HMRC Freeze Rangers Bank Accounts? Martin Bain Story (merged)

[I.T.K]

Really? So only one team can be called City, or Town or United in a league?.... Sounds made up.

 

Thought about that too. IMO rangers is a term that can mean a collective like united. But in Rangers case there club is called 'Rangers Football club' and therefore have made rangers there name. If you think of team like Queens Park Rangers, you could start a team called Queens Park United or else where in the country set up a 'newtown rangers'. would not affect QPR.

 

I suspect they will come back as 'Glasgow Rangers Football Club'! and all I will say is. GRFC GTF""

[topcat]

I know we have our troubles to seek, but why is this wonderful thread being allowed to dwindle.

 

Anyway, I heard something interesting last night, that any Newco Rangers might not be allowed to use the name Rangers as there is one in the league that already exists...Berwick. If you have already registered the name and are currently playing in a recognised league then it would be ok, IE Brora Rangers or Kelty Hearts for example, but a new league club newly formed wont be able to use the name Rangers as there was one and there still is one. Berwick were allowed as they played in the Scottish Borders league since thheir disputed formation 1881/1884ish and were granted full league status in 1955.

 

This was set when you concider Celtic were not alowed to steal the name Hibernian (just their players, their strips, their oirish philosphy) and Dundee Utd were not allowed to use the name Dundee Hibernian, from a debate last night with well to do Celtc fans last night they beleive this to be true, just thought I would share it as its a slow news week, with nothing to note happening.

 

I've just checked the SFA's articles of association and can't find anything to back this up.

 

It wouldn't have been surprising if Hibs had kicked up a fuss about other people attempting to trade under their brand in 1888 but the idea that Berwick, or QPR could have some kind of hold on the name in 2012 seems ludicrous.

 

If anybody will own the right to the name it will be HMRC

[132goals1958]

Really? So only one team can be called City, or Town or United in a league?.... Sounds made up.

 

As far as I know those descriptions are generic as opposed to a registered trade mark.

[Hagar the Horrible]

Really? So only one team can be called City, or Town or United in a league?.... Sounds made up.

 

 

I put that arguement forward as well, but you wont get St Mirren City being allowed, or Hibernian Utd, yet you might get Aberdeen Town, remember this is by a committee so you might not be allowed to have Kilmarnock Rangers. but probably Glasgow Rangers

 

I am sure there are some trading rights, and mischievoius celtic supporters like the ones that brough this ip in the first place

[ritchies75]

An Edinburgh law firm has become the latest company to raise court proceedings against Rangers FC over an alleged unpaid debt.

 

Fyfe Ireland solicitors said the action was over non payment of fees for legal services by the firm to the club.

 

The hearing is scheduled for Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Wednesday.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15820882

 

 

[J.C 7]

An Edinburgh law firm has become the latest company to raise court proceedings against Rangers FC over an alleged unpaid debt.

 

Fyfe Ireland solicitors said the action was over non payment of fees for legal services by the firm to the club.

 

The hearing is scheduled for Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Wednesday.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15820882

 

Cant be much if its at sheriff court,under 5k iirc.

[Floyd]

Cant be much if its at sheriff court,under 5k iirc.

 

Still embarrassing times for them, especially when the media are taking it in turns to put the boot into us!!!

[The Gasman]

Still embarrassing times for them, especially when the media are taking it in turns to put the boot into us!!!

 

It will also add to the nervousness and uncertainty of any other creditors and/or suppliers. I'd imagine that many firms will be insisting on money up front, which can't be helping Whyte's cash flow.

[Gilamas]

Suing for less than ?5,000 - the action MUST be raised in the sheriff court.

 

But there is no maximum amount for either Sheriff Court or Court of Session.

 

All that can be deduced is that Fyfe Ireland claim to be owed more than five grand.

[Floyd]

It will also add to the nervousness and uncertainty of any other creditors and/or suppliers. I'd imagine that many firms will be insisting on money up front, which can't be helping Whyte's cash flow.

 

 

If I was in business for myself I would want nothing at all to do with Rangers at this point in time, far too risky given how things seem to be panning out.

 

Squeaky bum time over Govan way it seems.

[Footballfirst]

It's the parent company "The Rangers Football Club Group Ltd" (formerly known as Wavetower) that is being sued on this occasion, not the football club itself.

[portobellojambo1]

Cant be much if its at sheriff court,under 5k iirc.

 

Might be wrong but it does suggest that many, many companies have a feeling the overall case is not going to go well for Rangers, and irrespective of how much Rangers owe them they are trying to get it now, before the shit really hits the fan.

[Gilamas]

I'll revise my earlier point slightly ... As the case is being sought in the sheriff court, it could be less than five grabs or it could be up to any value.

 

So, all we can deduce from the fact that Fyfe Ireland is suing rangers in the sheriff court is thar they are seeking what they believe to be a debt owed to them of unknown value.

[Gilamas]

Curse this predictive text stuff ...

 

five GRAND, not five grabs!!

 

D'oh.

[grunt]

Curse this predictive text stuff ...

 

five GRAND, not five grabs!!

 

D'oh.

Five grabs made complete sense to me.

[J.C 7]

I'll revise my earlier point slightly ... As the case is being sought in the sheriff court, it could be less than five grabs or it could be up to any value.

 

So, all we can deduce from the fact that Fyfe Ireland is suing rangers in the sheriff court is thar they are seeking what they believe to be a debt owed to them of unknown value.

 

They might raise it in the sheriff court as it might be less expense to them as pursuers,although if it is a fair amount id imagine a sheriff might remit it to the Court of Session. Reckon itll just be a p!shy amount,just a guess though.

[Floyd]

They might raise it in the sheriff court as it might be less expense to them as pursuers,although if it is a fair amount id imagine a sheriff might remit it to the Court of Session. Reckon itll just be a p!shy amount,just a guess though.

 

Scotland Today in the west says its ?3K.

[Footballfirst]

BBC source AllanGPrice saying that it is only for ?1,260. I can't see the case being heard.

[Francis Albert]

So it's just one or maybe three thousand. Nothing to worry about.

 

Another way of looking at it is that if a business owned by a billionaire has to be taken to court before it will cough up one or two thousand ... something's amiss.

[Drylaw Hearts]

 

Another way of looking at it is that if a business owned by a billionaire has to be taken to court before it will cough up one or two thousand ... something's amiss.

 

[Charlie-Brown]

Quite easy and less expensive for a solicitors firm to raise court actions and publicise it to embarrass RFC into paying up regardless of the size of the amount overdue.

[B. Dynamite]

 

18,911 posts, 18,911 words written...impressive.

 

You could fit your entire posting history into one of the Witney fantasists essays.

[Drylaw Hearts]

18,911 posts, 18,911 words written...impressive.

 

You could fit your entire posting history into one of the Witney fantasists essays.

 

[Hagar the Horrible]

Quite easy and less expensive for a solicitors firm to raise court actions and publicise it to embarrass RFC into paying up regardless of the size of the amount overdue.

 

 

This is all very true I have done it myself against a law firm who were trying bullying tactics, it worked they settled very quickly.

 

But I wonder how many of these are taken against Rangers before the cash does run out, there must be a tipping point. I think I would be asking for cash up front before taking any contract out with them.

 

PS I am Glad this thread is back on the main page.....just makes me so happy, I would also like to point out that Rangers were up for sale for years without any interest yet we have had a sniff of at least 2 (consortiums) showing some interest, yet no positive story here in the weegia

[Socrates]

18,911 posts, 18,911 words written...impressive.

 

You could fit your entire posting history into one of the Witney fantasists essays.

Impressive Kickback knowledge for someone with 23 posts.

[Footballfirst]

A couple of important dates coming up.

 

First at the end of November when Rangers are required to publish their annual accounts to 30/06/11. This is a requirement of the PLUS market on which the shares are listed (accounts have to be published within 5 months of year end). Failure to do so will result in them being suspended from the market. That in itself will not damage them unduly as there is limited trading in their shares, but may be an indication the they are having problems getting an auditor sign off the accounts "as a going concern".

 

The second date comes around 8th/9th December, when the funds arrested by HMRC at the beginning of September are automatically transferred to HMRC by Rangers bankers. There is a way that CW could avoid the handover of funds if he puts RFC into "Receivership" before then (not Administration). In Receivership, the "arrested" amount would revert to the pot of assets available to the Receiver. The Receiver only acts in the interests of the floating charge holder (CW) to recover the amount due to him. All other creditors would have to wait until CW is paid off, before their interests are considered, although Liquidation would almost certainly follow Receivership, If RFC goes into Administration or Liquidation before the handover date, then HMRC would have a "preferred creditor" status in respect of the arrested funds. i.e. it is a ?2.3M call for CW to make whether or not to pull the plug before or after 8th/9th Dec.

[The Gasman]

This makes me happy.

[132goals1958]

A couple of important dates coming up.

 

First at the end of November when Rangers are required to publish their annual accounts to 30/06/11. This is a requirement of the PLUS market on which the shares are listed (accounts have to be published within 5 months of year end). Failure to do so will result in them being suspended from the market. That in itself will not damage them unduly as there is limited trading in their shares, but may be an indication the they are having problems getting an auditor sign off the accounts "as a going concern".

 

The second date comes around 8th/9th December, when the funds arrested by HMRC at the beginning of September are automatically transferred to HMRC by Rangers bankers. There is a way that CW could avoid the handover of funds if he puts RFC into "Receivership" before then (not Administration). In Receivership, the "arrested" amount would revert to the pot of assets available to the Receiver. The Receiver only acts in the interests of the floating charge holder (CW) to recover the amount due to him. All other creditors would have to wait until CW is paid off, before their interests are considered, although Liquidation would almost certainly follow Receivership, If RFC goes into Administration or Liquidation before the handover date, then HMRC would have a "preferred creditor" status in respect of the arrested funds. i.e. it is a ?2.3M call for CW to make whether or not to pull the plug before or after 8th/9th Dec.

 

With the potential liability hanging over them for some time I would have thought the accounts would have been qualified in prior years -- with regard to HMRC my understanding is they no longer are preferred creditors

[B. Dynamite]

Impressive Kickback knowledge for someone with 23 posts.

 

Well I'm an impressive individual...some may even say 'explosive'.

 

[Footballfirst]

With the potential liability hanging over them for some time I would have thought the accounts would have been qualified in prior years -- with regard to HMRC my understanding is they no longer are preferred creditors

You would have to ask the auditors why they didn't qualify the accounts previously, but I'd suggest that they would be acting on the opinion of RFC's (MIH's) counsel working on the case, that there was no liability and that the tribunal would find in RFC's favour.

 

You are correct in stating HMRC are no longer preferred creditors, per se. However, having an arrestment applied by a court for the unpaid "small" bill provides HMRC with a preference for that specific amount held in a specific bank account. The preference applies from 60 days after the arrestment (already past) until the automatic transfer of funds that will occur 98 days after the arrestment (8th/9th Dec). Legal opinions I have read on the issue have stated that the preference remains in an Administration or Liquidation procedure, but not under Receivership.

[132goals1958]

You would have to ask the auditors why they didn't qualify the accounts previously, but I'd suggest that they would be acting on the opinion of RFC's (MIH's) counsel working on the case, that there was no liability and that the tribunal would find in RFC's favour.

 

You are correct in stating HMRC are no longer preferred creditors, per se. However, having an arrestment applied by a court for the unpaid "small" bill provides HMRC with a preference for that specific amount held in a specific bank account. The preference applies from 60 days after the arrestment (already past) until the automatic transfer of funds that will occur 98 days after the arrestment (8th/9th Dec). Legal opinions I have read on the issue have stated that the preference remains in an Administration or Liquidation procedure, but not under Receivership.

 

You have explained that very well.

[Swanny17]

So lets cut to the chase?

 

Are they going to go down the tubes?

[Deevers]

More embarrassment to come for them in the next couple of weeks - so I'm told by a well placed source in Glasgow!!

[Boris]

More embarrassment to come for them in the next couple of weeks - so I'm told by a well placed source in Glasgow!!

 

Care to expand, in an "Have I Got News For You" allegedly sort of way?

[Deevers]

Care to expand, in an "Have I Got News For You" allegedly sort of way?

Whispers about another "allegedly" disgruntled creditor who's got fed up waiting apparently!! Don't know who though.

[Mark_Mywords]

This thread is not as much fun as it was since the SPL signed the new deal with SKY and ESPN. This deal will open the door for the new rangers co to step straight back into the SPL. :angry:

[Charlie-Brown]

There remains the possibility that HMRC can go after Rangers Directors, Executives and PLAYERS if they cannot recover the tax money from the football club. It is the responsibility first and foremost for the employer to deduct PAYE & NIC however if people have been paid this money without any deductions then Hector can still claim the back taxes with claims going back to 2003 still being valid.

[Hagar the Horrible]

There remains the possibility that HMRC can go after Rangers Directors, Executives and PLAYERS if they cannot recover the tax money from the football club. It is the responsibility first and foremost for the employer to deduct PAYE & NIC however if people have been paid this money without any deductions then Hector can still claim the back taxes with claims going back to 2003 still being valid.

 

 

Not sure if this is entirely true, for 2 reasons

 

1. It would be the case that those players would be liable if they were still domiciled in the UK, otherwise the employer takes the hit.

2. According to that guy King at rangers that the players had a secondary contract with Rangers that stated that Rangers would be liable for any future tax claims

[Floyd]

Whispers about another "allegedly" disgruntled creditor who's got fed up waiting apparently!! Don't know who though.

 

Have heard from a couple of people that it's "allegedly" a Austrian football team who are owed money in regards to the transfer of a player and the latest installment not being paid

[Walter Bishop]

The big rumour i have been told by a couple of currant buns is that they are close to agreeing a settlement with HMRC of around ?7million!!

[Hagar the Horrible]

The big rumour i have been told by a couple of currant buns is that they are close to agreeing a settlement with HMRC of around ?7million!!

 

 

This is bollox as hearts were unable to negotiate a settlement to pay the full amount over a short period of time. we were given a time scale of pay the full amount on a certain day or else end of talking.

 

and thay have already turned down ?10m to go away by Rangers

[Chester™]

The big rumour i have been told by a couple of currant buns is that they are close to agreeing a settlement with HMRC of around ?7million!!

 

I heard that from one yesterday, though we both thought it was heehaw as HMRC have already turned down a settlement worth more.

[Socrates]

I thought Rangers had already offered to pay the initial amount (?24 million or whatever) if they were let off with all the penalties and interest that have been run up due to their cheating ways. Rightly, the taxman told them where to go.

 

[Walter Bishop]

This is bollox as hearts were unable to negotiate a settlement to pay the full amount over a short period of time. we were given a time scale of pay the full amount on a certain day or else end of talking.

 

and thay have already turned down ?10m to go away by Rangers

I think the 2 cases are totally different.

[jimjamjolly]

The Fyfe Ireland case has been settled.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15853802

[Francis Albert]

The Fyfe Ireland case has been settled.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-15853802

 

 

Odd how different the reporting of this is from the reporting of the settlement and withdrawal of the HMRC petition against us. Wasn't it simply "Hearts face winding up order" back then, even months after we had actually paid up.

[The Gasman]

This thread is not as much fun as it was since the SPL signed the new deal with SKY and ESPN. This deal will open the door for the new rangers co to step straight back into the SPL.

 

I'm not so sure....

 

My understanding is that the SFL would go postal if any attempt was made to slot Rangers NewCo straight into the SPL. I was also told that there is a contractual agreement between the SFL and SPL covering promotion / relegation, which specifically prohibits slotting a team in, although it was never written for circumstances like this.

 

The Chairmen of 3rd Division Clubs would be delighted to have Rangers play them twice in a season, as would the Chairmen of the 2nd Division Clubs. The Chairmen of 1st Division Clubs will be looking at (in effect) an extra place for one of them in the SPL for three seasons, and if their Club doesn't get the promotion, they'll still have their home league games against Rangers to look forward to. All of them would also be looking at the potential of getting drawn against Rangers in the Ramsden Cup for the (minimum) three seasons they'd be playing in the SFL.

 

The amount of money from any TV deal that trickles down to the SFL Clubs will not, I suspect, be sufficient to make them back down.

 

This could create some real infighting within Scottish football, with the SPL in one corner trying to help Rangers NewCo, and the SFL in the opposite corner being told "no way" by their members, and the SFA in the middle as referee. The SFA will also come under pressure from FIFA and/or UEFA who, IMO, would not be happy with how this could leave their claims of "fair play", and "fit ownership" if Rangers NewCo were seen to "get away with it".

 

I've no doubt the SPL will side with Rangers NewCo, but all it would take would be two dissenting Clubs (I think) to prevent any rule changes to let this happen. The SFL, I'm sure will fight against it. The SFA would probably love to help Rangers, but may well find they're painted into a corner here, and that they cannot. Also, I'm sure that Livingston, Gretna, and Clydebank, will have lawyers looking at any possible case(s) for damages if Rangers are treated differently from them.

 

I'm not sure if the SPL signed the deal to try to be able to get Rangers NewCo back in, or if SKY / ESPN insisted on a get out clause, because they're not convinced Rangers can continue in the top league.

 

Either way, it may mean the TV deal falls, rather than Rangers are protected.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I'm not so sure....

 

My understanding is that the SFL would go postal if any attempt was made to slot Rang, ers NewCo straight into the SPL. I was also told that there is a contractual agreement between the SFL and SPL covering promotion / relegation, which specifically prohibits slotting a team in, although it was never written for circumstances like this.

 

The Chairmen of 3rd Division Clubs would be delighted to have Rangers play them twice in a season, as would the Chairmen of the 2nd Division Clubs. The Chairmen of 1st Division Clubs will be looking at (in effect) an extra place for one of them in the SPL for three seasons, and if their Club doesn't get the promotion, they'll still have their home league games against Rangers to look forward to. All of them would also be looking at the potential of getting drawn against Rangers in the Ramsden Cup for the (minimum) three seasons they'd be playing in the SFL.

 

The amount of money from any TV deal that trickles down to the SFL Clubs will not, I suspect, be sufficient to make them back down.

 

This could create some real infighting within Scottish football, with the SPL in one corner trying to help Rangers NewCo, and the SFL in the opposite corner being told "no way" by their members, and the SFA in the middle as referee. The SFA will also come under pressure from FIFA and/or UEFA who, IMO, would not be happy with how this could leave their claims of "fair play", and "fit ownership" if Rangers NewCo were seen to "get away with it".

 

I've no doubt the SPL will side with Rangers NewCo, but all it would take would be two dissenting Clubs (I. think) to prevent any rule changes to let this happen. The SFL, I'm sure. will fight against it. The SFA would. probably love to help Rangers, but may well find they're painted into a corner here, and that they cannot. Also, I'm sure that Livingston, Gretna, and Clydebank, will have lawyers looking at any possible case(s) for damages if Rangers are treated differently from them.

 

I'm not sure if the SPL signed the deal to try to be able to get Rangers NewCo back in, or if SKY / ESPN insisted on a get out clause, because they're not convinced Rangers can. continue in the top league.

 

Either way, it may mean the TV deal falls, rather than Rangers are protected.

Bottom line is that if Newco Rangers are bounced into the league, the game is dead. Vlad may as well liquidate us at that point.

[Victorian]

i think there's a very real possibility of a newco rangers being parachuted straight back in. we would be force-fed rhetoric from all angles along the lines of it being a vital move to save the game.

 

while it's true that many clubs in the lower divisions would be delighted to have rangers pass through their leagues on the way back up... there are quite a few SPL clubs who may view it as preferable that rangers aren't missing from the SPL for a few years. i think the capacity is there for many SPL clubs to welcome them in with open arms grasping hands. the capacity is also there for skullduggery behind the scenes in order to 'grease some palms'.

 

it's there alright. the scottish game is bent enough for this possibility to exist.

[The Gasman]

i think there's a very real possibility of a newco rangers being parachuted straight back in. we would be force-fed rhetoric from all angles along the lines of it being a vital move to save the game.

 

while it's true that many clubs in the lower divisions would be delighted to have rangers pass through their leagues on the way back up... there are quite a few SPL clubs who may view it as preferable that rangers aren't missing from the SPL for a few years. i think the capacity is there for many SPL clubs to welcome them in with open arms grasping hands. the capacity is also there for skullduggery behind the scenes in order to 'grease some palms'.

 

it's there alright. the scottish game is bent enough for this possibility to exist.

 

I don't doubt for a second that the SPL (as a business) would be desperate to have Rangers NewCo slot seamlessly into Rangers place.

 

I also don't doubt for a second that a lot of the SPL Clubs Chairmen could be "persuaded" to vote to let this happen.

 

Assuming the change to the SPL rule(s) needs an 11-1 (or 10-1) majority, I'm not quite so sure this could be achieved. I don't see what could be offered / done to persuade the SFL not to go off one one. Again, regardless of what they might want to do, I think the SFA may also struggle to back Rangers NewCo.

 

Only time will tell, I guess.