The DA

There's nothing new in this post, just pulling together all the points aready mentioned above. This is my understanding of the EBT tax issue. 1. The Chancellor has said that he WILL recover the income tax due. As far as I'm aware, HMRC will be looking for this tax whether BDO win the appeal or not. Whether the final sums will also include National Insurance, penalties and interest is possibly irrelevant for most recipients - even the base sums are going to beggar them. 2. Given how the trusts were set up and which company paid into them, I'm not sure which company the tax man will go after. But it doesn't really matter - they're all dead. 3. Assuming the loans are seen as coming from Rangers rather than from one of SDM's companies, the taxman might add his claim to the list of creditors being overseen by BDO but I suspect not - he's already going to be short-changed on the existing tax bill. 4. So, in these circumstances, the tax man has said he will go after the 'loan' recipients instead. Billy Doods, Tore Andre Flo et al can wave their indemnity letters in Hector's face but he's just going to shrug and say, 'the company can't so you'll just have to pay up'. 5. Next, I'd expect the recipients to turn to whoever guaranteed that they'd pay no tax and ask them to pay up. According to the side letters, that would appear to be The Rangers Football Club plc (RFC 2012 plc in liquidation). Even if BDO agreed that these were newly-identified creditors and added them to the list, I suspect HMRC would tell the loanees to GTF and pay up. Otherwise it would turn into an Alice-in-Wonderland scenario - 'We can't get the tax from the deadco so we're asking you, Mr Flo, and you're telling us you're passing the debt onto the liquidators of the very company that couldn't pay us in the first place.' Nah. 6. Next, the recipients will turn to RIFC/Rangers International plc as the spiritual sucessors to RFC 2012 plc. And that's when it gets interesting. Can anyone pick it up from there? What are ins-and-outs of the club and company implications, footballing debts, keeping the good bits and shedding the bad bits, etc?

Do the side-letters mention indemnifying the loanee? I saw a copy of Tore Andre Flo's letter recently (as you say, on headed paper) but I can't remember whether it mentioned guaranteeing to pay any tax. If it did, would this just be another example of 'the titles staying with the club and the debt dying with the company' claim?

Interesting. Is he saying that this guarantee to cover any tax demands might survive the death of the indemnifying company? I suspect Hector wants his money and won't let death get in the way.

No idea what you're referring to. Proud and erect since '61. Better than your mob

Unlucky, Kinky. I've never had any problems in that department. Not boasting. Well, maybe just a wee bit.

I'm 55. Should I be worried?

I've no idea what came over me. I apologize. Pearls before swine.

I may be slightly biased but I'd agree with that. United in full flow were a joy to behold. Best use of limited funds, ever.

Done, but only because you told me to. ETA: I wonder if any of them will think about suing Rangers (IL) or suing an individual associated with the club/company at the time. 'Here you go, lad. Sign this and we'll pay part of your salary via an EBT - nae risk to you, honest.'

I'll bet you do.

Still, this approach to settling bills could help explain how Oldco got into the situation they did. 'It's OK, gents. I've settled the tax bills,' said Craig Whyte.

13th March, you said 'You have already been told that the RFFF paid the small creditors,.' If I said, 'I've paid the bills', anyone familiar with the English language would assume I meant all of the bills, not just some of the bills. You weren't being disingenuous, were you?

'Frown'? We rely on you keeping us up to date on what the bloggers are saying.

Which blogger was that, bennett?

They can't defend the gates - they're too busy defending the walls.

Can you imagine Celtic putting up a 'Pacific Shelf 595' sign above Parkhead? The claim here is that Rangers have done pretty much that at Ibrox, putting up the name of the holding company rather than 'the club'.

Some shell company.

Kinky, once upon a time there was an egg. Then the chef whisked that egg up to become an omelette. When the customer decided he didn't want an omelette but wanted a boiled egg instead, the chef found he couldn't unscramble the omelette and had to use a different egg.

The bit in red is important. There's a 3 year interruption in any history. The bit in green (couldn't help myself) is a Rangers press release, not a Stock Exchange statement. The bit in blue (see how fair I am) talks about the sale of the football assets and the continuation of football at Ibrox. It says nothing about the continuation of 'Rangers'.

No one is arguing that there isn't a team called Rangers, playing in blue at Ibrox, supported by the same fans as supported the previous incarnation. But it goes against fair play and common morality to allow them to shed debt and keep the trophies at the same time. They're free to claim them and we're free to keep reminding them YNRA.

I see you've dropped the stock market from your list. Now, evidence of the opinion of HMRC, please.

Can you show any evidence of the opinions of UEFA, ECA, HMRC and the stock market?

Orange ya sick of deflecting?

The truth oft comes dressed in rags

Thanks for elaborating. It's all crystal clear now.