Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[The_Kincardine]

5 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

All rather silly now.

It genuinely is to your shame.

So how proud are you of HMRC pissing money away?

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

So how proud are you of HMRC pissing money away?

I would not be proud of such a thing, but I don't believe that that's what happened when Murray's cynical offer was rejected.

I don't know why you do this.  Is it to get in with the other Rangers guys, or just a rhetorical exercise - a bit of sport?

Either way, as I said it's a bit silly and marks a departure from how you once posted.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

3 hours ago, The DA said:

Aye, that's more than 5 pages a day since 2012.  Slowing down a wee bit now - a bit like Joey.

<<<Seething. 

[stonedsailor]

12 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Mon then Ken.  I've been out for a while.  Where are the EBT rascals?

OK given you've, again, diverted the thread for no good reason let's wind back.  HMRC were offered a settlement by The Mint.  That they didn't accept it is to their eternal shame.  HMRC have been incompetent and profligate and it is beyond credulity that they haven't been castigated on here.  Then again, one simply cannot expect The Diddies to do joined-up thinking.

Why should they be castigated? As it stands they were correct to pursue Rangers and look to get all their money back, even if it does bankrupt some of your former heroes.

Good job by the HMRC IMHO. Better to see them chasing cheating clubs and millionaire footballers than Joe Bloggs who filled his return out erroneously.

[stonedsailor]

10 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

So how proud are you of HMRC pissing money away?

Recovering money from cheats is not cheap.

 

How proud are you that many of your old heroes will end up financially ruined due to your club’s greed?

Edited August 12, 2016 by stonedsailor

[stonedsailor]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-rangers-stars-face-ruin-7659540#JP0CTYuD9BsKk0Se.97

[stonedsailor]

On 02/04/2016 at 13:15, Njord said:

"Whine whine club should pay it".

They weren't employed by the club though were they. That died.

 

[strichener]

16 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Mon then Ken.  I've been out for a while.  Where are the EBT rascals?

OK given you've, again, diverted the thread for no good reason let's wind back.  HMRC were offered a settlement by The Mint.  That they didn't accept it is to their eternal shame.  HMRC have been incompetent and profligate and it is beyond credulity that they haven't been castigated on here.  Then again, one simply cannot expect The Diddies to do joined-up thinking.

Quote

Jennie Granger, HMRC’s director general of enforcement and compliance, said: ‘Time is running out for anyone who used an EBT to avoid paying tax and still hasn’t settled with HMRC through the settlement opportunity.

‘EBTs are avoidance vehicles and we will continue to pursue those who do not pay up. I would encourage all employers who have used these schemes to take this opportunity to settle under these clear terms. They can hold out and litigate, but they may well end up paying more tax, as well as big legal fees. They are also up against HMRC’s strong litigation record – we win around 80% of avoidance cases heard in the courts.

The EBT settlement opportunity, which launched in April 2011, has raised £800 million in tax and National Insurance Contributions from around 700 employers who previously used the trusts as tax avoidance vehicles.

£800m raised as a result of HMRC not accepting derisory offers of settlements and putting in place the EBTSO.

Edited August 12, 2016 by strichener

[stonedsailor]

11 minutes ago, strichener said:

£800m raised as a result of HMRC not accepting derisory offers of settlements and putting in place the EBTSO.

Proud as Punch.

[Ken Fitlike]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

£800m raised as a result of HMRC not accepting derisory offers of settlements and putting in place the EBTSO.

HMRC displaying typical Diddy mindset. ( in Kincardine's curious wee world)

[strichener]

Rangers to sue for £4m for under-valued commercial deals.

For an entity that was only worth £5m at the time of purchase and then played in the lowest league, this seems a rather fruitless pursuit.  Of course if the business wants to be treated like a billy big baws then I am sure that they will be happy for Glasgow City Assessor to re-access the commercial worth of Ibrox stadium and re-institute the rateable value in place before liquidation.

[stonedsailor]

18 minutes ago, strichener said:

Rangers to sue for £4m for under-valued commercial deals.

For an entity that was only worth £5m at the time of purchase and then played in the lowest league, this seems a rather fruitless pursuit.  Of course if the business wants to be treated like a billy big baws then I am sure that they will be happy for Glasgow City Assessor to re-access the commercial worth of Ibrox stadium and re-institute the rateable value in place before liquidation.

What is the going rate for stadium naming rights and advertising space in Scottish 4th tier? I imagine Rangers were paid higher than the average for that tier.

 

Still it will give the Orcs something else to think about other than the fact their old players are about to be bankrupted by the immoral practices of the club.

Edited August 12, 2016 by stonedsailor

[The_Kincardine]

4 hours ago, strichener said:

£800m raised as a result of HMRC not accepting derisory offers of settlements and putting in place the EBTSO.

This will be filed under 'true but irrelevant'.  The quote you posted values each settlement at a shade over £1M each - and HMRC were offered 10x that by The Mint. That they chose to squander so many more millions flogging a dead horse is to their shame and that it's not being roundly condemned by the diddies on here is shocking but unsurprising.

[Romeo]

11 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

 flogging a dead horse

Never a truer word spoken.

[strichener]

19 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

This will be filed under 'true but irrelevant'.  The quote you posted values each settlement at a shade over £1M each - and HMRC were offered 10x that by The Mint. That they chose to squander so many more millions flogging a dead horse is to their shame and that it's not being roundly condemned by the diddies on here is shocking but unsurprising.

How many millions have they squandered?  £800,000,000?

If HMRC did not challenge this practice, the UK treasury would have been £800,000,000 worse off.  The only irrelevance here is your attempt to equate the number of settlements to Rangers' offer.  Are you going to claim that HMRC would have been better off accepting £10m from Rangers than where they are sitting at the moment?  Let's not forget that Rangers have already accepted some of the rulings and therefore admit to owing HMRC for EBTs.  Money that HMRC will no doubt receive (a percentage of) from BDO.

Anyway you look at the numbers you can only conclude that HMRC were justified in rejecting the offer from Rangers.

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by strichener

[The_Kincardine]

13 minutes ago, strichener said:

Anyway you look at the numbers you can only conclude that HMRC were justified in rejecting the offer from Rangers.

 

That HMRC raised £800M elsewhere ergo they were right to pursue Rangers is the argument of the brain dead.  They are even too embarrassed to share how much they have squandered.

That they get a share of the creditors' pot would be true irrespective of any court action and all they have done is reduce the pot and line the pockets of BDO and their lawyers.  Dreadful stuff from HMRC.

[strichener]

6 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

That HMRC raised £800M elsewhere ergo they were right to pursue Rangers is the argument of the brain dead.  They are even too embarrassed to share how much they have squandered.

That they get a share of the creditors' pot would be true irrespective of any court action and all they have done is reduce the pot and line the pockets of BDO and their lawyers.  Dreadful stuff from HMRC.

No, you have it round the wrong way.  HMRC took a hard-line against EBTs which resulted in it raising £800m.  That Rangers did not partake in the EBTSO is the reason that they were taken to a tribunal.  That BDO continue to defend the actions of the company in liquidation is absolutely nothing to do with HMRC.  A quick look at the BDO report shows that since liquidation started they have spent 200k on Counsel costs, I would be surprised in HMRC had spend £7m which is what they are likely to get out of Rangers for these cases alone.

Edited August 12, 2016 by strichener

[The_Kincardine]

8 minutes ago, strichener said:

That BDO continue to defend the actions of the company in liquidation is absolutely nothing to do with HMRC. 

An extraordinary statement.

[stonedsailor]

26 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

That HMRC raised £800M elsewhere ergo they were right to pursue Rangers is the argument of the brain dead.  They are even too embarrassed to share how much they have squandered.

That they get a share of the creditors' pot would be true irrespective of any court action and all they have done is reduce the pot and line the pockets of BDO and their lawyers.  Dreadful stuff from HMRC.

HMRC can now chase the players and other recipients for the full amount owed by Rangers. A lot more than the amount minty offered. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by stonedsailor

[The_Kincardine]

Just now, stonedsailor said:

HMRC can now chase the players and other recipients for the full amount owed. A lot more than the amount minty offered. 

That's because the law changed - not because HMRC pissed money away.