Carl Fredrickson Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14482034.stm I hope that the bill and fine is for a lot more than is mentioned in the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoldierPalmer Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14482034.stm I hope that the bill and fine is for a lot more than is mentioned in the link From the FF forum - 'Different tax claim - this is the one uncovered during CW's due diligence, not the longwithstanding one that could potentially be much more damaging. ' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I don't think we should be smug about other team's unpaid tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROMANOV FAN CLUB Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Almost makes you want to listen to Real Radio to hear them say it's nothing lol :D I can't believe they could be in finicial trouble as their last two owners have been Scottish :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Quite happy to indulge in a bout of schadenfreude given the garbage written about Hearts since Vlad took over. I'm looking forward to the media treating der hun with the same balanced reporting that Vlad/HMFC has received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praha06 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Statement available on BBC Sport website. Pity cause I wanted them crippled over this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chat Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Tick tock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Not 100% sure, but its the smaller tax bill they claim they have agreed (the ?2m bill they discovered in due diligence.) The bigger one is still to be settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshallschunkychicken Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I don't think we should be smug about other team's unpaid tax. Why shouldn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chat Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Statement available on BBC Sport website. Pity cause I wanted them crippled over this! Don't fret, that's just the wee pissy one. The shit will hit the fan with the biggie in October Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Quite happy to indulge in a bout of schadenfreude given the garbage written about Hearts since Vlad took over. I'm looking forward to the media treating der hun with the same balanced reporting that Vlad/HMFC has received. The BBC are currently half way through making a documentary on the new Rangers owner. Are they heck........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praha06 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Not 100% sure, but its the smaller tax bill they claim they have agreed (the ?2m bill they discovered in due diligence.) The bigger one is still to be settled. Don't fret, that's just the wee pissy one. The shit will hit the fan with the biggie in October Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 From what I've read on other forums and blogs, someone in HMRC appears to have leaked information to "Celtic minded blogger" Phil Mac Giolla Bhain who in turn has alerted the press. Today's visit by Sheriff's Officers allegedly relates to an HMRC bill received by Rangers in early June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaii Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 It was in yesterday's Telegraph. BBC on the ball as usual. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/8691510/Rangers-in-discussions-with-HMRC-over-appealing-2.8-tax-liability.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I think the negotiation was only about the additional penalty charge that HMRC imposed in connection with the ?2.8M bill that was acknowledged in their last set of accounts. I think that Rangers will end up paying the original ?2.8M plus a percentage of the penalty charge. The big bill re the EBTs isn't due to come back to court until November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zdrastvway Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 The EBT bill will be the one that puts Rangers out the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Wilson, Really? I have heard nothing about us owing the Taxman personally... Well apart from SirGay at Hibs.net anyway. Please elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzyonthefence Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 On SSN. Damn - was hoping this vile institution would have gone out of business! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I don't think that was in doubt, but they were contesting the ?1.4M fine that went with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remnants of Standards Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 AS mentioned on another thread this is only the first part of the case against the club. This 2.8m is seperate to the Employee Benefit Trust alleged scam, that is due to be settled in October/November. If it goes against them, then you can celebrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 ?2.8m?? What about all the chat circa ?60m? Didn't they offer ?10m at one point and that was turned down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzyonthefence Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 AS mentioned on another thread this is only the first part of the case against the club. This 2.8m is seperate to the Employee Benefit Trust alleged scam, that is due to be settled in October/November. If it goes against them, then you can celebrate. Thanks - I live in hope then. Would it be too much to hope that HMRC has something juicy lined up for Celtic too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboJen Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 ?2.8m?? What about all the chat circa ?60m? Didn't they offer ?10m at one point and that was turned down? This is a different thing they owe them! As far as I'm aware, this is basically a tax bill which they didn't pay. The big one is more of a tax evasion thing where they would likely owe megabucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 This was just the mouse in the room. They have yet to deal with the elephant in the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 ?2.8m?? What about all the chat circa ?60m? Didn't they offer ?10m at one point and that was turned down? As others have said, this was a side issue, entirely seperate from the EBT issue they will be facing the music for in a couple of months time. A ?2.8 million fine is still pretty chunky for a club allegedly bidding for players in the transfer market. I still maintain there is a strong risk of default from the huns re. the Lee Wallace transfer fee, especially given they are paying in installments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maiden Gorgie Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 As others have said, this was a side issue, entirely seperate from the EBT issue they will be facing the music for in a couple of months time. A ?2.8 million fine is still pretty chunky for a club allegedly bidding for players in the transfer market. I still maintain there is a strong risk of default from the huns re. the Lee Wallace transfer fee, especially given they are paying in installments. I'd accept us taking a hit from the LW transfer if it meant the huns were hitting the wall to be honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 No wories, I am sure Vlad would be easy to deal with for a Rangers in administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Chimp Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I still maintain there is a strong risk of default from the huns re. the Lee Wallace transfer fee, especially given they are paying in installments. Was it not a case of us needing the money in for our own tax bill though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feeno Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Was it not a case of us needing the money in for our own tax bill though? So it was said on the other thread there, sound of the huns to be paying aw the tax eh! right good of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 is there anything more concrete to suggest that agreement has been reached between the tax dodgers and HMRC? the newspaper articles this morning about the sheriff officers visiting ibrox certainly don't confirm that an agreement has been reached. it's only rangers that are claiming that an "outline agreement" has been reached... and they aren't exactly the most honest and trustworthy source of information. they lie, deny and stonewall at every juncture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 just to add... a couple of the tax dodgers' supporters mouthpieces have excelled themselves over this. rangers supporters association secretary... "if HMRC are going to send in sheriff officers if the club fights it's corner, that says more about them than it does about rangers" rangers supporters assembly president... "but to use this tactic when talks were so clearly well advanced is a very poor reflection on HMRC. it smacks of grandstanding" marvelous. great stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad-Stupid Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 just to add... a couple of the tax dodgers' supporters mouthpieces have excelled themselves over this. rangers supporters association secretary... "if HMRC are going to send in sheriff officers if the club fights it's corner, that says more about them than it does about rangers" rangers supporters assembly president... "but to use this tactic when talks were so clearly well advanced is a very poor reflection on HMRC. it smacks of grandstanding" marvelous. great stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Did I not hear Chick Young talking about this a few weeks ago - he mentioned figures of about 30 million didn't he? He seemed quite sure - im not sure if this was the same thing or not - but does this mean these is more tax issues still to come for Rangers, or is this it dealt with? To be honest though, I cant see Whyte buying the club without being aware of this and having assurances that it wouldn't torpedo everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 yak yak. the first one's the best. it's almost the same as saying 'if the club decide to contest this then pipsqueaks like HMRC should simply back off. we, the mighty rangers supporters association, shall decree how HMRC shall conduct their business'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissthebadge Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Did I not hear Chick Young talking about this a few weeks ago - he mentioned figures of about 30 million didn't he? He seemed quite sure - im not sure if this was the same thing or not - but does this mean these is more tax issues still to come for Rangers, or is this it dealt with? To be honest though, I cant see Whyte buying the club without being aware of this and having assurances that it wouldn't torpedo everything. Chick Young knows absolutely nothing. This was evident at the weekend when he mentioned that there was "significant unrest" and a "divided camp" at ibrox over the clubs transfer activity. When Traynor and Gordon grilled him further his story changed to something along the lines of "well, I imagine that Ally and his team wont be happy at missing out on players". He gets his stories from the internet and from lurking in the dark corridors of ibrox. He knows as much about the Rangers vs. HMRC case as you or I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshallschunkychicken Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 just to add... a couple of the tax dodgers' supporters mouthpieces have excelled themselves over this. rangers supporters association secretary... "if HMRC are going to send in sheriff officers if the club fights it's corner, that says more about them than it does about rangers" rangers supporters assembly president... "but to use this tactic when talks were so clearly well advanced is a very poor reflection on HMRC. it smacks of grandstanding" marvelous. great stuff. I love the second one. The HMRC are nothing but a bunch of sand-dancers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Did I not hear Chick Young talking about this a few weeks ago - he mentioned figures of about 30 million didn't he? He seemed quite sure - im not sure if this was the same thing or not - but does this mean these is more tax issues still to come for Rangers, or is this it dealt with? To be honest though, I cant see Whyte buying the club without being aware of this and having assurances that it wouldn't torpedo everything. thats a different issue i think. i think this has been explained earlier in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad-Stupid Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 yak yak. the first one's the best. it's almost the same as saying 'if the club decide to contest this then pipsqueaks like HMRC should simply back off. we, the mighty rangers supporters association, shall decree how HMRC shall conduct their business'. The delusions of grandeur and self importance are reaching epic proportions in Govan. RFC > HMRC = Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomuzz Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14482034.stm On the BBC Website, not sure if this is a seperate tax issue, as the figures quoted are dramatically smaller than what has been quoted previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomuzz Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Shoot me, shoot me now, my apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the windae cleaner Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14482034.stm On the BBC Website, not sure if this is a seperate tax issue, as the figures quoted are dramatically smaller than what has been quoted previously. pretty sure this is seperate from the other one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 pretty sure this is seperate from the other one It is. This is the bill Whyte discovered durung his months and months of due diligence, and which persuaded Sir Dave to sell for a pound.. The problem is these pesky tax men have added ?1.4m fine, for which I understand through connections there is no budget.I am sure Rangers multi millionaire owner ( as per his puppets Tom English and Jim Traynor) will settle. The big tax avoidance one is back in Tribunal later this year. As per my previous, I am slightly fearful ( with no inside knowledge) our wit and wisdom on this may come back and bite us. Hearts owners are not exactly quick at paying tax bills ( see Gullit thread). I feel both clubs have dodgy owners; the difference is our dodgy owner would appear to have some money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randle P McMurphy Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Nah it will just be like lloyds bank, rangers fans will refuse to do business with hmrc unless they stop trying to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. Mind you hun fans stopping dealing with hmrc would mainly involve refusing their dole money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randle P McMurphy Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Nah it will just be like lloyds bank, rangers fans will refuse to do business with hmrc unless they stop trying to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. Mind you hun fans stopping dealing with hmrc would mainly involve refusing their dole money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Rangers set aside ?1.87M in their interim accounts to cover an HMRC bill relating to a "Discounted Option Sceme" which they operated between 1999 and 2003. The DOS was a forerunner to Employee Benefit Trusts( EBT). What I suspect has happened is that the ?1.87M covered the original demand but that HMRC have added interest taking it to ?2.8M then tagged on a penalty of ?1.4m, making the bill ?4.2M in total. Rangers have probably given up on the original demand but may be seeking a review of the interest and penalty charges. The "outline agreement" Craig Whyte is referring to is likely to be a proposed repayment schedule. Whether or not HMRC accept this is still open to debate. Given that they have already lost anything up to ?15M in income from their loss Malmo, an extra tax bill of ?2.33M won't help Ally's transfer warchest. The big tax bill will come under review again in November when Rangers continue their appeal against a ?24M bill plus interest plus penalties. (suspected to be anything up to ?50-?60M in total). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VALDOS Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 It is. This is the bill Whyte discovered durung his months and months of due diligence, and which persuaded Sir Dave to sell for a pound.. The problem is these pesky tax men have added ?1.4m fine, for which I understand through connections there is no budget.I am sure Rangers multi millionaire owner ( as per his puppets Tom English and Jim Traynor) will settle. The big tax avoidance one is back in Tribunal later this year. As per my previous, I am slightly fearful ( with no inside knowledge) our wit and wisdom on this may come back and bite us. Hearts owners are not exactly quick at paying tax bills ( see Gullit thread). I feel both clubs have dodgy owners; the difference is our dodgy owner would appear to have some money. Sadly i think many would disagree and its becoming more and more evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Sadly i think many would disagree and its becoming more and more evident. Would you like to explain that and tell me how we recently posted a profit for the fist time in years. Whether you are a Vlad sheep or a hat-kicker there is no denying that Vlad has written off in excess of ?30M in debt forgiveness and debt for equity swaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howdy Doody Jambo Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 The SFA will pay it for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Sadly i think many would disagree and its becoming more and more evident. evident eh? right enough, the purchasing of decommissioned nuclear submarines and private jets and the like usually points towards poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigO Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 The SFA will pay it for them With money raised by fining us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.