Drylaw Hearts Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I know what you earn. Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Setting aside my deep hatred of Rangers FC, I think it is a total disgrace that the HMRC has allowed Rangers to end up owing ?49m. Cleary a few funny handshakes must have been in evidence for a long time. You really don't understand what's happening with this do you? But you think it's some sort of Masonic conspiracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Currahee! Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I've said it before on here, I firmly believe Celtic would bail Rangers out if it came down to life or death with them. They would have to. I've been told Celtic are holding onto the ticket sales for this weekends OF game due to Rangers owing Celtic money from their fans wrecking Parkhead 3 seasons ago. No idea if its true or not but I hope its true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Craig Whyte?s view is clear re Rangers. He thinks Martin Bain, as CEO, was in significant part responsible for the utter mess RFC now faces. - from speirs' Twitter. Looking beyond the tried and tested 'it was like that when I got here's line, I love the fact that b'stard admits they're in the shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Setting aside my deep hatred of Rangers FC, I think it is a total disgrace that the HMRC has allowed Rangers to end up owing ?49m. Cleary a few funny handshakes must have been in evidence for a long time. The ?49m quoted is the tax bill and fines for non payment. IIRC they owe ?29m tax and the rest are fines for non payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Fredrickson Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 An update: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15041278 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Setting aside my deep hatred of Rangers FC, I think it is a total disgrace that the HMRC has allowed Rangers to end up owing ?49m. Cleary a few funny handshakes must have been in evidence for a long time. I don't think you've quite grasped the concept of non payment or rather trying to dodge payment of tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandylejambo Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 It does look like Bains claim is about to be shown the door, so we all win if the tax man folds Rangers and Bains get shafted as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 It does look like Bains claim is about to be shown the door, so we all win if the tax man folds Rangers and Bains get shafted as well. How do you work that one out. Martin Bain had to present a prima facie case for unfair dismissal and RFC's possible insolvency in order to get an arrestment, which was granted. Bain will only get shafted if RFC go into administration before the case is heard. From another blog, someone ITK seems to think that the next stage in his unfair dismissal case will be heard next week. That person has been spot on with all information on the legal processes associated with RFC of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandylejambo Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 How do you work that one out. Martin Bain had to present a prima facie case for unfair dismissal and RFC's possible insolvency in order to get an arrestment, which was granted. Bain will only get shafted if RFC go into administration before the case is heard. From another blog, someone ITK seems to think that the next stage in his unfair dismissal case will be heard next week. That person has been spot on with all information on the legal processes associated with RFC of late. the piece said it was prohibited under the companies act to have a contract of that time, well thats how I read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecosse Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 the piece said it was prohibited under the companies act to have a contract of that time, well thats how I read it. unless shareholders voted for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 unless shareholders voted for it Bain claims he didn't know if it was voted on or not, which to a cynic like me, would suggest that it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 someone else wants to freeze some of rangers money. My link their ex financial man mcintyre wants a judge to freeze ?300k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 someone else wants to freeze some of rangers money. My link their ex financial man mcintyre wants a judge to freeze ?300k Rats and sinking ships spring to mind.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 The misery continues for our cousins. Devestated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I'd imagine many of Rangers suppliers must be getting very very nervous about the Club's cash-flow, and their ability to keep paying creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I'd imagine many of Rangers suppliers must be getting very very nervous about the Club's cash-flow, and their ability to keep paying creditors. Not so pleasing if one of the creditors is HMFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Let's get the terminology right. Other people's bank accounts may be frozen. Rangers are merely "ring-fenced". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Not so pleasing if one of the creditors is HMFC. If (and I appreciate it's one hell of a big "if") Rangers were to go into administration, they would not be allowed to play until all "football debt" has been paid. While that does not give us a cast iron guarantee of getting our money, if we don't, it's because der Hun are in a whole world of pain, and not able to play. So either way, IMO still pleasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Celtic would need to. Remove Rangers and Celtic are left with only 1 vote and against a 11-1 voting system they lose out. I for one would love to see them squirm. It would be a like a scene in a film where a cruel and tyrannical boss is finally confronted by his abused workers and tear him limb from limb. Celtic and Rangers are the same football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Let's get the terminology right. Other people's bank accounts may be frozen. Rangers are merely "ring-fenced". The Scottish media seem to understand this subtle difference when they're writing the occasional report on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 One man's 'ring fenced' is another man's 'frozen'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Winchester Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Oh dear. It's not looking good at all for Rangers... :yas: :yas: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardiac Rucksack Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Rangers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Post from the Rangerstaxcase Blog from someone ITK within legal circles Not much to report about today?s proceedings from my interrogation of the sources. The press were there, but the hearing was in private, I think because the action has not yet been served. The journos hung around outside and then buttonholed people for accounts of what happened. So what follows comes with the caveat that it is filtered through a couple of rounds of hearsay, and may reflect what people want to be heard rather than an objective account. All of that said, a couple of interesting morsels. First, Rangers knew there was a hearing and were given a courtesy copy of the summons yesterday morning, but elected not to appear this morning, That strikes me as extremely surprising. Second, in the informal discussion beforehand about scheduling of the other business the judge had, the indication was that the McIntyre thing would take about ten minutes, and so it was put on first, but in fact it took more than an hour. If the decision was only to say that a hearing would be fixed for next week that would indeed take ten minutes or less. An hour of submissions by one person with no contradictor suggests something fairly substantive. Conceivably there was an attempt to persuade the judge that it was sufficiently urgent that it shouldn?t have to wait even til Tuesday whether or not Rangers were present. Third, there were large bundles of documents being presented, including a lot of the technical documentation about the takeover and detailed spreadsheets with financial projections etc. This rather suggests that McIntyre has gone to town on the financial aspects. On an unrelated matter, it seems that Murray Group is this week taking serious legal opinion about action to enforce the obligations in the share purchase agremeent, and in particular the obligation on Wavetower to pay the wee tax bill and put in the ?5m working capital. I guess that the freezing of another ?300K, should it be confirmed next week, would negate the bulk of the cashflow value of the two friendlies RFC have organised with Liverpool and Hamburg. Tick Tock indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 If (and I appreciate it's one hell of a big "if") Rangers were to go into administration, they would not be allowed to play until all "football debt" has been paid. While that does not give us a cast iron guarantee of getting our money, if we don't, it's because der Hun are in a whole world of pain, and not able to play. So either way, IMO still pleasing. Is it not the case that this only applies in England? Seem to recall hearing this somewhere before that it doesn't apply in Scotland. Hope it does though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardiac Rucksack Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Post from the Rangerstaxcase Blog from someone ITK within legal circles Not much to report about today?s proceedings from my interrogation of the sources. The press were there, but the hearing was in private, I think because the action has not yet been served. The journos hung around outside and then buttonholed people for accounts of what happened. So what follows comes with the caveat that it is filtered through a couple of rounds of hearsay, and may reflect what people want to be heard rather than an objective account. All of that said, a couple of interesting morsels. First, Rangers knew there was a hearing and were given a courtesy copy of the summons yesterday morning, but elected not to appear this morning, That strikes me as extremely surprising. Second, in the informal discussion beforehand about scheduling of the other business the judge had, the indication was that the McIntyre thing would take about ten minutes, and so it was put on first, but in fact it took more than an hour. If the decision was only to say that a hearing would be fixed for next week that would indeed take ten minutes or less. An hour of submissions by one person with no contradictor suggests something fairly substantive. Conceivably there was an attempt to persuade the judge that it was sufficiently urgent that it shouldn?t have to wait even til Tuesday whether or not Rangers were present. Third, there were large bundles of documents being presented, including a lot of the technical documentation about the takeover and detailed spreadsheets with financial projections etc. This rather suggests that McIntyre has gone to town on the financial aspects. On an unrelated matter, it seems that Murray Group is this week taking serious legal opinion about action to enforce the obligations in the share purchase agremeent, and in particular the obligation on Wavetower to pay the wee tax bill and put in the ?5m working capital. I guess that the freezing of another ?300K, should it be confirmed next week, would negate the bulk of the cashflow value of the two friendlies RFC have organised with Liverpool and Hamburg. Tick Tock indeed. Murray getting involved. :interesting: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Is it not the case that this only applies in England? Seem to recall hearing this somewhere before that it doesn't apply in Scotland. Hope it does though! It doesn't apply as such in Scotland, but the SPL have the powers to withhold payment to clubs of money due (e.g. merit or TV money), to satisfy a debt to another member club. i.e. Hearts could ask the SPL to pay them the outstanding balance from funds that would otherwise have gone to RFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Murray getting involved. Probably just posturing on SDM's part, suggesting that he did the best for the club and was let down by CW. Doubtful if it would work though, given that he was the architect of the EBT scheme that may ultimately result in their demise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Is part of the financial deal not contingent on number of appearances LW makes? Could be that, no matter what, we're set to lose out if the bigots go belly up in the near future! However, it would be worth it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 On the second point about time, and seeing Lord Hodge in action before, that doesnt surprise me! As for the rest of it: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Much more to come from all of this. Lots of rumour and speculation going about in Glasgow as to what the next story is going to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Much more to come from all of this. Lots of rumour and speculation going about in Glasgow as to what the next revalation is going to be. Do tell..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Do tell..... In Glasgow yesterday and spoke to a couple of fairly well placed Rangers supporters who reckon that Adminstration is only days away. Couldn't helphaving a wee laugh as they were people who were making a big thing of Hearts finances a couple of years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Do tell..... Further update from the same source on the Rangerstaxcase Blog I?ve asked some supplementary questions. The position as reported to me is as follows. The underlying share purchase agreement (or similar) which sets out the detailed terms of the sale from Murray Group to Wavetower apparently contains express and specific obligations on Wavetower to do at least some of the things set out in the shareholder circular. In contrast to the circular these are apparently nailed down in considerable detail. I am told that in particular there was an express obligation to have funds available at completion to pay the small tax bill, and that there were collateral documents delivered to demonstrate that those funds existed and were irrevocably committed to that purpose. The significance of that is that either the money is there and they have deliberately chosen not to use it, or it was never there. Bad news either way. I am also told there are provisions about working capital which go beyond what is in the circular, and in particular some sort of obligation which is not tied to any specific number, but rather is expressed in terms of the amount reasonably required. I have no route into the Murray side of it, and all I know is that certain of the obvious names in the field were asked this week about whether they were already conflicted with a view to one of them being instructed to look at it for Murray Group. What follows is therefore speculation. I broadly agree that Murray?s only obvious interest is reputational. But as the sellers in the transaction they would generally have title to sue to enforce those sort of stipulations against the purchaser. So they could for example force Wavetower to pay the small tax bill, at least in theory. The more interesting question, and the source of much idle speculation at present, is whether it is feasible to seek to prevent the widely forecast insolvency event on the basis that it is a manufactured insolvency caused only by Whyte?s failure to uphold the obligations he undertook. In other words can he be prevented from putting it down where the position is that if he made good on what he undertook to do there would not presently be an insolvency? I don?t think anything like that has ever been done, and I?m pretty sceptical myself about whether it would fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 In Glasgow yesterday and spoke to a couple of fairly well placed Rangers supporters who reckon that Adminstration is only days away. Couldn't helphaving a wee laugh as they were people who were making a big thing of Hearts finances a couple of years ago. Interesting. How good are these sources? If true, I thought they might have waited until they were ten points ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 only the smuggiest of them all will suffice... :jbsmug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Hopefully this will be the start of the sound of the "death rattle" for this odious club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 rangers winning celtic failing to win the league despite a 10 point kick in the baws (for the tax dodgers) would be rather pleasant. rather pleasant indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Further update from the same source on the Rangerstaxcase Blog I?ve asked some supplementary questions. The position as reported to me is as follows. I am also told there are provisions about working capital which go beyond what is in the circular, and in particular some sort of obligation which is not tied to any specific number, but rather is expressed in terms of the amount reasonably required. You lost me at this bit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Winchester Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 rangers winning celtic failing to win the league despite a 10 point kick in the baws (for the tax dodgers) would be rather pleasant. rather pleasant indeed. Could you imagine how fecked they'd be if Celtic hadn't let them waltz to the title for the last 3 seasons though? Hopefully it's a coming soon though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 You lost me at this bit... It wasn't me who wrote that, but my understanding is that CW had initimated that he would provide ?5M for working capital in the circular to shareholders, but in the Share Purchase Agreement (the actual takeover documents) a formal commitment was given to fund an unspecified amount. The bottom line is that CW hasn't provided either the ?5M or any unspecified amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 It wasn't me who wrote that, but my understanding is that CW had initimated that he would provide ?5M for working capital in the circular to shareholders, but in the Share Purchase Agreement (the actual takeover documents) a formal commitment was given to fund an unspecified amount. The bottom line is that CW hasn't provided either the ?5M or any unspecified amount. AKA He is skint and is now reneging on promises made to shareholders and Murray et al when completing his takeover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Funny as this is, administration just means they get to sneak out of their debts an start from a new virtually debt free baseline position albeit with a point deduction - but they would probably still win the league eveyone else Is so gash... White wants them to go into administration I've no doubt about that as he has protected himself I've no doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshallschunkychicken Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Funny as this is, administration just means they get to sneak out of their debts an start from a new virtually debt free baseline position albeit with a point deduction - but they would probably still win the league eveyone else Is so gash... White wants them to go into administration I've no doubt about that as he has protected himself I've no doubt I still don't get how people think that they could come out of administration debt free whilst still retaining a squad capable of winning the league. If they go into administration, surely it would be a firesale of all of their saleable players? The bit about Murray seeking legal advice to enforce capital agreements made is interesting - if it all goes breasts skyward, then he can then say that the mess is down to Whyte's failure make good his promises rather than anything that occurred under Murray's tenure. I get the feeling that Murray saw Whyte as the ideal patsy, and grabbed the opportunity with both hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 If it was just Administration to get rid of their debts then RFC would bite your hand off. In order to exit Administration you need a CVA. i.e. an agreement of unsecured creditors holding 75% or more of the debt to take a few p in the ?. If this saga ends with HMRC holding more than 25% of the debt, they will liquidate RFC. Sure, a new RFC 2012 could be born, but they will have to get the agreement of the rest of the SPL clubs to be readmitted. SFA Club licensing may also be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
world_3 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Could you imagine how fecked they'd be if Celtic hadn't let them waltz to the title for the last 3 seasons though? Hopefully it's a coming soon though This is what I really can't understand. If the Celtic board had released 15 or 20 million for transfers a few years ago or shelled out for a really good manager they would have buried Rangers and got all their money back anyway in the CL. Rangers would have been monumentally donald ducked. Neil Lennon must be Celtic's way of saying that they don't want Rangers to go bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
world_3 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 If it was just Administration to get rid of their debts then RFC would bite your hand off. In order to exit Administration you need a CVA. i.e. an agreement of unsecured creditors holding 75% or more of the debt to take a few p in the ?. If this saga ends with HMRC holding more than 25% of the debt, they will liquidate RFC. Sure, a new RFC 2012 could be born, but they will have to get the agreement of the rest of the SPL clubs to be readmitted. SFA Club licensing may also be a problem. Is an 11-1 majority required for that? (OK it would be 10-1 if Rangers cease to exist). Hopefully at least one club would grow a set and tell them to start at the bottom. In fact if all the others clubs wanted them back in except us and we voted against I'd crack open another bottle of champagne. On a side note what kind of odds would you get on Celtic winning the league if that happened? I reckon the bookies wouldn't even be taking bets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 If it does happen that Rangers go bosoms up and their league results get nullified...isn't it just bloody typical that we're the only club to take points off them so far this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3,739
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.