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

[The Gasman]

How is Whyte's libel action against the BBC going? Craig? Craig, are you there?

 

 

He claimed he had instructed Carter Ruck, but as they're English, and as... err... this is Scotland, they couldn't (or wouldn't?) take the case. Whyte's now claiming he has instructed a firm of Scottish lawyers to take it on....

 

I'm not holding my breath...

[Carl Fredrickson]

 

He claimed he had instructed Carter Ruck, but as they're English, and as... err... this is Scotland, they couldn't (or wouldn't?) take the case. Whyte's now claiming he has instructed a firm of Scottish lawyers to take it on....

 

I'm not holding my breath...

 

Would that be Fyfe Ireland or Levy & McRae

[colinmaroon]

Are this mob fully intent on showing their utter incompetence at every opportunity? Why would they not have carried out the investigation at the point in which he made it clear on his intentions to buy the club?

 

 

They will prove themselves very "competent" at finding away to smooth it all away for their bosses down Hunbrox way!

[Francis Albert]

Rangers FC won't die.

 

39 pages of smug faces and wishful thinking while our own club is a bawhair away from going down the pan.

 

Couldnae make it up.

 

 

It's been fun though. And I suspect there are at least another 39 pages of fun to come.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

It's been fun though. And I suspect there are at least another 39 pages of fun to come.

 

Hope so.

[Hagar the Horrible]

Fantastic another good excuse for a discussion on all things hunnery

 

So timeline:

 

CW spends almost a year for due diligence before buying rangers:

SFA: have they or have they not sent out a questionaire or some kind of affi-davit requesting that any potential owner complies with the "being a fit and proper person" - who knows? but lest assume competence.

 

CW: yes i am a fit and proper person or was never asked or told some whyte lies

CW buys rangers

 

BBC exposes CW as having a ban and as such have broken the rules, unless it was disclosed before hand and CW awarded pecial dispensation.

 

However: CW not true say sorry or I will sue.

BBC: nae chance

SFA: er er err panic.

 

CW: admits he was banned.

 

SFA now investigating which suggests that no discosure given, which either points as SFA incompetence or CW did not reveal it when asked.

In which case in the first instance somebody at the SFA needs to loose his job as they failed to protect a member club.

 

OR SFA need to take serious action to protect all clubs from any such individual gaining ownership without full disclosure beforehand.

 

Pressure must be placed on the SFA to take this matter with the utmost interests of all clubs noty just rangers by either giving them a massive fine, a massive point deduction, or automatic relegation any of those three plus there is no way Rangers can be allowed to represent us in Europe.

 

But we can all be aasured is that the SFA will be desperatly trying to sweep this under the carpet while still try and keep this clause in their rule book to apply to everybody else but not Rangers.

[Lovecraft]

 

 

But we can all be aasured is that the SFA will be desperatly trying to sweep this under the carpet while still try and keep this clause in their rule book to apply to everybody else but not Rangers.

 

 

Na, they would do exactly the same thing if Vlad was found to have been banned.

 

Wouldn't they?

[Seymour M Hersh]

BBC Scotland has learned the #SFA are investigating whether or not Craig Whyte falls into their fit and proper person guidelines

 

#SFA been in dialogue with #Rangers for weeks. They want answers but have so far not been given the details they want.

 

SFA Stewart Regan confirms they are investigating #Rangers. Says they await 'disclosure of Key information.'

 

Chris McLaughlin on Twitter.

 

 

Really means they are awaiting the brush and carpet to sweep this under.

[Lovecraft]

Really means they are awaiting the brush and carpet to sweep this under.

 

 

Someone has just nipped outside to empty the Dyson to make sure it all gets "cleared" up.

[Clerry Jambo]

3 mins of not a lot said to be honest.......

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/16001736.stm

[Feeno]

3 mins of not a lot said to be honest.......

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...nd/16001736.stm

 

 

Was that filmed at Rangers xmas party?

[givememychoice]

Given that Spartans were thrown out the cup for failing to have a properly signed played (his registration had only been signed or dated once, rather than twice), can we assume this far worse case will result in Rangers being thrown out the league?

ahh, of course not.

[B.S.]

Extract from todays Glasgow Times

 

SCOTTISH football could be set for a radical shake-up after high level talks took place at Hampden yesterday ? with a new league set-up top of the agenda.

 

SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster, David Longmuir of the SFL and SFA supremo Stewart Regan have been given a mandate to deliver a ?consulation paper? to clubs after productive talks at the National Stadium aimed at sparking fresh life into our ailing game.

 

 

 

A new TV deal has just been agreed so why the meeting?

 

OR the real reason for the meeting....

 

The Shtz about to hit the fan what can we do to save rangers?

[Footballfirst]

The RTC blog is now reporting that RFC are now intending to appeal the wee tax case, despite it being well outside the allowed appeal period. It can only be an attempt to prevent the transfer of the ?2.3M in arrested funds to HMRC going ahead at the end of next week.

[jambosean75]

watch how quickly there's a push for 2 leagues of 20 (for the benefit of scottish football of course) should rangers fold, reform and are put in the bottom division

[B.S.]

J75... The word on the street is it's one league of 40 teams

Therefore newrfc straight back in the league

[VALDOS]

watch how quickly there's a push for 2 leagues of 20 (for the benefit of scottish football of course) should rangers fold, reform and are put in the bottom division

Sky have signed the new TV deal on the basis there will be FOUR old Firm encounters, there ain't going to be any SPL 1 and 2. SKY have already decided for the SFA/SPL.

[chefjambo]

Sky have signed the new TV deal on the basis there will be FOUR old Firm encounters, there ain't going to be any SPL 1 and 2. SKY have already decided for the SFA/SPL.

what would happen if one of them never made the top six

[rudi]

what would happen if one of them never made the top six

Then there will only be three,simples.

[chefjambo]

Then there will only be three,simples.

I meant with sky demanding 4 old firm derbies

[Armadale Jambo]

Pish

[I.T.K]

Extract from todays Glasgow Times

 

SCOTTISH football could be set for a radical shake-up after high level talks took place at Hampden yesterday ? with a new league set-up top of the agenda.

 

SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster, David Longmuir of the SFL and SFA supremo Stewart Regan have been given a mandate to deliver a ?consulation paper? to clubs after productive talks at the National Stadium aimed at sparking fresh life into our ailing game.

 

 

 

A new TV deal has just been agreed so why the meeting?

 

OR the real reason for the meeting....

 

The Shtz about to hit the fan what can we do to save rangers?

 

 

Thats what I thought. I mean we should all work hard and do what it takes to save Rangers.... shouldn't we...... anyone....

 

 

 

 

[I.T.K]

Sky have signed the new TV deal on the basis there will be FOUR old Firm encounters, there ain't going to be any SPL 1 and 2. SKY have already decided for the SFA/SPL.

 

I like the idea of 10-10 SPL with 2 leagues of 10 and mid season relegation etc similar to the south american leagues. Think it would work wonders in Scotland.

 

More to play for.

TV get there 4 old firm game.

Chance of 4 Edinburgh Derbys and more chances of a Dundee derby too which is good for TV and therefore good the SFA.

With mid season relegation their will me more variation of teams played over years.

Chance for long winter break and summer football depending on national cups etc.

 

 

 

[Fermit the Krog]

Then there will only be three,simples.

 

[Socrates]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/05/inland-revenue-own-goal-insolvency-rule

 

This is kind of interesting. HMRC are at the High Court in England, asking for the football creditors rule to be scrapped. I'm assuming that this would only apply South of the border to start off with, but I'd guess there's a good chance that, if the High Court in England scraps the rule, the courts up here would take a similar view.

[mahgrassyshoes]

Extract from todays Glasgow Times

 

SCOTTISH football could be set for a radical shake-up after high level talks took place at Hampden yesterday ? with a new league set-up top of the agenda.

 

SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster, David Longmuir of the SFL and SFA supremo Stewart Regan have been given a mandate to deliver a ?consulation paper? to clubs after productive talks at the National Stadium aimed at sparking fresh life into our ailing game.

 

 

 

A new TV deal has just been agreed so why the meeting?

 

OR the real reason for the meeting....

 

The Shtz about to hit the fan what can we do to save rangers?

 

Probably something along the lines of "After the failure of the 10 team league idea, we have reviewed the situation and feel a 9 team league would maximise revenue but that would mean an uneven number so we'll round it up to 10."

 

[The Gasman]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/05/inland-revenue-own-goal-insolvency-rule

 

This is kind of interesting. HMRC are at the High Court in England, asking for the football creditors rule to be scrapped. I'm assuming that this would only apply South of the border to start off with, but I'd guess there's a good chance that, if the High Court in England scraps the rule, the courts up here would take a similar view.

 

I think I'm right in saying that the rule being challenged only actually occurs in England, there is no Scottish equivalent, so nothing to change up here.

[The Gasman]

.....The word on the street is it's one league of 40 teams.....

 

That might actualy be better to watch than what we currently have....

[Socrates]

I think I'm right in saying that the rule being challenged only actually occurs in England, there is no Scottish equivalent, so nothing to change up here.

Not sure if you are right. I thought clubs up here couldn't come out of administration unless football creditors had been paid in full, even if it isn't formalised in the same way. It does make a bit of a mockery of the whole thing if Rangers, for example, can get Lee Wallace and not pay the full fee because they go into administration.

[The Gasman]

Not sure if you are right. I thought clubs up here couldn't come out of administration unless football creditors had been paid in full, even if it isn't formalised in the same way. It does make a bit of a mockery of the whole thing if Rangers, for example, can get Lee Wallace and not pay the full fee because they go into administration.

 

I'm not sure about this Socrates, but my understanding is that the Scottish and English systems are quite fundamentally different.

 

In England, football debt is treated like a preferred creditor (separate from any secured debt) so gets first call on any monies. This leaves HMRC, and any other creditors, fighting over any loose change left over.

 

In Scotland all the (unsecured) debt, both football and non football, is treated the same way. It is then up to all parties to agree a CVA before a club is allowed / able to come out of administration.

 

Using your example, if Hearts don't agree with Rangers a "pennies in the pound" deal, we refuse to sign on to any CVA (it's a "voluntary" agreement after all) and stop them coming out of administration.

 

I think.

[Socrates]

I'm not sure about this Socrates, but my understanding is that the Scottish and English systems are quite fundamentally different.

 

In England, football debt is treated like a preferred creditor (separate from any secured debt) so gets first call on any monies. This leaves HMRC, and any other creditors, fighting over any loose change left over.

 

In Scotland all the (unsecured) debt, both football and non football, is treated the same way. It is then up to all parties to agree a CVA before a club is allowed / able to come out of administration.

 

Using your example, if Hearts don't agree with Rangers a "pennies in the pound" deal, we refuse to sign on to any CVA (it's a "voluntary" agreement after all) and stop them coming out of administration.

 

I think.

Although we could be outvoted then, because 75% is enough to push through a CVA. Not that this matters, given that HMRC vote against CVAs where they don't get paid in full.

[The Gasman]

Although we could be outvoted then, because 75% is enough to push through a CVA. Not that this matters, given that HMRC vote against CVAs where they don't get paid in full.

 

I think so, yes.

 

I now await someone a lot more knowledgable, like FF, coming along and explaining just how wrong I am!

[Charlie-Brown]

HMRC ALWAYS vote against any CVA agreement that would see them paid less than the full amount as they do not consider the tax-payer/government to be a creditor nor do they consider tax-money owed to be a debt, they view it as a legal obligation that companies by law are obliged to collect and pass on and it is not the company's money to distribute it is the tax-payers.

[Footballfirst]

Gasman - you have got it 100% right. You are obviously a good pupil

 

This is an important week for RFC. CW has now appealed the wee tax bill (the original bill + interest, not the penalty), despite having agreed to pay it as part of the takeover deal and paying ?500k towards it in July. The remaining ?2.3M was arrested in September and is due to handed over automatically at the end of this week. I can only assume that the frivolous appeal has simply been made to see if he can delay the automatic transfer of the funds to HMRC. It will be interesting to see if CW can use legal means of getting away with this, or at least delaying the process to his advantage.

 

If CW is successful in having the transfer stopped, then HMRC may resort to stronger measures to get the money they are also owed in overdue PAYE and NIC payments (estimated at around ?2M). We could see an administration or winding up petition as they did with Hearts. However, HMRC would like to get to the end of the FTT in the middle of January in order that they can get a ruling that they can apply to other EBT users elsewhere, so it may delay stronger action until then.

 

The next stage of the Donald McIntyre unfair dismissal case is also due to be heard on Friday. Both sides are expect to outline their cases and have a date set for a full review of the case. (probably next summer)

[Charlie-Brown]

Rangers cannot NOT pay for Lee Wallace - not if they want to be able to collect football money from the SPL, SFA & SFL either this season or in future - Hearts and any other member clubs diddled out of money by scary stary eyes Craig Whyte would claim set-off against money normally paud to Rangers for their participation in League & Cup competitions.

[Socrates]

So, to summarise:

 

Football creditors in Scotland are not seen as superior to others (legally speaking), but can be enforced through the SFA/SPL withholding prize money and sponsorship cash. Not sure how that would be legally speaking - it sounds like the football creditors rule through the back door, and I thought debts were wiped clean once a company exits administration. Some debts are seen as priorities though - White has somehow managed to be a priority creditor, I believe.

 

A company that goes into administration can a) agree a CVA (this needs 75% approval, based on the amount of debts) get liquidated, so that creditors get the most money back or c) ? Is there a c)?

 

What am I still failing to understand here?

[Charlie-Brown]

C) Raise new capital or investment.

[Samster]

C) Raise new capital or investment.

 

The entry dated 2/11/11 on the RTC blog talks about Whyte raising capital from a firm called Close Brothers and giving them fixed charge over some assets. Can this be classed as 'raising new capital or investment' or is it really as the article states just a line of credit for ongoing funding i.e. to keep them open!

[Socrates]

C) Raise new capital or investment.

Does that mean the debts would have to be paid in full (given that HMRC won't voluntarily accept less)? This is the key question for me - is there a way that HMRC can be forced to accept less than full payment, without Rangers being liquidated, given that HMRC can block any CVA in the Rangers case.

[Charlie-Brown]

Does that mean the debts would have to be paid in full (given that HMRC won't voluntarily accept less)? This is the key question for me - is there a way that HMRC can be forced to accept less than full payment, without Rangers being liquidated, given that HMRC can block any CVA in the Rangers case.

 

Only if an administrator could be legally persuaded to withhold all or part of HMRC's claim (perhaps on the basis it's under appeal or further appeal) and a Judge ruled in favour of this when HMRC contested it which they almost 100% certainly would do. Assuming this was sufficient to take HMRC's claim below 25% of the CVA voting arrangements and all other creditors agreed a pennies in the pound deal then HMRC could be stiffed that way.

[Charlie-Brown]

HMRC could of course also agree to settle from anything from 1% to 99% however that seems highly unlikely but it's at least still possible.

[Socrates]

So, as long as HMRC remain strong, and they win the tribunals, then Rangers are buggered?

 

[Sawdust Caesar]

HMRC could of course also agree to settle from anything from 1% to 99% however that seems highly unlikely but it's at least still possible.

 

I think after the Vodafone 'scandal' HMRC will not want to be seen as accepting a lower amount than what is due, they've already had a lot of criticism over that case.

[Footballfirst]

The entry dated 2/11/11 on the RTC blog talks about Whyte raising capital from a firm called Close Brothers and giving them fixed charge over some assets. Can this be classed as 'raising new capital or investment' or is it really as the article states just a line of credit for ongoing funding i.e. to keep them open!

Yes and Yes. Non-one ITK has been able to confirm what the relationship with Close is. From official documents submitted to Companies House we know that Close has a 1st ranking security over catering income (probably includes matchday catering for hospitality). That security now ranks even higher than the floating charge held by CW himself. It is safe to assume that RFC have borrowed money from Close otherwise there would be no need for a security. What we don't know is how much has been borrowed, for what purpose, or on what terms.

 

My suspicion would be that it will be used for day to day running of the club. It may be a fixed term loan or a line of credit to see them though to the Spring. Close's background would suggest that they are a lender of 2nd last resort (just above Wonga) with fairly steep interest payments, so I can't see it being a long term deal.

[SUTOL]

Yes and Yes. Non-one ITK has been able to confirm what the relationship with Close is. From official documents submitted to Companies House we know that Close has a 1st ranking security over catering income (probably includes matchday catering for hospitality). That security now ranks even higher than the floating charge held by CW himself. It is safe to assume that RFC have borrowed money from Close otherwise there would be no need for a security. What we don't know is how much has been borrowed, for what purpose, or on what terms.

 

My suspicion would be that it will be used for day to day running of the club. It may be a fixed term loan or a line of credit to see them though to the Spring. Close's background would suggest that they are a lender of 2nd last resort (just above Wonga) with fairly steep interest payments, so I can't see it being a long term deal.

 

(Bit in bold) I'm not sure where you get that from, I've had a look at thier website and they don't appear to be that kind of company.

I wonder if the security they have is anything to do with "invoice finanacing" or something similar, e.g for season tickets or similar? Most of their other lending seems to be for assets finance etc.

 

Clos Bros

[Footballfirst]

(Bit in bold) I'm not sure where you get that from, I've had a look at thier website and they don't appear to be that kind of company.

I wonder if the security they have is anything to do with "invoice finanacing" or something similar, e.g for season tickets or similar? Most of their other lending seems to be for assets finance etc.

 

Clos Bros

I may well be wrong about Close's status as I was just repeating something from the RTC blog that was posted by a reputable poster. The security definately relates to Catering services.

 

The two document links are 1) the initial security then 2) the change to the ranking of the security ahead of CW's floating charge.

 

http://www.scribd.co...-MG01s-02-09-11

 

http://www.scribd.co...rm-466-02-11-11

[Charlie-Brown]

FF if you read up about Craig Whyte's & Phil Betts previous involvements with Coachliner and LM Logistics you will find previous funding and financing relationships with Close Bros via Primary Asset Finance before those 2 companies eventually bit the dust (Coachliner & LM Logistics) - they seem to form part of a standard MO it the business of company undertakers er I mean under the radar turnaround specialists.

[Footballfirst]

FF if you read up about Craig Whyte's & Phil Betts previous involvements with Coachliner and LM Logistics you will find previous funding and financing relationships with Close Bros via Primary Asset Finance before those 2 companies eventually bit the dust (Coachliner & LM Logistics) - they seem to form part of a standard MO it the business of company undertakers er I mean under the radar turnaround specialists.

 

Thanks for that CB - I did read up on the Coachliner and LM deals a while ago but I couldn't recall Close having being involved.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

(Bit in bold) I'm not sure where you get that from, I've had a look at thier website and they don't appear to be that kind of company.

I wonder if the security they have is anything to do with "invoice finanacing" or something similar, e.g for season tickets or similar? Most of their other lending seems to be for assets finance etc.

 

Clos Bros

Looks to me like they lend to people the banks won't, or have ceased to, deal with. I'd imagine they take security over invoices or payments due to companies and individuals in a similar fashion to 'pay day loans'. If a company, say Rangers, have monies due from, say, the SPL or UEFA, within the next month or so, they might 'buy' it from Rangers at a discounted price ie sum due ?200,000, Rangers get ?150,000 and use that for their immediate day to day dealings. They might not be quite '2nd last resort' but will fall somewhere between the High Street banks and Wonga. Not a good situation for any business to find themselves in, and I'd expect a company owned by someone reputedly as wealthy as Craig White would have been able to assign the payments to him in return for the cash at a much better rate! Unless, of course, he's not as wealthy as the media would have us believe, or he's not too sure about putting more money into a sinking ship even if it is secured In effect, what Rangers (Whyte) could be doing is using money that might otherwise go into the pot in the event of bankruptcy/administration to be shared amongst the creditors. A very Whytesque thing to do and a proceedure I'm sure he'll have used before in his asset stripping deals. For the record, I have no more knowledge of this kind of finance than most, I'm just enjoying the Rangers pain

[Footballfirst]

Further comment from Private Eye about CW's business dealings:-

 

Meanwhile, it?s worth turning to the matter of Re-Tex Plastic Technology, which was wound up by trade secretary in 2003. Re- Tex, in which a Whyte company was a major shareholder, collapsed in 2001 following the failure of a fund-raising exercise partly underwritten by an offshore company linked to Whyte. It did not make up the ?400,000 shortfall, according to the winding-up petition.

 

One of the reasons given for the winding-up is ?involvement of a disqualified director in the management of the company?. Investigators from the Insolvency Service were told by two Re-Tex executives and the company?s lawyers that Whyte,

while banned from being involved in company management and living in Monaco, had been running the company: ?Financial management of the company was under the direct control of Mr Whyte.?

 

Re-Tex was duly wound up, but no action was taken against Whyte, who has denied the Re-Tex allegations