gerrymandered in such a way that King would no longer be obliged to buy out anyone's shareholding.

 

Interesting as I thought even a special resolution could be challenged if sufficient members petitioned the courts. There is a requisitioning mechanism but it was a long time ago that I can,t remember the inns and outs. One of my more boring subjects at the time.

[Jerah Jambo]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

 

The share issue will dilute their holdings, but there is nothing they can do about that as a resolution authorising such a share issue was passed by the holders of more than 75% at the shares at the last AGM.

 

The argument that the minority shareholders will have is about the failure of King to comply timeously with the TOP/CoS rulings, then to see their stakes diluted by the latest share issue. That same share issue could enable the various shareholding percentages to be gerrymandered in such a way that King would no longer be obliged to buy out anyone's shareholding.

 

Where does this leave Club 1872 and their well documented aim of board representation ?

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Got to be a reasonable chance the TOP will try for some sort of injunction regarding the share issue. 

[RobboM]

37 minutes ago, Glamorgan Jambo said:

Got to be a reasonable chance the TOP will try for some sort of injunction regarding the share issue. 

Or that the new shares should be subject to the buyout offer too?

[jamboz]

5 hours ago, Homme said:

 

Apologies i seen a headline in a rangers leaning article

 

Is there ever any other kind of article written about the Sevco ? It is always sycophantic bollox 

[Footballfirst]

2 hours ago, Jerah Jambo said:

 

Where does this leave Club 1872 and their well documented aim of board representation ?

The share issue will see Club 1872 put up £1m for 5m shares and in return will see their holding diluted from 10.7% to 9.5%

 

1 hour ago, RobboM said:

Or that the new shares should be subject to the buyout offer too?

Oddly that will probably disadvantage those shareholders who would like to get out now.

 

The reason lies within King's interpretation of the TOPs rules.  I'll try and explain as simply as possible. 

 

As it stands There are 81.5m shares in RIFC.

King and the Concert Party (CP) hold approx 27.7m or 34% of the shares.

King as the person who took the CP over 30% has been requested to make an offer for the rest of the shares (53.7m).

If an offer is made, it is conditional on King getting sufficient acceptances to take the CP over 50%.

That means shareholders with 13m or 16% of shares need to accept Kings offer before he has to pay up.

 

If the share issue goes ahead 63m new shares will be issued taking the total to 145m

King and the Concert Party (CP) will hold approx 49.2m but still 34% of the shares

If an offer is made, it is conditional on King getting sufficient acceptances to take the CP over 50%

That means shareholders with 23m or 16% of shares need to accept Kings offer before he has to pay up.

 

The difference between the 13m and 23m required to meet the 50% threshold is key.  None of the shareholders who are likely to sell will be receiving new shares (e.g. the Easdales, Blue Pitch Margarita etc). Those shareholders probably hold up to 20m between them, meaning that they would meet the 50% threshold in the current set up, but would probably fail to hit the 50% threshold with the enlarged share base.

 

Now I don't know if the TOP will allow that to happen, but it is a possibility.  I'd hope that the TOP and the Courts would recognise that shareholders who want to sell now would be disadvantaged if they are unable to sell after the share issue, therefore I'd hope that they would insist that King makes the offer based on the current share base rather than the enlarged share base.  

Edited August 16, 2018 by Footballfirst

[Jamboelite]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

The share issue will see Club 1872 put up £1m for 5m shares and in return will see their holding diluted from 10.7% to 9.5%

 

Oddly that will probably disadvantage those shareholders who would like to get out now.

 

The reason lies within King's interpretation of the TOPs rules.  I'll try and explain as simply as possible. 

 

As it stands There are 81.5m shares in RIFC.

King and the Concert Party (CP) hold approx 27.7m or 34% of the shares.

King as the person who took the CP over 30% has been requested to make an offer for the rest of the shares (53.7m).

If an offer is made, it is conditional on King getting sufficient acceptances to take the CP over 50%.

That means shareholders with 13m or 16% of shares need to accept Kings offer before he has to pay up.

 

If the share issue goes ahead 63m new shares will be issued taking the total to 145m

King and the Concert Party (CP) will hold approx 49.2m but still 34% of the shares

If an offer is made, it is conditional on King getting sufficient acceptances to take the CP over 50%

That means shareholders with 23m or 16% of shares need to accept Kings offer before he has to pay up.

 

The difference between the 13m and 23m required to meet the 50% threshold is key.  None of the shareholders who are likely to sell will be receiving new shares (e.g. the Easdales, Blue Pitch Margarita etc). Those shareholders probably hold up to 20m between them, meaning that they would meet the 50% threshold in the current set up, but would probably fail to hit the 50% threshold with the enlarged share base.

 

Now I don't know if the TOP will allow that to happen, but it is a possibility.  I'd hope that the TOP and the Courts would recognise that shareholders who want to sell now would be disadvantaged if they are unable to sell after the share issue, therefore I'd hope that they would insist that King makes the offer based on the current share base rather than the enlarged share base.  

Thanks, for us layman its a very good explanation.

 

I cant see the courts allowing him to disadvantage those that want to sell as he gets both new money in and makes it much more unlikely he will have to cought up cash.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Jamboelite

[The Gasman]

13 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

....Now I don't know if the TOP will allow that to happen, but it is a possibility.  I'd hope that the TOP and the Courts would recognise that shareholders who want to sell now would be disadvantaged if they are unable to sell after the share issue, therefore I'd hope that they would insist that King makes the offer based on the current share base rather than the enlarged share base.  

 

Could it be that the legal clarification now being sought is whether the TOP have the jurisdiction / authority, to halt his proposed share issue till the takeover ruling has been resolved to their satisfaction?

[Spellczech]

13 hours ago, Jamboelite said:

Thanks, for us layman its a very good explanation.

 

I cant see the courts allowing him to disadvantage those that want to sell as he gets both new money in and makes it much more unlikely he will have to cought up cash.

It is a strange situation as King has absolute control at Rangers from basically holding about 14% of the share capital...It's basically like Douglas Park owning 1 bus from a fleet of 12 and being able to tell all the other bus owners and drivers what to do...

[jamboz]

Is king not in contempt of court for not following through with the ToP ruling in a timely fashion?  How does he get away with kicking the can further down the road yet again? 

[jambovambo]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16585630.rangers-fund-raising-shares-issue-could-halt-dave-kings-court-ordered-11m-takeover-bid-for-the-club/

 

“New share issue may let King avoid making Ibrox bid”

 

I’m sorry but that’s not why the TOP exists ... to be worked around. 

[Don Dan]

“New Rangers director Julian Wolhardt has ‘significant control’. 

 

“New Rangers” admission at last?

 

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/new-rangers-director-julian-wolhardt-has-significant-control-1-4787648

 

King on his way?

[colinmaroon]

 

Another ,"capital" source, based in Communist China where the financial controls/regulations are often a lot of smoke and mirrors.

 

Sevco could well be funded by the Asian sweat shops, allegedly.

[davieholt]

BBC Sport Scotland‏Verified account @BBCSportScot 6m6 minutes ago

More

Former Rangers players and staff pursued for tax over EBTs following Supreme Court ruling https://bbc.in/2wmHTKI 

 

 

 

 

[...a bit disco]

Former Rangers players and staff paid through an offshore trust have been told they have weeks to approach the taxman over a settlement or face an even bigger bill.

Last year the Supreme Court upheld a Court of Session ruling that £47m paid to Rangers employees between 2001-2010 was liable for tax.

Now beneficiaries of the Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs), many of whom were led to believe these were loans that would never have to be repaid, are being warned to seek "urgent advice".

BBC Scotland has seen a letter sent earlier this month by Trident Trust, a Jersey-based company, which paints a stark picture.

The letter says: "HMRC has confirmed that it will seek to recover all income tax found by the Supreme Court to be due and that, where HMRC is unable to recover the tax from the employer, it may transfer the liability for unpaid tax...to employees or former employees."

While HM Revenue and Customs can still pursue BDO - the liquidators of RFC 2012 Plc - for a portion of what the company owed, more could be salvaged by pursuing the former employees.

• HMRC wins Rangers 'big tax case' ruling
• Who were the EBT beneficiaries?

That could put many on the hook for hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds.

Former captain Barry Ferguson received £2.5m in EBT payments, German goalkeeper Stefan Klos £2m and former manager - and current Scotland boss - Alex McLeish £1.7m, while former owner Sir David Murray received £6.3m.

And time could be running out to try to negotiate a deal, according to the trust's letter.

The trust says further charges will be applied by HMRC if tax liabilities have not been settled by 5 April next year.

And to do that, it says, those in question will have to approach HMRC by 30 September this year.

The letter adds: "If you do not come forward voluntarily and seek to settle on preferential terms, HMRC could well pursue you directly and make an assessment on a less favourable basis."

Trident Trust stresses it is not offering advice, rather urging the players and staff involved to seek expert advice on how to deal with the situation.

HMRC said: "Follower notice (FN) legislation says that HMRC has 12 months to issue FNs following a final decision. The final decision in Rangers was on 5 July 2017. We have looked at a range of schemes where the principles at stake were similar, and follower notices have been issued where appropriate."

BBC Scotland has contacted Trident for a response.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45322276?ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=scotland&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sportsound

[redjambo]

"The authorities picking on Rangers again" no doubt.

[Footballfirst]

Cue a number of former players seeking bankruptcy, if they haven't done so already.

[davieholt]

Could be a messy and costly business for all of them

[communist]

1 minute ago, ...a bit disco said:

Former Rangers players and staff paid through an offshore trust have been told they have weeks to approach the taxman over a settlement or face an even bigger bill.

Last year the Supreme Court upheld a Court of Session ruling that £47m paid to Rangers employees between 2001-2010 was liable for tax.

Now beneficiaries of the Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs), many of whom were led to believe these were loans that would never have to be repaid, are being warned to seek "urgent advice".

BBC Scotland has seen a letter sent earlier this month by Trident Trust, a Jersey-based company, which paints a stark picture.

The letter says: "HMRC has confirmed that it will seek to recover all income tax found by the Supreme Court to be due and that, where HMRC is unable to recover the tax from the employer, it may transfer the liability for unpaid tax...to employees or former employees."

While HM Revenue and Customs can still pursue BDO - the liquidators of RFC 2012 Plc - for a portion of what the company owed, more could be salvaged by pursuing the former employees.

• HMRC wins Rangers 'big tax case' ruling
• Who were the EBT beneficiaries?

That could put many on the hook for hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds.

Former captain Barry Ferguson received £2.5m in EBT payments, German goalkeeper Stefan Klos £2m and former manager - and current Scotland boss - Alex McLeish £1.7m, while former owner Sir David Murray received £6.3m.

And time could be running out to try to negotiate a deal, according to the trust's letter.

The trust says further charges will be applied by HMRC if tax liabilities have not been settled by 5 April next year.

And to do that, it says, those in question will have to approach HMRC by 30 September this year.

The letter adds: "If you do not come forward voluntarily and seek to settle on preferential terms, HMRC could well pursue you directly and make an assessment on a less favourable basis."

Trident Trust stresses it is not offering advice, rather urging the players and staff involved to seek expert advice on how to deal with the situation.

HMRC said: "Follower notice (FN) legislation says that HMRC has 12 months to issue FNs following a final decision. The final decision in Rangers was on 5 July 2017. We have looked at a range of schemes where the principles at stake were similar, and follower notices have been issued where appropriate."

BBC Scotland has contacted Trident for a response.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45322276?ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=scotland&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sportsound

 

[Lovecraft]

 

[Heartsofgold]

5 minutes ago, ...a bit disco said:

Former Rangers players and staff paid through an offshore trust have been told they have weeks to approach the taxman over a settlement or face an even bigger bill.

Last year the Supreme Court upheld a Court of Session ruling that £47m paid to Rangers employees between 2001-2010 was liable for tax.

Now beneficiaries of the Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs), many of whom were led to believe these were loans that would never have to be repaid, are being warned to seek "urgent advice".

BBC Scotland has seen a letter sent earlier this month by Trident Trust, a Jersey-based company, which paints a stark picture.

The letter says: "HMRC has confirmed that it will seek to recover all income tax found by the Supreme Court to be due and that, where HMRC is unable to recover the tax from the employer, it may transfer the liability for unpaid tax...to employees or former employees."

While HM Revenue and Customs can still pursue BDO - the liquidators of RFC 2012 Plc - for a portion of what the company owed, more could be salvaged by pursuing the former employees.

• HMRC wins Rangers 'big tax case' ruling
• Who were the EBT beneficiaries?

That could put many on the hook for hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds.

Former captain Barry Ferguson received £2.5m in EBT payments, German goalkeeper Stefan Klos £2m and former manager - and current Scotland boss - Alex McLeish £1.7m, while former owner Sir David Murray received £6.3m.

And time could be running out to try to negotiate a deal, according to the trust's letter.

The trust says further charges will be applied by HMRC if tax liabilities have not been settled by 5 April next year.

And to do that, it says, those in question will have to approach HMRC by 30 September this year.

The letter adds: "If you do not come forward voluntarily and seek to settle on preferential terms, HMRC could well pursue you directly and make an assessment on a less favourable basis."

Trident Trust stresses it is not offering advice, rather urging the players and staff involved to seek expert advice on how to deal with the situation.

HMRC said: "Follower notice (FN) legislation says that HMRC has 12 months to issue FNs following a final decision. The final decision in Rangers was on 5 July 2017. We have looked at a range of schemes where the principles at stake were similar, and follower notices have been issued where appropriate."

BBC Scotland has contacted Trident for a response.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45322276?ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=scotland&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sportsound

 

Just a pity they can only pursue old co for the debt. Slimy *******s getting away with it. 

[redjambo]

And all that saved tax offered Rangers no sporting advantage?

 

[Spellczech]

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Cue a number of former players seeking bankruptcy, if they haven't done so already.

Surely their assets will all be squirrelled away in their wives and kids bank accounts?

[Des Lynam]

1 minute ago, Heartsofgold said:

 

Just a pity they can only pursue old co for the debt. Slimy *******s getting away with it. 

 

Aye you get to keep the titles but not the debt. 

 

 

[brunoatemyhamster]

12 minutes ago, ...a bit disco said:

Former Rangers players and staff paid through an offshore trust have been told they have weeks to approach the taxman over a settlement or face an even bigger bill.

Last year the Supreme Court upheld a Court of Session ruling that £47m paid to Rangers employees between 2001-2010 was liable for tax.

Now beneficiaries of the Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs), many of whom were led to believe these were loans that would never have to be repaid, are being warned to seek "urgent advice".

BBC Scotland has seen a letter sent earlier this month by Trident Trust, a Jersey-based company, which paints a stark picture.

The letter says: "HMRC has confirmed that it will seek to recover all income tax found by the Supreme Court to be due and that, where HMRC is unable to recover the tax from the employer, it may transfer the liability for unpaid tax...to employees or former employees."

While HM Revenue and Customs can still pursue BDO - the liquidators of RFC 2012 Plc - for a portion of what the company owed, more could be salvaged by pursuing the former employees.

• HMRC wins Rangers 'big tax case' ruling
• Who were the EBT beneficiaries?

That could put many on the hook for hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds.

Former captain Barry Ferguson received £2.5m in EBT payments, German goalkeeper Stefan Klos £2m and former manager - and current Scotland boss - Alex McLeish £1.7m, while former owner Sir David Murray received £6.3m.

And time could be running out to try to negotiate a deal, according to the trust's letter.

The trust says further charges will be applied by HMRC if tax liabilities have not been settled by 5 April next year.

And to do that, it says, those in question will have to approach HMRC by 30 September this year.

The letter adds: "If you do not come forward voluntarily and seek to settle on preferential terms, HMRC could well pursue you directly and make an assessment on a less favourable basis."

Trident Trust stresses it is not offering advice, rather urging the players and staff involved to seek expert advice on how to deal with the situation.

HMRC said: "Follower notice (FN) legislation says that HMRC has 12 months to issue FNs following a final decision. The final decision in Rangers was on 5 July 2017. We have looked at a range of schemes where the principles at stake were similar, and follower notices have been issued where appropriate."

BBC Scotland has contacted Trident for a response.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45322276?ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=scotland&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sportsound

Aw Naw ! Thats really put a dampener on my mood that has. Especially the crab. Poor scone.

McLeish under pressure for a win bonus tae!

The club will be safe right ? As its not the same club ?

Edited August 27, 2018 by brunoatemyhamster

[Footballfirst]

3 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Surely their assets will all be squirrelled away in their wives and kids bank accounts?

That's what Barry Ferguson did a few years ago before being declared bankrupt last summer.

[Lovecraft]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

That's what Barry Ferguson did a few years ago before being declared bankrupt last summer.

 

They can still go after them if he has transferred it to his wife.

 

[Dallas Green]

Just now, Footballfirst said:

That's what Barry Ferguson did a few years ago before being declared bankrupt last summer.

 

How do they get away with that? Surely a court could look and see property / money being transferred beforehand and think, that's a bit fishy.

[brunoatemyhamster]

1 minute ago, Lovecraft said:

 

They can still go after them if he has transferred it to his wife.

 

What if she's his sister ? 

Edited August 27, 2018 by brunoatemyhamster

[Footballfirst]

2 minutes ago, Lovecraft said:

 

They can still go after them if he has transferred it to his wife.

 

He transferred his assets to his wife around six years before his bankruptcy, so it was probably done under financial advice at the time.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/1329654/rangers-barry-ferguson-transfer-mansion-wife-bankruptcy/

 

He was actually discharged from his bankruptcy earlier this month.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-legend-barry-ferguson-dodges-13050181

Edited August 27, 2018 by Footballfirst

[Lovecraft]

Just now, brunoatemyhamster said:

What if it was his sister ? 

 Doesn't matter, they will check for years before any insolvency to see if any assets have been transferred.

 

 

[Lovecraft]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

He transferred his assets to his wife around six years ago, so it was probably done under financial advice at the time.

 

He was actually discharged from his bankruptcy earlier this month.

I guess he is about to have another one then.

 

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Lovecraft

[Heartsofgold]

2 minutes ago, Lovecraft said:

 Doesn't matter, they will check for years before any insolvency to see if any assets have been transferred.

 

 

 

Which, unfortunately, they will have done before the bankruptcy. If he’s had an agreed sequestration and stuck to the terms (and if he’s now been discharged so there’s no reason to think otherwise) then the HMRC cannot pursue them further for this debt. 

[Independence]

I look forward to the day  Barry ‘the lad’ Ferguson gets his rancid smile and laugh wiped right of his face. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Independence