Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

Surely there is some legal recourse though Nizzy? Surely you can't just walk away from a liability that big - bigger than all the assets owned by the club. If it was possible then companies everywhere would operate in the exact same manner and just walk away from their debts.

Tax avoidance prosecutions on a corporate level appear in the courts far more frequently than you think. In most of the successful prosecutions it leads to some person or other being barred from being a director for a period of time but the loss to HMRC is still there whether it be 20p/£ or 90p/£. Once the Administrators unload the pre-package Whyte get his (or a portion of) his dough, settles HIS tax liability (the tax accrued during HIS ownership) and is offski, with an order telling him he can't be a director of a company for another x years - big deal. The tax debt against the now defunct company is gone because there is nothing left to sell to recover it.

HMRC............The Costa Concordia of Taxation Collection dry.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That means there is no chance of a CVA without HMRC's blessing. Whatever lessons need to be learned from previous examples, HMRC will have done so.

Today we are a step closer to the world's largest jelly and ice cream street party. Hopefully Thatcher joins them 6 feet under to make the occasion truly unique.

Pleasing.

While CVA may not be possible without HMRC's agreement. Whyte need not follow that route. The company can enter into a pre-packaged agreement with another party to sell the assets of the club and HMRC can do little about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever the administrator is, they have to act in the best interests of the creditors (not the club). If they don't, then their position will be challenged and a court will appoint their own.

You'd like to think so. Unfortunately, just last year Dundee managed to appoint a stooge who kept on a stack of players they couldn't afford, as it was the best thing for the club's league position. I'd presume the sums involved in the Rangers tax case would sharpen HMRC's mind to this practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magnificent gesture from Sone Alukos village in Nigeria.

They have just donated a set of football strips to Rangers.

... I hope you're not being serious. Sone Aluko's "village in Nigeria" is Hounslow. In England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A New Co Rangers can't simply have assets transfered to them by Rangers. The assets (i.e. Ibrox etc) can only be bought. As has happened in real business many times, these assets can be bought at reduced values due to their lack of appeal for anyone else to buy. (Many industries conduct this through auctions).

Therefore, a New Co Rangers could theoretically only dodge the tax bill entirely and still waltz into the league, by having zero assets. They would then have to try to buy back, or rent Ibrox (which would have been retained as an asset of the company about to be wound up, with the intention of selling on to assist in payment of creditors).

That's spot on. Ignore the term 'pre-pack' I used earlier - any such agreement would have been concluded the moment (or very close to it) the club went into administration. They'll be looking for a quick sale of assets, probably to a company owned by Whyte - one that beats the remaining sanction deadlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not looking to be a FunSucker here fellas but please...... read the WHOLE THREAD...... What Whyte has done today is going to BENEFIT Rangers in the long term mad.gif He, or more importantly his lawyers, have outwitted the cretins at HMRC who were looking to make an example of a football club and the way they circumvent tax law in this country. In adopting this shit or bust approach they have ended up with the distinct possibility of having to eat a shite sandwich.

Rangers are not done. In whatever form you see it, they WILL be back.... The SPL cant have it any other way.... fact.

Now - I need to go take a shower - I feel dirty.... sad.gif

Is there any obligation on Whyte to ensure the survival of Rangers? It would seem to be the opposite of his track record. He's built his wealth by buying struggling companies, hiving off whatever assets he can, sometimes legally, and leaving the other creditors shafted and the business defunct. I don't see why this should progress any differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd like to think so. Unfortunately, just last year Dundee managed to appoint a stooge who kept on a stack of players they couldn't afford, as it was the best thing for the club's league position. I'd presume the sums involved in the Rangers tax case would sharpen HMRC's mind to this practice.

Didn't they also refuse cash offers for players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are fooling no one I'm afraid.

Your contributions to this thread have oozed Creamdom.

Honestly !????

laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

You off your medication again ?

Sorry if my input has awoken you from your wet dream but hey - reality bites - ask David Thompson of the HMRC legal dept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any obligation on Whyte to ensure the survival of Rangers? It would seem to be the opposite of his track record. He's built his wealth by buying struggling companies, hiving off whatever assets he can, sometimes legally, and leaving the other creditors shafted and the business defunct. I don't see why this should progress any differently.

I referred to this earlier as the main reason why Rangers supporters should be concerned. Sure, Whyte is taking a gamble, but not with his own money/house/job, or even his reputation, as that is fucked already.

Edited by Drooper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any obligation on Whyte to ensure the survival of Rangers? It would seem to be the opposite of his track record. He's built his wealth by buying struggling companies, hiving off whatever assets he can, sometimes legally, and leaving the other creditors shafted and the business defunct. I don't see why this should progress any differently.

It also begs the question: if it's that easy and and profitable to do so, why did no other Rangers-supporting businessman touch the club with a bargepole, even at £1? Why did they leave it for Whyte with his baggage?

Surely there was a Rangers businessman out there who thought of this masterplan, and wanted to clear the debt?

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's spot on. Ignore the term 'pre-pack' I used earlier - any such agreement would have been concluded the moment (or very close to it) the club went into administration. They'll be looking for a quick sale of assets, probably to a company owned by Whyte - one that beats the remaining sanction deadlines.

Indeed, a quick sale in order to ensure payment of some sort can be made to any creditors. However, legally the administrator is obliged to receive as fair and appropriate a price as possible. If they sold Ibrox for £50 for example, HMRC could challenge the administrators in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd like to think so. Unfortunately, just last year Dundee managed to appoint a stooge who kept on a stack of players they couldn't afford, as it was the best thing for the club's league position. I'd presume the sums involved in the Rangers tax case would sharpen HMRC's mind to this practice.

Too true. It really sticks with me that any business could get to the point of being £75m in debt to anyone and come to some agreement to pay back a fraction of it. Maybe I'll try that with the taxman next year, "Sorry, I decided to buy a car, house and go on a massive holiday instead of paying my tax bill so I've decided to organise an administrator and give you a tenner, ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any obligation on Whyte to ensure the survival of Rangers? It would seem to be the opposite of his track record. He's built his wealth by buying struggling companies, hiving off whatever assets he can, sometimes legally, and leaving the other creditors shafted and the business defunct. I don't see why this should progress any differently.

None at all. He is the major secured creditor and as such will be at the head of the queue when the assets are sold. Liquidation. He cares not one jot about how they go about rising phoenix-like from the debris, but they will and the SPL will be pre-eminent in helping that happen because their product is worth far less with just Cellik reaming everybody in a stroll to the umpteenth title.

Its shockingly dirty business - but.... that's business. dry.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too true. It really sticks with me that any business could get to the point of being £75m in debt to anyone and come to some agreement to pay back a fraction of it. Maybe I'll try that with the taxman next year, "Sorry, I decided to buy a car, house and go on a massive holiday instead of paying my tax bill so I've decided to organise an administrator and give you a tenner, ok?

Sorry - that's personal taxation not corporate... good luck with that plan though...wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...