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

[Charlie-Brown]

Newco Ranger 2011-12 Ltd (as they don't currently exist) don't have either an SFA nor an SPL membership or even SFL membership - under currently existing rules it's difficult to see how they could quickly acquire either of these unopposed nor how they would retain ownership of the players registrations. All these things are required to be a functioning football club able to play any official league or cup matches. Separate UEFA club licenses are then required to ever be able to be allowed to play in UEFA Competitions.

[Bickfest]

I thought they were both non executive directors,and would therefore have no obligation as they could plead ignorance of financial governance,supported by minutes of board meetings

In law, there is no distinction between an executive and a non-executive directorship. And, in any case, a director cannot hide behind an excuse of "ignorance" in relation to misgovernance. He could, perhaps, present a defence that he was misinformed, or nor informed at all, but only if, having tried (and presumably failed) to have the position rectified, he resigned at the earliest opportunity. This is what I suspect might have happened today.

 

The scary bit for directors arises if it can be proven that they knowingly allowed the company to continue to trade after it had become technically insolvent (ie after a point when it had become unable to pay its liabilities as they fell due). In that case, they could be personally liable for the company's debts, on a joint and several basis. Bain's and McIntyre's actions suggest that there is at the very least a strong suspicion that that point has been reached.

 

Tick tock, I think.

[Charlie-Brown]

Back on page 1 we were told that this was all "nonsense"

[jambovambo]

oooo ... this is exciting ...

 

Scott Symon and Willie Waddell will be birlin' in their graves, as it's come to the pretty pass that uber-Hun John Greig has resigned.

 

Sad news ...

 

(titter)

[Skivingatwork]

As much as it pleases me to see either of the bigott brothers up a foul smelling creek without a paddle, I have no doubt that the GFA et al will bend over backwards and re-write the rulebook for the 'benefit' of Scottish football to ensure they keep playing.

[Socrates]

But say NewcoRangers 2011 Ltd would have no liability..time will tell

You can't just create a new company and, against the wishes of the creditors, give it all the assets of the old one, without taking on its debts.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Just read this on the BBC Sports site, it links in nicely with what I said regarding Rangers plans, whether to be voted in as Rangers FC or through the backdoor, to move into the English League. It seems to me that Rangers could hit the red light with all three, while Whyte could fall foul as an asset stripping owner. Even if they don't lose the case, or are forced into administration, they've admitted to tax avoidance, though claiming it was legal, and Whyte is considered an asset stripper whithin the financial community.

 

'Sports minister Hugh Robertson said that an FA-led licensing system would be brought in to safeguard against issues such as financial mismanagement, asset-stripping owners and tax avoidance'

[jambovambo]

Programme here : (OK link to schedule, more exactly ..)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016bh4z

[Footballfirst]

You can't just create a new company and, against the wishes of the creditors, give it all the assets of the old one, without taking on its debts.

I'm afraid that you can do exactly that. A Receiver or Administrator will seek to sell the assets of a failing club for the benefit of a secured creditor. If that means a new company being set up and buying the assets, then so be it. If all the assets are sold in that process, then all the unsecured creditors, including HMRC, will be left with nothing.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Programme here : (OK link to schedule, more exactly ..)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016bh4z

Thanks mate , have set Sky to record it in case I'm out. I think Kickback could be red hot on Thursday night

[May one-six]

As much as it pleases me to see either of the bigott brothers up a foul smelling creek without a paddle, I have no doubt that the GFA et al will bend over backwards and re-write the rulebook for the 'benefit' of Scottish football to ensure they keep playing.

Don't get excited people - this very much applies.

[The Comedian]

Programme here : (OK link to schedule, more exactly ..)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016bh4z

 

The theme tune for that should be from Eye On Springfield. Can someone post it?

[Boris]

The theme tune for that should be from Eye On Springfield. Can someone post it?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUjFOly2Gh4

[The Comedian]

Boris, your conduct pleases me...

 

[H J Simpson]

Programme here : (OK link to schedule, more exactly ..)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016bh4z

 

30 mins - hardly strikes me that they are going into serious stuff with it.

 

Hopefully I'm wrong though

[Socrates]

I'm afraid that you can do exactly that. A Receiver or Administrator will seek to sell the assets of a failing club for the benefit of a secured creditor. If that means a new company being set up and buying the assets, then so be it. If all the assets are sold in that process, then all the unsecured creditors, including HMRC, will be left with nothing.

There's a difference between buying the assets, and giving them directly to Rangers 2011. Also, I thought that there was some sort of vote by creditors on whether to accept things - I'm sure I remember HMRC voting against with Portsmouth and some other clubs, but being outvoted. Given that they are potentially owed about ?50 million, it would be difficult for them to be outvoted in the Rangers case.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

30 mins - hardly strikes me that they are going into serious stuff with it.

 

Hopefully I'm wrong though

I thought that too, but I doubt there will be much from inside Ibrox as Whyte will refuse to speak and Bain etc will be unable to say much, if anything at all, in case it predjudices their cases against the club. I'd expect it to be mostly conjecture with explanations from 'experts' of what they did to evade tax and, hopefully, an explanation of what might happen should they lose the court case. You never know, it might be a pretty good programme, limited to 30 mins due to scheduling rather than lack of content. A list of the companies Whyte has been involved in, and how he made his money, might be more than interesting and put the wind right up every Rangers fan that watches it. It'll be interesting, too, to hear how many companies he's put into administration and actually 'saved' as opposed to those he's bought at a cut price and made a profit when the assets were sold off.

[Footballfirst]

There's a difference between buying the assets, and giving them directly to Rangers 2011. Also, I thought that there was some sort of vote by creditors on whether to accept things - I'm sure I remember HMRC voting against with Portsmouth and some other clubs, but being outvoted. Given that they are potentially owed about ?50 million, it would be difficult for them to be outvoted in the Rangers case.

 

A few points that might help clarify things

 

In administration, all the secured creditors will receive 100% of what they are owed before any unsecured creditor gets a penny. CW is the only secured creditor, with a "floating charge" over Rangers assets. If it requires all sale of all the assets to satisfy the debt covered by the floating charge, then there would be nothing left for the unsecured creditors. HMRC is an unsecured creditor, just like Joe the plumber.

 

Exiting Administration, normally requires a Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA) among the creditors, whereby they accept a reduced amount , e.g. 10p in the ?, because there is not enough money to satisfy all the creditors. Creditors holding 75% of the debt need to agree on a CVA. If the tax case goes against RFC then HMRC will be owed motre that 25% of the debt therefore will be in a position to veto a CVA. In the Portsmouth case HMRC only held 22% of the debt, therefore were unable to block the CVA. If a CVA cannot be agreed then the company will be wound up. That is the biggest risk for RFC.

 

A pre-pack administration involves setting up a newco to purchase the tangible assets of the oldco, but without the debts of the oldco. The oldco is then wound up as being unble to pay its debts. That is an option for RFC, although the newco would have problems with its fooballing status.

[ritchies75]

I see the TV programme is on at the same time Celtic are playing in Europe. So both halves of the Old Firm being shafted and humiliated on TV at the same time.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

A few points that might help clarify things

 

In administration, all the secured creditors will receive 100% of what they are owed before any unsecured creditor gets a penny. CW is the only secured creditor, with a "floating charge" over Rangers assets. If it requires all sale of all the assets to satisfy the debt covered by the floating charge, then there would be nothing left for the unsecured creditors. HMRC is an unsecured creditor, just like Joe the plumber.

 

Exiting Administration, normally requires a Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA) among the creditors, whereby they accept a reduced amount , e.g. 10p in the ?, because there is not enough money to satisfy all the creditors. Creditors holding 75% of the debt need to agree on a CVA. If the tax case goes against RFC then HMRC will be owed motre that 25% of the debt therefore will be in a position to veto a CVA. In the Portsmouth case HMRC only held 22% of the debt, therefore were unable to block the CVA. If a CVA cannot be agreed then the company will be wound up. That is the biggest risk for RFC.

 

A pre-pack administration involves setting up a newco to purchase the tangible assets of the oldco, but without the debts of the oldco. The oldco is then wound up as being unble to pay its debts. That is an option for RFC, although the newco would have problems with its fooballing status.

While I can understand most of what you say, I'm a bit confused by the pre-pack administration. Are you suggesting that a new company could come along with, say, ?25m and buy all Rangers assets, Whyte gets his secured debt of, I believe ?20m, leaving the remaining creditors with ?5m to share, or would this new company have to pay the market price for all the assets? If it's the former, I can see this as the reason Whyte bought Rangers believing he can end up with all the club's assets, and none of the debt, for a knockdown price. The thing that puzzles me, though, if this is the case, why doesn't every company do it, build up massive debts, set up a new company to sell all their assets to, then go into administration? Why wouldn't Romanov do this with Hearts?

Not doubting what you say but it does seem a charter for unscrupulous businessmen, as Whyte undoubtedly is, to print money. I find it hard to accept that any government would pass laws that would enable these people to deprive said government of much needed tax revenue.

[Chester™]

TBH Chester the standard of journalism in both programmes was of such poor quality it is pushing it to suggest they were in any way, shape or form in depth!

 

TBF, I was being a tad sarcastic....

[Dunks]

While I can understand most of what you say, I'm a bit confused by the pre-pack administration. Are you suggesting that a new company could come along with, say, ?25m and buy all Rangers assets, Whyte gets his secured debt of, I believe ?20m, leaving the remaining creditors with ?5m to share, or would this new company have to pay the market price for all the assets? If it's the former, I can see this as the reason Whyte bought Rangers believing he can end up with all the club's assets, and none of the debt, for a knockdown price. The thing that puzzles me, though, if this is the case, why doesn't every company do it, build up massive debts, set up a new company to sell all their assets to, then go into administration? Why wouldn't Romanov do this with Hearts?

Not doubting what you say but it does seem a charter for unscrupulous businessmen, as Whyte undoubtedly is, to print money. I find it hard to accept that any government would pass laws that would enable these people to deprive said government of much needed tax revenue.

 

Sounds like the business model of many double glazing firms ...

[Colonel Kurtz]

You can't just create a new company and, against the wishes of the creditors, give it all the assets of the old one, without taking on its debts.

The newco could buy the assets from the administrator..maybe even prepacked already

[Colonel Kurtz]

While I can understand most of what you say, I'm a bit confused by the pre-pack administration. Are you suggesting that a new company could come along with, say, ?25m and buy all Rangers assets, Whyte gets his secured debt of, I believe ?20m, leaving the remaining creditors with ?5m to share, or would this new company have to pay the market price for all the assets? If it's the former, I can see this as the reason Whyte bought Rangers believing he can end up with all the club's assets, and none of the debt, for a knockdown price. The thing that puzzles me, though, if this is the case, why doesn't every company do it, build up massive debts, set up a new company to sell all their assets to, then go into administration? Why wouldn't Romanov do this with Hearts?

Not doubting what you say but it does seem a charter for unscrupulous businessmen, as Whyte undoubtedly is, to print money. I find it hard to accept that any government would pass laws that would enable these people to deprive said government of much needed tax revenue.

Whyte could be a man of straw.

look at his business track record and you will get a hint

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Sounds like the business model of many double glazing firms ...

You know, after I wrote that, it came to me that the company we bought our windows from apparently did something like that too, and now have a slightly different name. (It also dawned on me that, as Hearts owe the bulk of their debt to Romanov, he'd only be cheating himself if he tried it.) Still, I think HMRC will have a lot more clout than every other creditor and won't let them get away with a ?50m debt. I'm sure they have been putting their case together for many years and will have anticipated that kind of dodge and taken steps to close or prevent it happening.

As Bain and co have done, I'm sure that, if need be, they'd have taken steps to freeze all Rangers assets, pending the court case. If not done already, in the event that HMRC win the case, I'm sure they will freeze all Rangers' assets immediately to ensure they can't sell them off before they settle. Mind you, this is all conjecture on my part, and also wishfull thinking, so they might weazle out of it after all

[marshallschunkychicken]

The newco could buy the assets from the administrator..maybe even prepacked already

 

But what about the their SFA/SPL status? Surely that wouldn't be transferrable?

[Bickfest]

A few points that might help clarify things

 

In administration, all the secured creditors will receive 100% of what they are owed before any unsecured creditor gets a penny. CW is the only secured creditor, with a "floating charge" over Rangers assets. If it requires all sale of all the assets to satisfy the debt covered by the floating charge, then there would be nothing left for the unsecured creditors. HMRC is an unsecured creditor, just like Joe the plumber.

 

Exiting Administration, normally requires a Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA) among the creditors, whereby they accept a reduced amount , e.g. 10p in the ?, because there is not enough money to satisfy all the creditors. Creditors holding 75% of the debt need to agree on a CVA. If the tax case goes against RFC then HMRC will be owed motre that 25% of the debt therefore will be in a position to veto a CVA. In the Portsmouth case HMRC only held 22% of the debt, therefore were unable to block the CVA. If a CVA cannot be agreed then the company will be wound up. That is the biggest risk for RFC.

 

A pre-pack administration involves setting up a newco to purchase the tangible assets of the oldco, but without the debts of the oldco. The oldco is then wound up as being unble to pay its debts. That is an option for RFC, although the newco would have problems with its fooballing status.

As you say, the footballing side would be a problem, but so too might SIP16 which requires the insolvency practitioner to market the assets properly http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/statement-of-insolvency-practice-16-sip16

HMRC will not, I suspect, stand idly by and watch a "Whytewash".

 

"The bunnet" tried to restructure the other cheek a few years back, to clean up the balance sheet, and was told in no uncertain terms that the new club would have to reapply for membership of the league and start at the bottom.

[Moriarty]

Have we decided how likely a 10 penalty this season is? (if they lose the case). At this moment in time it would open up a 5 way title race

[Colonel Kurtz]

But what about the their SFA/SPL status? Surely that wouldn't be transferrable?

The status would i believe have the same legal status as say a brand name,this would be bought with ALL the incumbant rights after whatever points levy was applied.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

The newco could buy the assets from the administrator..maybe even prepacked already

But surely the administrator's duty is as much to the creditors as to the company, which is why he is trusted by both sides, and until the company actually goes into administration there are no administrators to do deals with anyway (I'm pretty certain it's the courts who appoint the administrators after a petition has been lodged). While I'm sure Whyte has pulled off many similar deals where he's bought ailing companies, he's probably paid off outstanding tax and VAT bills before going into administration, the tax bills would probably be quite small in a loss making company, the banks would have security over the property so they would get their money too, then he'd just go into administration, leaving the little guys, sub contractors, suppliers etc with no choice other than to accept what's on offer. Once out of administration he'd then sell off all the assets, making the employees redundant, leaving a nice little profit. That is how I understand guys like Whyte operate, screwing the little guys. I just hope he was on a huge ego trip when he bought Rangers and has bitten off more than he can chew by taking on something as powerfull as HMRC.

[Colonel Kurtz]

But surely the administrator's duty is as much to the creditors as to the company, which is why he is trusted by both sides, and until the company actually goes into administration there are no administrators to do deals with anyway (I'm pretty certain it's the courts who appoint the administrators after a petition has been lodged). While I'm sure Whyte has pulled off many similar deals where he's bought ailing companies, he's probably paid off outstanding tax and VAT bills before going into administration, the tax bills would probably be quite small in a loss making company, the banks would have security over the property so they would get their money too, then he'd just go into administration, leaving the little guys, sub contractors, suppliers etc with no choice other than to accept what's on offer. Once out of administration he'd then sell off all the assets, making the employees redundant, leaving a nice little profit. That is how I understand guys like Whyte operate, screwing the little guys. I just hope he was on a huge ego trip when he bought Rangers and has bitten off more than he can chew by taking on something as powerfull as HMRC.

the employees would be made redundant prior to the newco taking over,to avoid financial obligation..perhaps wee Frankie Howard at Motherwell could be consulted how to do it

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Anyone who wants to know about pre-packs, look at Leeds united in 2007.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

the employees would be made redundant prior to the newco taking over,to avoid financial obligation..perhaps wee Frankie Howard at Motherwell could be consulted how to do it

I was of the impression that administrators are called in to try to keep the company operating, otherwise they'd be as well going straight into liquidation, so they'd have to keep the employees on until administration is over, even if only to give the impression they intend to keep going. I still can't imagine, that if necessary, HMFC won't freeze all Rangers assets to ensure they get they're money. If people on here know of this pre-packed administration you can be damned sure the Revenue know it too, and they won't be going to court just to end up with egg on their face. This has turned into a very high profile case, something I'm sure Whyte would have liked to avoid, and he is the kind of money grabbing little toad the Revenue mandarins would love to shaft. I wonder if any of us would ever have dreamed that one day we'd see HM Inspector of Taxes to be a white knight coming to right a century of evil

[Footballfirst]

I'm not knowledgeable enough to go through all the ins and outs of insolvency procedures, so you are probably best to use Google to check for things like pre-pack administration.

 

One thing that is worth mentioning though is that the "Floating Charge" that CW had assigned to him from Lloyds dates back to a Bank of Scotland security against RFC Assets from 1999. Administration legislation changed in 2003 to give all creditors more protection, but as the security pre-dates the legislation change CW can use the previous law to his advantage. The earlier law allows him to appoint an "Administrative Receiver" of his choice at the time of his choosing. The AR ONLY works for the benefit of the Floating Charge holder. He will sell the assets to satisfy RFC's indebtedness to CW. As long as the price achieved is considered fair value then there will be no comeback against the AR. There is unlikely to be much left of the original business other than the debts at that stage.

 

After the AR has satisfied the floating charge, the remaining creditors can then petition for Administration or a winding up order for the realisation of any remaining assets. That group of creditors will include HMRC.

[Hackney Hearts]

I still can't imagine, that if necessary, HMFC won't freeze all Rangers assets to ensure they get they're money.

 

I'm sure we'd love to!

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

If me reading about insolvency laws would bring Rangers into liquidation I'd read them from now till Christmas, longer if it would do the same to Celtic but unfortunately it won't so I won't bother

I've felt all along that it was all too good to be true, and as they say, 'if it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is too good to be true' , that Rangers would pay for their wrongdoings. If they do squirm out of it, instead of the shame they should feel, the great unashamed will be treating it like a victory and gloating as though they were in the right all along and that it somehow proves they are a great British Institution. Hopefully HMRC can come up with some plan to ensure they get their money, as it appears they've been burned a few times already.

[Carl Fredrickson]

I dont know much about the ins and outs of administration/insolvency so this thread makes interesting reading. Thanks to everyone putting forward their more informed opinions

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I'm sure we'd love to!

Ah, HMFC, never far from my mind

[Hagar the Horrible]

I just cant see how going into admin suites Whyte or the tax man

 

IF/When they go into administration there will be 3 main creditors.

 

1. the former directors, thier money already ring fenced by the courts

2. Whyte he is owed ?20m

3. the Tax man ?50m

 

for whyte to get his investment back he would either need to have another buyer put more than ?21m into the newco and hope the tax man just goes away

the tax man will still want all the money no deal, so wont vote to accept anything short of another investor(s) put nothing short of the full ?71m to get them out of admin. now if I had that kind of dosh, i would buy the club transfer that kind of debt back onto the club after admin and somehow have them pay me back over X number of years (not likely) nobody has that kind of money anymore.

 

Why/where would whyte put more money into the club and lose his entire investmen.

To get the money back the administrators would have to sell off all the players and get permission to do this outside the transfer window, and all clubs would put in rediculously low bids for McGreggor, and jellyfish. selling every player would not accumulate ?70m,

 

so whats left sell off the stadium and all the players will/might generate about ?40m a ?30m shortfall.

 

All I can see is that Whyte will have a firesale sell the stadium and all the players to ensure he gets all his money back and leave the rest of the scraps to the taxman.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I just cant see how going into admin suites Whyte or the tax man

 

IF/When they go into administration there will be 3 main creditors.

 

1. the former directors, thier money already ring fenced by the courts

2. Whyte he is owed ?20m

3. the Tax man ?50m

 

for whyte to get his investment back he would either need to have another buyer put more than ?21m into the newco and hope the tax man just goes away

the tax man will still want all the money no deal, so wont vote to accept anything short of another investor(s) put nothing short of the full ?71m to get them out of admin. now if I had that kind of dosh, i would buy the club transfer that kind of debt back onto the club after admin and somehow have them pay me back over X number of years (not likely) nobody has that kind of money anymore.

 

Why/where would whyte put more money into the club and lose his entire investmen.

To get the money back the administrators would have to sell off all the players and get permission to do this outside the transfer window, and all clubs would put in rediculously low bids for McGreggor, and jellyfish. selling every player would not accumulate ?70m,

 

so whats left sell off the stadium and all the players will/might generate about ?40m a ?30m shortfall.

 

All I can see is that Whyte will have a firesale sell the stadium and all the players to ensure he gets all his money back and leave the rest of the scraps to the taxman.

While agreeing with what you say it seems there are precedents to suggest that they might get away with it. This pre-pack administration seems to mean they can sell the club's assets to another company, no doubt owned by Whyte, for what the administrators consider a 'fair' price. If this company bought the assets for, say, ?25m Whyte would get his money back and the creditors of the old company would be left with ?5m to share amongst themselves. In effect, Whyte would be left with a company, free from debt and valued at maybe ?60m. If Successfull, the rat will have made around ?35m. Only if HMRC somehow successfully block a pre-pack administration will they be able to get their money. I'd have expected them to have frozen Rangers assets by now, if possible, to stop it happening, but have not read if they have or not.

[Footballfirst]

Hagar - The players themselves are both employees and creditors. i.e the club will be in breach of contract if they aren't paid or there is no money to pay them. An administrator cannot force a player out of the club if he is under contract, however he can make him redundant. The players would then be free agents, normal redundancy payments would apply and the player could sue for breach of contract, not that that would get him much as an unsecured creditor.

 

There are two scenarios I see for the players. 1. CW and RFC limp on until January and CW attempts to sell the best players for as much cash as he can get. or 2. RFC goes into administration before January and the players chose the "free agent" option that would allow them to sign for free to another club (with substantial signing on fees)

[Deevers]

I just cant see how going into admin suites Whyte or the tax man

 

IF/When they go into administration there will be 3 main creditors.

 

1. the former directors, thier money already ring fenced by the courts

2. Whyte he is owed ?20m

3. the Tax man ?50m

 

for whyte to get his investment back he would either need to have another buyer put more than ?21m into the newco and hope the tax man just goes away

the tax man will still want all the money no deal, so wont vote to accept anything short of another investor(s) put nothing short of the full ?71m to get them out of admin. now if I had that kind of dosh, i would buy the club transfer that kind of debt back onto the club after admin and somehow have them pay me back over X number of years (not likely) nobody has that kind of money anymore.

 

Why/where would whyte put more money into the club and lose his entire investmen.

To get the money back the administrators would have to sell off all the players and get permission to do this outside the transfer window, and all clubs would put in rediculously low bids for McGreggor, and jellyfish. selling every player would not accumulate ?70m,

 

so whats left sell off the stadium and all the players will/might generate about ?40m a ?30m shortfall.

 

All I can see is that Whyte will have a firesale sell the stadium and all the players to ensure he gets all his money back and leave the rest of the scraps to the taxman.

 

 

He'll be looking for that and more if he gets a chance. The people I feel sorry for just now are the owners of small firms who are due money by Rangers - they must really be sweating just now. I've met lots of very worried "teddy bears" over the past few weeks and most of then can't see all of this ending well for Rangers one way or the other.

[DETTY29]

Newsnight Scotland at 11's main story is on boardroom strife.

 

Vultures are circling.

 

Elsewhere wee Chick says nothing for Rangers fans to worry about.

[Fermit the Krog]

Forgive me,

 

Can anyone surmise when all of this will be decided, one way or the other?

 

When is the appeal to be heard etc...

 

Ta.

[The Gasman]

Forgive me,

 

Can anyone surmise when all of this will be decided, one way or the other?

 

When is the appeal to be heard etc...

 

Ta.

 

No one knows when/if Rangers may voluntarily go into Administration.

 

No one knows when/if Rangers may run out of funds and be forced into Administration.

 

No one knows what the final outcome of Rangers appeal against the small tax bill will be, or when it will finally be resolved.

 

No one knows what the final outcome of Rangers appeal against the big tax bill will be. The next hearing is due next month, but no one can tell when it will be finally resolved.

 

I suspect this maybe hasn't helped you too much, but as far as timetables go, I think that's all that we know.

[kennyblack'sshot]

Weren't Rangers effectively in administration last season, although not officially thanks to their "connections" in the "business community"? Didn't Lloyds Bank effectively appoint an "administrator" to "administer" the club? "Walter" and everyone were complaining about it all the time. The media of course declined to investigate in any great depth.

[world_3]

Newsnight Scotland at 11's main story is on boardroom strife.

 

Vultures are circling.

 

Elsewhere wee Chick says nothing for Rangers fans to worry about.

 

I'm really looking forward to seeing Chick bawling like a wee lassie when his beloved Huns go swirling down the plughole

[Broxburn_Jambo]

I heard last week that a Birmingham based IP had already been instructed re the Rangers Administration and it is now just a matter of when. Feeling was they would pull the plug in advance of the big HMRC case and that there was already someone lined up to take over the club.

[Floyd]

Is the tax case not due to kick off in earnest next month??

[Coburg Hearts]

Weren't Rangers effectively in administration last season, although not officially thanks to their "connections" in the "business community"? Didn't Lloyds Bank effectively appoint an "administrator" to "administer" the club? "Walter" and everyone were complaining about it all the time. The media of course declined to investigate in any great depth.

It looked very much like that to me, though I know nought about such things.