chico Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Puts an interesting slant on Whyte's comments about HMRC rejecting various 'offers' from Rangers - if true, would suggest that they'll accept full payment or nothing? On the PAYE contributions withheld since Whyte took over? I'd bloody hope HMRC aren't cutting a deal over that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one m in Motherwell Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Well, they've been pretty ineffectual thus far...wouldn't surprise me TBH! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Would't that be the same case for every company that owes HMRC money? I'm pretty sure they would be quick to put them into liquidation they do deals all the time. vodafone and goldman sachs being the two most high profile recent examples of companies who got large discounts despite being capable of paying the full amount owed. the difference in relationship between clubs and supporters and an ordinary business and it's customers means applying the normal rules of business isn't going to work. no matter what hmrc do there will be people paying into ibrox to watch rangers, surely they are as well trying to get something back off them? what should happen is that directors are criminally responsible for payment of tax. that's the only thing that would stop shit like this but it will never happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) if they want any money they'll make a deal otherwise they will get nothing. Which in itself is probably right, but disregards the notion that HMRC might not hesitate to put a stake through Rangers heart if they can, and 'write off' the 49 million. (Should they win the big tax case). The notion being that HMRC are fed up being pissed around by the likes of Portsmouth and are attempting to draw a line in the sand. Go for liquidation in the Rangers case, and put the fear of Jesus into the bigger EPL clubs, who have combined debts to HMRC that dwarf what Rangers would owe them. We have no way of knowing yet if HMRC are genuinely wanting to cut a deal with Rangers to get at least some of their money, or if, unfortunately for Rangers, the Ibrox club will be viewed as something to be made an example of, with a view to HMRC frightening the English giants. Edited February 21, 2012 by pozbaird 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 What sort of deal can they strike, with what money? HMRC don't accept a fraction in the pound, and who's to say getting the money back is even the main purpose in this for HMRC? If HMRC liquidate Rangers and deter ten other companies from the same tax-cheating then it's a job well done. they accepted less than the full amount from vodafone. i don't understand how rangers dodging tens of millions of tax with the end result of the company being wound up and another one immediately forming - which is the same in all but company name - is going to deter anyone from anything? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 they accepted less than the full amount from vodafone. i don't understand how rangers dodging tens of millions of tax with the end result of the company being wound up and another one immediately forming - which is the same in all but company name - is going to deter anyone from anything? Would starting -15 pts for three seasons and a euro football ban for the same period really be the same deterrent for a rangers newco instead of being humped for £49 million to be repaid to HMRC? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 they accepted less than the full amount from vodafone. i don't understand how rangers dodging tens of millions of tax with the end result of the company being wound up and another one immediately forming - which is the same in all but company name - is going to deter anyone from anything? Vodafone are an international company though with a huge market share of the telecommunications sector. I take your second point though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 If HMRC liquidate Rangers and deter ten other companies from the same tax-cheating then it's a job well done. But you are not taking into account that Rangers are a Scottish institution with the best, most loyal fans in the world. Surely that must figure in the equation? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 they accepted less than the full amount from vodafone. They haven't accepted CVAs from any recent Scottish club placed in administration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Given that the fans haven't yet bought their season tickets yet, Whyte seems to be on the hook for the ticketus money. Would take a stunning display of discipline and sense to break out from the peepul for none of them to buy ST's, just pay per game and shaft Whyte. (assuming liquidation is avoided) That makes a couple of assumptions though: [1] that the deal distinguishes Season Tickets specifially. As was discussed on Sportsound on Saturday, that may not be the case: it may simply be a "common phraseology" because most clubs use Ticketus money to tide-over the spring, and then repay it with ST money during the summer. It may just be "tickets" in general. [2] that even if that wasn't the case - the benefit of shafting Whyte, if infact that'd be the result anyway, would outweigh the problems caused by being unable to pay Ticketus. Is it hugely unusual for this sort of arrangement in business, ie the use of money from within the club? When the Glazers bought Man Utd, didn't they effectively 'refund' themselves and in doing so ramped-up the debt? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 That makes a couple of assumptions though: [1] that the deal distinguishes Season Tickets specifially. As was discussed on Sportsound on Saturday, that may not be the case: it may simply be a "common phraseology" because most clubs use Ticketus money to tide-over the spring, and then repay it with ST money during the summer. It may just be "tickets" in general. always said as being 'season tickets' but we don't know the contract. [2] that even if that wasn't the case - the benefit of shafting Whyte, if infact that'd be the result anyway, would outweigh the problems caused by being unable to pay Ticketus. true, can't imagine that Whyte would be het for that amount though, he's been cure enough so far, so why would he stand as the security or guarantor on that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 They haven't accepted CVAs from any recent Scottish club placed in administration. they've never been in this situation before. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 they've never been in this situation before. What is that supposed to mean? HMRC were the driving force behind Dundee's administration, were owed a significance sum of money, and only the use of dodgy soft loans by their directors stopped HMRC blocking the CVA and liquidating the club. There is no evidence that they will simply roll over and take a fraction of what they are owed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veteran Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 But you are not taking into account that Rangers are a Scottish institution with the best, most loyal fans in the world. Surely that must figure in the equation? Be interesting how loyalty copes with a few years in the wilderness with no prospect of winning anything. I suspect it would evaporate like snow in July. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 so do we know what Traynor ment when he said that Whyte had "sold the history of the club" then ? sold Ibrox ? Sold the silverware ? weighed in that bronze statue of John Greig ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy1967 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Craig Whyte...A fuckin love you man! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Be interesting how loyalty copes with a few years in the wilderness with no prospect of winning anything. I suspect it would evaporate like snow in July. have a look back at the attendances at Ibrox pre Souness ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 What is that supposed to mean? HMRC were the driving force behind Dundee's administration, were owed a significance sum of money, and only the use of dodgy soft loans by their directors stopped HMRC blocking the CVA and liquidating the club. There is no evidence that they will simply roll over and take a fraction of what they are owed. liquidating dundee and accepting the cva were probably both worth about the same to hmrc. in this case if whyte's preffered creditor status is legit then they are looking at maybe cutting a deal for tens of millions over decades or getting nothing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Nothing he's done so far looks to have been illegal. Unpopular yes, but not illegal... so he's still "winning" as things stand. What's interesting is the complicity of otherwise of Murray International in him being able to take-over with money generated from the selling-off of STs. Alistair Johnstone has said previously on Sportsound that MI exclusively dealt with all the checks/due-diligence/etc. Anyone got a view on the relationship of MIM with their bank (as MIM was going through a 'difficult' phase) and the financial position of Rangers. Rangers is after all a cash driven business. Maybe somebody could do us a graph of one against the other? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) in this case if whyte's preffered creditor status is legit then they are looking at maybe cutting a deal for tens of millions over decades or getting nothing. Would you trust Rangers to pay the money back over decades? Given the amount of money passing in and out HMRC's coffers, I think you're seriously over-estimating the value of Rangers' debt in the grand scheme of things. HMRC can afford to play hard-ball here if they get the chance. If Rangers fail to con their way out of a CVA, or make sure that HMRC aren't holding 25% or more of the creditors list, then they are in imminent danger of liquidation. Any other claim is hubris as far as I can see. Edited February 22, 2012 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.