DETTY29 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Surely the longer this drags on the better. More uncertainity, more legal fees et al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennyblack'sshot Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 While it's been obvious for a while that Rangers are in serious financial doodoo (and I'd like to think we helped them on their way by finishing 2nd in 2006) this news seems too detailed not to have a serious ring of truth about it. I only care about the impact on Hearts though and I think this reinforces that we really have to go for it this year. The Old Firm are both completely distracted by off-field stuff and it seems unlikely that Rangers can buy anyone while still owing money to the taxman and the bank. If Vlad is ever going to spend money on the team again, now has to be the time. Right back, striker and creative midfielder would be lovely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I just took on the tax man and won 5 figures back. So hopefully they take it out on Rangers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 If my understanding is correct, they will have to pay the full amount. Usually a club would try to pay a fraction of their debt (i.e. pence in the pound) to their creditors if they are really in dire straits, in what is termed a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). I believe, but I am not certain, that the HMRC will not accept a CVA if a firm has been avoiding paying tax. My guess is they will demand the figure in full. Personally, I'd hate to see any club go bust, even Celtic or Hibs. Correct. Tax evasion is criminal and to a greater extent that just running a club into the ground with debt a la Pompey. HMRC played it tough with Pompey who had just spent loads of money they didn't have. If what is written above about Rangers is true then HMRC will not settle as it is the public purse that has lost out so they'll be chased for the full amount plus penalties (which can also be pretty large). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I'm sure I read recently that this is due back in court sometime in May. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsychocAndy Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Is this the reason the bank is playing hard ball with the stickies. They want as much of their cash back before the taxman gets his mitts on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts of Vladland Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Didn't want to start a new thread so because this is on Rangers I will post it here. Rangers fans on followfollow who slag Celtic for being parnoid are saying Kello should have been sent off for a 'assult' on Laugherty even though he clearly won the ball and had every right to go for it, Skacel should have been sent off for either his 'dive' that he never claimed, his 'handball' can anyone tell me when this happened? or the funniest one 'jumping into McGregor, Wallace should have been sent off for his follow through after he was booked and they should have had a penalty for either McColluch shot that Bouzid took down with his hand or when McColluch was 'leaned' on by Bouzid even though McColluch clearly dived. And to put the icing on the cake after someone said Rudi moans and dives a Hearts fan said 'so like Naismith' to which they responding Naismith doesn't dive, moans but he doesn't dive. So it short GIRUY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon tinted glasses 2 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Couldnt happen to a nicer club, from what I understand the potential new owners want this sorted out before they buy the club and this is the reason no purchase has been made yet as if they do buy now they could also get hit with a massive bill at a later date. Murray is desperate to get rid so asap this could be the reason behind asking "what it would take to be swept under the carpet". I for one hope the HMRC tkes it all the way as the longer it drags on the worse it will be for rangers and the louder the fans will start to moan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I'm sure I read recently that this is due back in court sometime in May. That date's also mentioned on another post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 it is not just the taxman rangers allegedly defrauded, it is you and i the tax payers as well as those other football clubs who have to set aside tax money in full. Basically rangers paid players obscene amounts, borrowed heavily from bank of scotland to pay for it all then tried to diddle hmrc and everyone else to seek further advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussAsia Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 If my understanding is correct, they will have to pay the full amount. Usually a club would try to pay a fraction of their debt (i.e. pence in the pound) to their creditors if they are really in dire straits, in what is termed a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). I believe, but I am not certain, that the HMRC will not accept a CVA if a firm has been avoiding paying tax. My guess is they will demand the figure in full. Personally, I'd hate to see any club go bust, even Celtic or Hibs. I would love it if Celtic went bust.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vanbasten1874 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Does this mean that every championship won every single point earned every scottish cup won every second place secured was done not through sporting integrity but dare i say it through acts of criminality. Have Rangers cheated their way to domestic honours through the years should they be stripped of such honours if found guilty ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpy rebus Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Great news. In the current economic climate HMRC will go for the full amount as their "investigative teams" are now under pressure to prove their worth. As for EBT's they've been around for a while and were a decent tax planning tol, but like all this type of scheme, the net was always tightening and people/firms were regularly falling foul of this. Next up will be the image rights scandal, where players are setting up firms and paying corporation tax rather than income tax. Reeks like the stting up separate firms for VAT did a few years ago. And HMRC didn't muck about their either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Didn't want to start a new thread so because this is on Rangers I will post it here. Rangers fans on followfollow who slag Celtic for being parnoid are saying Kello should have been sent off for a 'assult' on Laugherty even though he clearly won the ball and had every right to go for it, Skacel should have been sent off for either his 'dive' that he never claimed, his 'handball' can anyone tell me when this happened? or the funniest one 'jumping into McGregor, Wallace should have been sent off for his follow through after he was booked and they should have had a penalty for either McColluch shot that Bouzid took down with his hand or when McColluch was 'leaned' on by Bouzid even though McColluch clearly dived. And to put the icing on the cake after someone said Rudi moans and dives a Hearts fan said 'so like Naismith' to which they responding Naismith doesn't dive, moans but he doesn't dive. So it short GIRUY. the only bit i agree with is rudi was lucky not to be shown a 2nd yellow for the handball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zdrastvway Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I don't think the analysis that the OP came across alluded to any criminality. In taxation, there is (or at least there has been) much difference between (legal) tax avoidance and (illegal) tax evasion. However in recent times the Government and HMRC conveniently want to ignore any distinction. Although schemes using EBTs and other creative vehicles normally represent highly structured tax avoidance rather than tax evasion, I'm sure HMRC's desire to pursue aggressively won't be diminished. There's a real irony (touched on in an earlier post) with us as taxpayers supporting HBOS to continue to fund Rangers where there seems to have been great reluctance to pay the taxes that the rest of us have had to pay. Level playing field and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Is this the reason the bank is playing hard ball with the stickies. They want as much of their cash back before the taxman gets his mitts on it. It probably has something to do with it. The ?30million or so debt that Rangers have admitted to is not really enough for the bank to take over running the club the way that they have, given that they let us run up ?20 million under the Pieman, and plenty other SPL clubs have a higher debt to turnover ratio than Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I had almost forgotten about this. It's truly frightening stuff and certainly explains why no interested party has ever gone past the basic due diligence stage. What I don't get is why on earth Murray would even bother trying to offload the club when it has this issue hanging over its head? That's odd. He must know that any potential buyer would be put off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Palmer Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I've no idea about anything on this thread but I think I'll wait and see.... However.... :terry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Interested in the case law comment above. Do HMRC have to establish case law in England and Scotland? If so, they are even more screwed as there is no way the nice taxman will back down and cut a deal. It is UK tax, with no internal borders, and HMRC would be certain to accept the jurisdiction of a Scottish court, although there is still the possibility of an appeal by either side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 If Rangers do go bust and get points docked or relegated, that would then mean that they shouldn't have a vote in the SPL. That would Septic alone v the rest. Of course, the rules will be changed to allow Rangers to be involved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It is UK tax, with no internal borders, and HMRC would be certain to accept the jurisdiction of a Scottish court, although there is still the possibility of an appeal by either side. Cool, so case law is equivalent north and south of the border. I wonder then if some Premier League clubs are watching on nervously or, alternatively, the HMRC sees an SPL club as a 'softer' target for setting a precedent? Either way, as others have said, long may they be distracted by this and hopefully shafted in the end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 If Rangers do go bust and get points docked or relegated, that would then mean that they shouldn't have a vote in the SPL. That would Septic alone v the rest. Of course, the rules will be changed to allow Rangers to be involved! That's why it is a double edged sword for Celtic fans, they need a strong Rangers, the old firm are best summed up as united we stand, divided we fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 If Rangers do go bust and get points docked or relegated...... It could be hibs that keep them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It probably has something to do with it. The ?30million or so debt that Rangers have admitted to is not really enough for the bank to take over running the club the way that they have, given that they let us run up ?20 million under the Pieman, and plenty other SPL clubs have a higher debt to turnover ratio than Rangers. It would appear Rangers have 3 key/huge creditors HBOS/The UK Taxpayer HMRC/The UK Taxpayer MIM( and its various companies/HBOS/The UK tax payer. It would appear there is a lot, lot more to the tangled web of Rangers finances than mmet the eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It would appear Rangers have 3 key/huge creditors HBOS/The UK Taxpayer HMRC/The UK Taxpayer MIM( and its various companies/HBOS/The UK tax payer. It would appear there is a lot, lot more to the tangled web of Rangers finances than mmet the eye. They have been reducing their debt to the Bank via selling players, releasing players to reduce the wage bill and getting over ?25M in Champions league money over the past 2 seasons but their bank debt doesn't seem to have been reduced proportionately - which means they are either still losing money or some of the money was due to pay other debts or claims? The Tax debt for HMRC is already discussed and potentially very damaging to them financially even if they do reach an out of court settlement for a reduced amount it would still be significant. Also any take-over deal is bound to wait until this matter is closer to being resolved - t would take a brave/foolish investor to take this on unless they could absolve liability for the claim back onto the Murray group. The shareholding/profit claims between MIH and RFC are complicated and as a result of share-issues and absorbing Rangers debts it is speculated that Rangers could owe upto another ?80M to MIH companies some of which is then owed onto Lloyds Banking group as part of MIH overall debts. Whoever buys Rangers will either have to have very deep pockets or else ensure that Murray takes responsibility for the huge financial mess that's been created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Cool, so case law is equivalent north and south of the border. I wonder then if some Premier League clubs are watching on nervously or, alternatively, the HMRC sees an SPL club as a 'softer' target for setting a precedent? Either way, as others have said, long may they be distracted by this and hopefully shafted in the end! It is statute enacted in the UK parliament that HMRC work from and although Scotland has some separate powers taxation is not (yet) one of them. Tax planners (avoiders) seek ways of getting out from and under these laws to the point where court action may result. It would be rare, possibly unique, for one UK judge to challenge the interpretation of the law made by another UK judge in another UK court. It is however often attempted on the basis that the facts are not parallel to the one on which judgment has been pronounced. I may add that an appeal is a very costly business unless you win it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I don't know anything about the right mess that Rangers find themselves in, but the tax analysis referred to by the OP is remarkably well-informed. The fact that Andrew Thornhill QC is handling the matter suggests that Rangers FC are taking it very seriously. Andrew Thornhill is THE Man when it comes to tax and EBTs. I wouldn't put any money on HMRC being minded to reach a financial settlement here. They will want to establish the principles, through the Tribunals and Courts if necessary, but once that has been done it will simply be a matter of getting the calculator out to compute the tax that is due, add in the interest on tax paid late and impose the appropriate penalty. The answer looks like it's going to be a painful one. I agree with this. However, while Andrew Thornhill is indeed one the top QCs when it comes to EBTs (there are one or two others who are just as good), the real issue is whether or not he (or someone equivalent) was advising Rangers when the EBT was set up. EBTs have been around for more than 25 years and are still an effective tax planning tool. In fact, it is only the announcement made by the Treasury at the end of last year which finally seems to be getting to the heart of the arrangements. New legislatino has been drafted and will be in the Finance Bill 2011. The real problem is that there are dozens of companies out there offering EBTs as a tax planning solution, but many of them have a serious difficulty in implementing them correctly. Given that it is possible to save a lot of tax if they are implemented correctly, it is little wonder that HMRC goes after them hard. In this case, it sounds as Rangers might have screwed up in the implementation and that is what HMRC are going after. This usually happens when the company selling the planning has an old opinion from someone like Andrew Thornhill, but doesn't go back to him for advice on each specific case. There has been a lot of case law over the years on EBTs and while they can be effective tools for Inheritance Tax planning and Capital Gains Tax planning as well as income tax planning, HMRC are only ever successful on the income tax side. If Rangers have made a significant offer to settle and that has been rejected out of hand, HMRC must believe they have a very good case indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 seen this on the daily record fans response section re game yesterday ...anyone know if there's any truth in it ? or is it just someone rambling on. Would be pretty devastating for the gers if true.. Courtesy of Rip... Rangers' legal battle with HMRC took a serious turn for the worst in recent weeks. The case, which concerns the club's use of an Employee Benefits Trust (EBT) to pay players without paying PAYE or National Insurance contributions, puts Rangers FC's future on the line. In a startling gambit, Rangers' lawyer, Andrew Thornhill QC, has had his second approach to settle the case out of court rebuffed. In this most recent offer, it is understood that the Ibrox club offered an amount just under ?10m. But this was not Rangers first effort at making this problem disappear. Upon taking on the case in the spring of 2010, Thornhill approached HMRC asking what it would take to settle. When that did not elicit a response from the British governments representatives, he threw out an offer of ?3-5m. This was summarily rejected. However, at the time, this was not seen as significant: simply a lawyer doing his job to evaluate all options and test the depth of resolve of the opposition. However, this most recent approach comes with the background of the initial phase of the First Tier Tribunal, which was held in late October 2010. Several of the witnesses called by Rangers were forced into damaging admissions and retractions under cross-examination. The entire case was scheduled to last for two weeks, but Rangers were not even able to complete their rebuttal of the charges- that they had knowingly operated an illegal tax scheme. HMRC's lawyer is widely considered to have "roasted" several senior representatives of the famous Glasgow club. With the tribunal scheduled to re-start in May 2011, the flat rejection of this offer is sure to send a wave of panic up to the top of the marble staircase and beyond. It is understood that it would take an offer to pay HMRC 100% of the original underpayment accrued interest- a total of ?36m- to get HMRC to engage in negotiations over the amount of penalty which would be added. The final amount of the penalty, which has already been billed to Rangers (approx ?24m), is scheduled to be determined in a separate tribunal if Rangers' guilt in operating a tax evasion scheme is established in the current process. HMRC's enthusiasm for going to court can be explained by a desire to establish case law and eliminate any doubt over the use of EBTs to pay contractual obligations such as salaries and appearance money. (Contrary to erroneous speculation in the print media, image rights form no part in the current case against Rangers). One can only speculate whether Alistair Johnstone and the Rangers board still retain their jaunty confidence in the "expert advice"7; they claim to have followed. Their flat dismissals of the risks surrounding this matter and their willingness to write a cheque for ?10m today seem to be in conflict. One financial analyst familiar with the case said: "It looks like the seriousness of their position is dawning on the Rangers board. This looks like they have figured out the maximum amount of money they are able to pay and have decided to offer it now rather than risk almost certain insolvency should they be forced to pay even close to ?64m" nete ref : http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2011/01/23/jim-jefferies-tells-celtic-to-watch-their-backs-as-hearts-blow-title-race-wide-open-86908-22869496/ It is fairly well known HMRC are pursuing them. However who's to say RIP is not timmy's version of Sirgay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Talk of the takeover has gone a bit quiet, could well be why. PLEASE let this be true I heard (don't know how accurate) it is on hold as SDM is not answering Due Diligence questions satisfactorily. Pleasing if true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I heard (don't know how accurate) it is on hold as SDM is not answering Due Diligence questions satisfactorily. Pleasing if true! That was reported by the BBC a couple of weeks ago. Whyte is apparently less than happy that Sir Minty hasnt replied yet, even though he posed the questions a month ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 That was reported by the BBC a couple of weeks ago. Whyte is apparently less than happy that Sir Minty hasnt replied yet, even though he posed the questions a month ago. I suspect then SDM was waiting to see if they got any favourable response to a settlement with the Taxman....it would appear not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zdrastvway Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 If Rangers have made a significant offer to settle and that has been rejected out of hand, HMRC must believe they have a very good case indeed. Spot on Jambo66. The fact that Rangers seem minded to make an offer to settle says it all. By this stage, it looks like a case of trying to reduce the pain. But HMRC aren't in the pain-relief business ! It is fairly well known HMRC are pursuing them. However who's to say RIP is not timmy's version of Sirgay? SMH. He may well be .... but I still say he is remarkably well-informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I agree with this. However, while Andrew Thornhill is indeed one the top QCs when it comes to EBTs (there are one or two others who are just as good), the real issue is whether or not he (or someone equivalent) was advising Rangers when the EBT was set up. EBTs have been around for more than 25 years and are still an effective tax planning tool. In fact, it is only the announcement made by the Treasury at the end of last year which finally seems to be getting to the heart of the arrangements. New legislatino has been drafted and will be in the Finance Bill 2011. The real problem is that there are dozens of companies out there offering EBTs as a tax planning solution, but many of them have a serious difficulty in implementing them correctly. Given that it is possible to save a lot of tax if they are implemented correctly, it is little wonder that HMRC goes after them hard. In this case, it sounds as Rangers might have screwed up in the implementation and that is what HMRC are going after. This usually happens when the company selling the planning has an old opinion from someone like Andrew Thornhill, but doesn't go back to him for advice on each specific case. There has been a lot of case law over the years on EBTs and while they can be effective tools for Inheritance Tax planning and Capital Gains Tax planning as well as income tax planning, HMRC are only ever successful on the income tax side. If Rangers have made a significant offer to settle and that has been rejected out of hand, HMRC must believe they have a very good case indeed. I would suggest you are correct. If the RFC case was a one-off situation, HMRC would be more amenable to a negotiated settlement but this practice I believe is rife and not only in football. Normally HMRC action would be proportionate to the likely amount of tax involved which seems to be massive in football alone if stories are to believed. I would imagine therefore they will pursuing the matter with some vigour and resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 the amounts involved in pay amd remuneration are far higher in football clubs than in most other businesses or industries with more high earning individuals earning seriously big money than all but the highest echelon of management in most companies. Also whilst Corporate management and bankers/financiers could said to be ahem 'assets' to the economy in that they add value and jobs the general perception of top footballers is that they are obscenely over-paid in relation to most employees and contribute little of added value to the UK economy therefore they are a legitimate and soft-target for the tax authorities to go after, very few in the influential media would leap to their defence or champion them or their vested interest. Of course the Scottish tabloids are very different but they don't really matter in instances like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis Khan Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It is fairly well known HMRC are pursuing them. However who's to say RIP is not timmy's version of Sirgay? Definitely sounds like him however, this was my favourite qoute: "HMRC's lawyer is widely considered to have "roasted" several senior representatives of the famous Glasgow club." The mind boggles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis Khan Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I would suggest you are correct. If the RFC case was a one-off situation, HMRC would be more amenable to a negotiated settlement but this practice I believe is rife and not only in football. Normally HMRC action would be proportionate to the likely amount of tax involved which seems to be massive in football alone if stories are to believed. I would imagine therefore they will pursuing the matter with some vigour and resources. What does the "HM" stand for in HMRC? Case Closed! Well, that was Donald Finlay's take on it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 the article originates from here http://www.philmacgiollabhain.com/ and whilst the author makes no secret of his allegiances or persuasion his other similar articles on this subject have been remarkably well informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 My best guess is that HMRC's case will rest on the contracts of the players/employees concerned. e.g. if a player has a contract that simply says he will be paid ?10,000 a week, then HMRC could reasonably assume that they would receive approx 40% of that figure. If Rangers have ultimately paid the player ?2,000 a week in wages and ?8,000 by way of an EBT to avoid tax, then HMRC will argue that the EBT element is part of the player's normal contracted income and should be taxed fully as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 My best guess is that HMRC's case will rest on the contracts of the players/employees concerned. e.g. if a player has a contract that simply says he will be paid ?10,000 a week, then HMRC could reasonably assume that they would receive approx 40% of that figure. If Rangers have ultimately paid the player ?2,000 a week in wages and ?8,000 by way of an EBT to avoid tax, then HMRC will argue that the EBT element is part of the player's normal contracted income and should be taxed fully as such. I suppose it's fairly pointless speculation and doesn't add much to the facts of the case but you would imagine that either the players would be paid in full under the alleged tax-shelter or at least those parts of their wages that would put them into higher tax-brackets and be liable for higher tax rates.......the actual mechanics don't really matter too much though - the real issue is how much financial uncertainty, pain or delay in finding new owners it causes them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
world_3 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 the article originates from here http://www.philmacgiollabhain.com/ and whilst the author makes no secret of his allegiances or persuasion his other similar articles on this subject have been remarkably well informed. While I would LOVE IT Kevin Keegan style if Rangers were totally Donald Ducked this 'journalist' is a dyed in the wool bigot of the green variety with a massive victimisation complex and a chip on his shoulder the size of Donegal. Given his disturbing pathological obsession with all things Hun, I'll take it all with a pinch of salt until the bill lands on Murray's desk, at which point I'll start popping the champagne corks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 While I would LOVE IT Kevin Keegan style if Rangers were totally Donald Ducked this 'journalist' is a dyed in the wool bigot of the green variety with a massive victimisation complex and a chip on his shoulder the size of Donegal. Given his disturbing pathological obsession with all things Hun, I'll take it all with a pinch of salt until the bill lands on Murray's desk, at which point I'll start popping the champagne corks. From what I've heard (and told this board numerous times ) the HMRC have been building a case against them for months. He's not far wrong with what he says and the serious lack of progress on the takeover front would certainly back that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zdrastvway Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I still maintain that the writer is remarkably well-informed and would appear to have very reliable sources both on the specialist tax analysis of the situation and on the facts of the particular case. Not much salt needed at all if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 While I would LOVE IT Kevin Keegan style if Rangers were totally Donald Ducked this 'journalist' is a dyed in the wool bigot of the green variety with a massive victimisation complex and a chip on his shoulder the size of Donegal. Given his disturbing pathological obsession with all things Hun, I'll take it all with a pinch of salt until the bill lands on Murray's desk, at which point I'll start popping the champagne corks. the ?24m penalty landed on his desk months ago.... Rangers only hope here is damage limitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 HMRC if successful with their case will rank as priority creditors and they have been noted recently as not being in the mood for leniency when it comes to securing repayment (see Portsmouth FC amongst others). They could ultimately petition a winding up order unless RFC could come up with the full repayment, or a short term installment arrangement, either way it's difficult to see anyone investing upwards of ?60m in a club already with heavy debts. Administration would not save Rangers as all creditors need to agree to a reduced payment in the ? and it's unlikely HMRC as priority creditors will allow others to rank equally with them. Even then, as we all know, administration means relegation to League 3, so RFC would have to forget about CL dreams for a few seasons and get used to the Alba Challenge Cup! Hehehe, you'd have to laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I read recently that amongst the English clubs facing similar problems are West Ham, who apparently started freezing such payments to the players concerned who are still at the club. The HMRC position is that tax should be deducted ast source, i.e. by the club, before the net amount is paid to the player. So the crafty Hammers are clawing back previous under-deductions to try and offset their liabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Meurig Thomas Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I hope they go bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Bundy Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I hope they go bust. Aye, me too!!! This, tragically enough, would be ten times the boost our game needs compared to any crappy league reconstruction. Or HMFC winning the League... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Aye, me too!!! This, tragically enough, would be ten times the boost our game needs compared to any crappy league reconstruction. Or HMFC winning the League... Would be great to see HMFC win the league with a little help from HMRC!! They would have to be renamed Heart of Midlothian Revenue and Customs!! HA ha, just thought about the irony if Rangers downfall ends up being at the hands of HER MAJESTY!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Would be great to see HMFC win the league with a little help from HMRC!! They would have to be renamed Heart of Midlothian Revenue and Customs!! HA ha, just thought about the irony if Rangers downfall ends up being at the hands of HER MAJESTY!!!! Will they still sing "God Save The Queen" if that happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I hope they go bust. I'm not sure - yes, we do want them crippled. My concern is that if they go bust it could be easier for some investor to come in buy the club assets from the administrators at a knock down price and start up Glasgow Bigots Rangers F.C. 2011 Ltd I'm no expert on this, but that scenario would worry me. Happy to be wrong on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.