Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Republic]

Mark HATEly

[killingfloorman]

Errrrm , Whyte ? Twice ?

Did I miss something ? What did Craig Whyte do that requires him to make not one but two apologies ?

Craig Whyte is a fucking legend !

CraigWhyteCSC

Isn't it past your bedtime?

Whyte withheld NI and PAYE ergo should apologise to all scottish football fans

[Republic]

Isn't it past your bedtime?

Whyte withheld NI and PAYE ergo should apologise to all scottish football fans

Yes, and that subsequently led to the death of Rainjurz.

All Scottish football fans found this highly amusing . Except Rainjurz fans , of course.

No apology required imo

[Paquis]

Ok, I don't accept your view of how lightly Murray would just offer £10m on the off chance of defeat; but even if I did, it wouldn't explain why his group were so unco-operative with the investigation.

Can you offer an explanation for that?

Why would you be cooperative with an organisation that is trying to take you for £90 plus million?

[Guest Kincardine]

Did i miss Murray and the Rangers (RIP) board apologising for all they upheaval they've caused Scottish fitba´over the last few years?

Great post. Appellants should always apologise, especially when they have been proven right.

[Cliche Guevara]

Why would you be cooperative with an organisation that is trying to take you for £90 plus million?

Murray's offer of £10million was, effectively a bribe, to make this shit go away. The tribunal was there to determine whether the payments were subject to tax, or not, not whether they were legal, or not. This shit is just about to get real for quite a number of people...

[FinnesTON]

Rangers should apologise for being persecuted after using a perfectly legal tax avoidance system.

You clowns are f**king mental :lol:

Maybe if your old club hadn't gave away those 'loans' you would have been in a position to pay off creditors or been in a position that Whyte would never have gotten involved which was old Minty's fault .

[Paquis]

Murray's offer of £10million was, effectively a bribe, to make this shit go away. The tribunal was there to determine whether the payments were subject to tax, or not, not whether they were legal, or not. This shit is just about to get real for quite a number of people...

It was an offer to settle out of court - or in this case out of Tribunal. It happens all the time. I believe that Arsenal settled their EBT case in this way. The shit has gone away unless HMRC appeal. But they can only appeal on a point of law so their options are limited.

[Cliche Guevara]

It was an offer to settle out of court - or in this case out of Tribunal. It happens all the time. I believe that Arsenal settled their EBT case in this way. The shit has gone away unless HMRC appeal. But they can only appeal on a point of law so their options are limited.

No, he knows what's coming.

You seem like a relatively sensible guy. I think this article is far more illuminating than has been recognised thus far

What Comes Next

And what about my point over EBT loans being payments that require to be declared? I'd be interested in your view on that.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Cliche Guevara

[Republic]

Great post. Appellants should always apologise, especially when they have been proven right.

FFS big man.

Are you seriously suggesting that the bold Minty is in no way responsible for any of the shit that's happened ?

Deluded in the extreme if you are

[killingfloorman]

Great post. Appellants should always apologise, especially when they have been proven right.

read it again, i was talking about *all* the upheaval caused over the last few years. Or is Murray et al completely innocent of causing any upheaval?

c'mon berrz, you're better than that. Aren't you?

[Guest Kincardine]

No, he knows what's coming.

You seem like a relatively sensible guy. I think this article is far more illuminating than has been recognised thus far

What Comes Next

And what about my point over EBT loans being payments that require to be declared? I'd be interested in your view on that.

This has been posted already. I commented on it.

I said:

Not interesting at all. The whole, "In the mid 1960′s a fifteen year old girl ran away from home." stuff is just fabricated shite.

What is this? The scion of The Big Tax Case Blog?

The opening 3rd of that shite is to blogging what The People's Friend was to journalism.

Is this what The Plastics are hanging their hope of redistributed titles on?

Looks like I am right. Shame on you for not reading the forum that you're posting on. Shame again for regurgitating propagandist crap from whichever e-mail list that you subscribe to and shame, lastly, for trying to be original and failing.

[Paquis]

No, he knows what's coming.

You seem like a relatively sensible guy. I think this article is far more illuminating than has been recognised thus far

What Comes Next

And what about my point over EBT loans being payments that require to be declared? I'd be interested in your view on that.

Yes, I read that. It is interesting stuff but it has a number of flaws.

First it relies far too much on the dissenting opinion which, by the author's own admission, had nothing to do with the actual legalities of the decision. In fact, he says himself that he would have arrived at the same decision as the majority. While the dissenting opinion had given great comfort to those who are critical of Rangers and who were surprised by the result, it is the majority decision that actually matters here.

Second, it speculates on what BDO might or might not do. But the reality is that Murray sold Rangers as a going concern to Craig Whyte. It was Whyte who failed to pay HMRC not Murray. It was Whyte that put Rangers into liquidation and not Murray. He questions why Murray did not provide for the BTC. But that is a judgement call and not an absolute accounting rule. Further, the result of the BTC shows that Murray was right not to provide for it.

The sale of Rangers to Whyte and the subsequent administration and liquidation were caused by the risk of losing the BTC and not because the underlying business was insolvent. While I think that Whyte absolutely was a conman and that he has many questions to answer for his actions in the short time he was in charge at Rangers, it will be much harder to pin any wrongdoing on Murray.

Basing his discussion on the dissenting opinion, he is very critical of some of the witnesses. That may be justified but it is not relevant. HMRC can only appeal on a point of law and not on whether the dissenting judge thought the witnesses were shifty.

He also confuses Rangers and Murray Group in his argument. Rangers were part of the Murray Group. It was the Murray Group that was the defendant. The Murray Group was profitable even if Rangers were not.

The fact is that while this 'stuff' may have been 'dodgy' (all his words) it was also legal and, for the most part, not subject to tax. While Murray certainly sailed close to the wind and there is no doubt that this was a tax avoidance scheme, that in itself does not signify wrongdoing. That reality will hamper any attempt by BDO or by the SFA/SPL to attack Rangers, their former owners or directors on the question of EBTs. The Tribunal made a number of findings of fact which clearly establish the nature of the payments made by Rangers. Because of that, those facts will be very hard to challenge going forward.

Unfortunately, the real agenda of the blogger is revealed towards the end of his rather long piece. Like so many others he has already decided that Rangers are guilty. His over-reliance on the dissenting opinion is a rather clumsy attempt to make an argument that Rangers are still guilty and it is okay for the SFA/SPL or BDO to go after them. His blog is rather long on polemic but rather short on the legal basis as to how this can actually happen.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Paquis

[Guest Kincardine]

FFS big man.

Are you seriously suggesting that the bold Minty is in no way responsible for any of the shit that's happened ?

Deluded in the extreme if you are

I could go on for hours about Moonbeans. Some good and some bad.

Sir Minty has been responsible for some of the best of times and some of the worst of times in my 40+ years of watching Rangers.

The best? Some of the football we played during Wee Dick's (overspending) tenure was breathtaking. Like it or not we were a truly world-class team in that epoch.

The worst? "For every fiver Celtic spend we'l spend a tenner."

Sounded shameful at the time and age doesn't improve it.

Minty was an arse. However, he was our arse. Most of us bought in to his 'vision' for right or wrong.

[Bendarroch]

hud yer weesht. I specified individuals who should apologise (except for the HMRC and I imagine you'd want them to all apoligse).

Be reasonable, add to the list.

Liewell

Milne

Petrie

Gilmour

Yorkston

Yon baldy c**t at Dundee Hibs

Fat boy McKenzie

Yellateef

Romanov

Hutton

Spiers

McNally

I could be here forever listing the c***s...

[Cliche Guevara]

This has been posted already. I commented on it.

I said:

Not interesting at all. The whole, "In the mid 1960′s a fifteen year old girl ran away from home." stuff is just fabricated shite.

What is this? The scion of The Big Tax Case Blog?

The opening 3rd of that shite is to blogging what The People's Friend was to journalism.

Is this what The Plastics are hanging their hope of redistributed titles on?

Looks like I am right. Shame on you for not reading the forum that you're posting on. Shame again for regurgitating propagandist crap from whichever e-mail list that you subscribe to and shame, lastly, for trying to be original and failing.

I know it has. This is where I got it from - I even referenced it in my post that you quoted.

The article was written by an extremely intelligent, experienced and learned professional in the field. You Rangers fans really are a frightening breed - unable to follow straight-forward posts on the internet, or comprehend basic logic, but if you reckon that article is shite then that's good enough for me!

[Guest Kincardine]

I know it has. This is where I got it from - I even referenced it in my post that you quoted.

The article was written by an extremely intelligent, experienced and learned professional in the field. You Rangers fans really are a frightening breed - unable to follow straight-forward posts on the internet, or comprehend basic logic, but if you reckon that article is shite then that's good enough for me!

You haven't read either my comment nor, more importantly, Paquis's remarks above.

You seem to think that posting a link to an ill-considered and whimsical blog is enough.

S

[killingfloorman]

Yes, I read that. It is interesting stuff but it has a number of flaws.

First it relies far too much on the dissenting opinion which, by the author's own admission, had nothing to do with the actual legalities of the decision. In fact, he says himself that he would have arrived at the same decision as the majority. While the dissenting opinion had given great comfort to those who are critical of Rangers and who were surprised by the result, it is the majority decision that actually matters here.

Second, it speculates on what BDO might or might not do. But the reality is that Murray sold Rangers as a going concern to Craig Whyte. It was Whyte who failed to pay HMRC not Murray. It was Whyte that put Rangers into liquidation and not Murray. He questions why Murray did not provide for the BTC. But that is a judgement call and not an absolute accounting rule. Further, the result of the BTC shows that Murray was right not to provide for it.

The sale of Rangers to Whyte and the subsequent administration and liquidation were caused by the risk of losing the BTC and not because the underlying business was insolvent. While I think that Whyte absolutely was a conman and that he has many questions to answer for his actions in the short time he was in charge at Rangers, it will be much harder to pin any wrongdoing on Murray.

Basing his discussion on the dissenting opinion, he is very critical of some of the witnesses. That may be justified but it is not relevant. HMRC can only appeal on a point of law and not on whether the dissenting judge thought the witnesses were shifty.

He also confuses Rangers and Murray Group in his argument. Rangers were part of the Murray Group. It was the Murray Group that was the defendant. The Murray Group was profitable even if Rangers were not.

The fact is that while this 'stuff' may have been 'dodgy' (all his words) it was also legal and, for the most part, not subject to tax. While Murray certainly sailed close to the wind and there is no doubt that this was a tax avoidance scheme, that in itself does not signify wrongdoing. That reality will hamper any attempt by BDO or by the SFA/SPL to attack Rangers, their former owners or directors on the question of EBTs. The Tribunal made a number of findings of fact which clearly establish the nature of the payments made by Rangers. Because of that, those facts will be very hard to challenge going forward.

Unfortunately, the real agenda of the blogger is revealed towards the end of his rather long piece. Like so many others he has already decided that Rangers are guilty. His over-reliance on the dissenting opinion is a rather clumsy attempt to make an argument that Rangers are still guilty and it is okay for the SFA/SPL or BDO to go after them. His blog is rather long on polemic but rather short on the legal basis as to how this can actually happen.

This is a well considered answer. Thank you for adding to the thread where so many other just detract.

[Cliche Guevara]

Yes, I read that. It is interesting stuff but it has a number of flaws.

First it relies far too much on the dissenting opinion which, by the author's own admission, had nothing to do with the actual legalities of the decision. In fact, he says himself that he would have arrived at the same decision as the majority. While the dissenting opinion had given great comfort to those who are critical of Rangers and who were surprised by the result, it is the majority decision that actually matters here.

Second, it speculates on what BDO might or might not do. But the reality is that Murray sold Rangers as a going concern to Craig Whyte. It was Whyte who failed to pay HMRC not Murray. It was Whyte that put Rangers into liquidation and not Murray. He questions why Murray did not provide for the BTC. But that is a judgement call and not an absolute accounting rule. Further, the result of the BTC shows that Murray was right not to provide for it.

The sale of Rangers to Whyte and the subsequent administration and liquidation were caused by the risk of losing the BTC and not because the underlying business was insolvent. While I think that Whyte absolutely was a conman and that he has many questions to answer for his actions in the short time he was in charge at Rangers, it will be much harder to pin any wrongdoing on Murray.

Basing his discussion on the dissenting opinion, he is very critical of some of the witnesses. That may be justified but it is not relevant. HMRC can only appeal on a point of law and not on whether the dissenting judge thought the witnesses were shifty.

He also confuses Rangers and Murray Group in his argument. Rangers were part of the Murray Group. It was the Murray Group that was the defendant. The Murray Group was profitable even if Rangers were not.

The fact is that while this 'stuff' may have been 'dodgy' (all his words) it was also legal and, for the most part, not subject to tax. While Murray certainly sailed close to the wind and there is no doubt that this was a tax avoidance scheme, that in itself does not signify wrongdoing. That reality will hamper any attempt by BDO or by the SFA/SPL to attack Rangers, their former owners or directors on the question of EBTs. The Tribunal made a number of findings of fact which clearly establish the nature of the payments made by Rangers. Because of that, those facts will be very hard to challenge going forward.

Unfortunately, the real agenda of the blogger is revealed towards the end of his rather long piece. Like so many others he has already decided that Rangers are guilty. His over-reliance on the dissenting opinion is a rather clumsy attempt to make an argument that Rangers are still guilty and it is okay for the SFA/SPL or BDO to go after them. His blog is rather long on polemic but rather short on the legal basis as to how this can actually happen.

I wonder if what has been established here is the EBTs are loans and are, therefore, recoverable which was the HMRC's initial intention. This seems to be the decision that two of the Tribunal 'had' to make (and the author would also have made) - because, according to the article, this is what the HMRC presented. This particular observation is only my own, but it would be an interesting set-up to an Upper Tribunal appeal. That appeal being based on whether the Tribunal was able to make further findings in law, in accordance with the Ramsay principle.

There is also a significant amount of evidence from the Tribunal that effectively hangs Rangers in terms of any appeal and also the SPL case. Not to mention criminal proceedings against a number of people involved in the setting up and administration of the Trusts. This Tribunal has stuck quite a lot of shit to quite a lot of people. What was determined, as things stand, was the EBTs were not liable for tax, not that they were operated lawfully.

People seem pretty determined that HMRC should never have taken things this far (wrongly) so Murray's £10million offer is at serious odds with that contention. It was the offer of a guy who knows his vulnerability runs far deeper.

And what about these loans being declared?

[Cliche Guevara]

You haven't read either my comment nor, more importantly, Paquis's remarks above.

Which comment?

The blog details significant extracts from the judgements, and of the evidence of many of the most significant witnesses. This is testimony under oath. There was plenty going on at that Tribunal that has wider implications. Even completely ignoring the writer's take on proceedings, which you are free to do, the facts as established in the case are pretty illuminating and give rise to many further possible sanctions.

It also completely demonstrates that many employees of Rangers gave testimony, under oath, that their EBTs were expected as payment under their employment by the club. These are facts.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Cliche Guevara