GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 The hold ups in his takeover of the club were not of his doing in the main.The Tax Case, the "unknown" Tax Issue which was found late in proceedings, the reluctance of the Board to ratify his takeover.All hold ups on the club's part - nothing to do with Craig Whyte.I'm not surprised he's having a clearout.After all, some of the Board were sitting on £25m (apparently) and only made this known as Craig Whyte's takeover neared completion.Why did these Board Members not put this money up a while ago when we needed it most?I'm sure it woulda kept Lloyds away from our door and given us room to manouvre in the transfer market and offering players better contracts to stay with us.Was this £25m available when we let our top scorer go to Turkey for the sake of 2 or 3 thousand pounds a week, or when we lost Commons to celtic for the sake of a few thousand pounds more?The Board IMO don't deserve to be treated any differently than they are.Of course if Sir David goes his board go with him...i have never argued otherwisethe tax case was far from unknown when Whyte originally expressed his interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebooler 4,509 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Of course if Sir David goes his board go with him...i have never argued otherwisethe tax case was far from unknown when Whyte originally expressed his interest.Which one?One was known, the other wasn't known until he had nearly completed his takeover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Two tax cases..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis 1,011 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 do you call taking 7 months to buy the club going for the jugular.... No, I call ripping the board room apart going for the jugular. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Eh?! There's two separate tax cases, or two investigations in the one?I wasn't aware of this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebooler 4,509 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Two tax cases..... Yes, 2.The main case which everyone knew about, and the one nobody except SDM knew about, dating back a number of years.This is the one that was partly responsible for the takeover being held up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Which member of the fourth estate will have the balls to ask those probing questions, and in doing so risk life on the outside, looking in?It should come from the fans. Supporters assembly or something.He should start as he means to go on and be open to fan interaction. If he isnt, then its just gonna be same old shit, different day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebooler 4,509 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Eh?! There's two separate tax cases, or two investigations in the one?I wasn't aware of this.There was a small tax issue outwith the main one which held things up for a while but it's no longer an issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Yes, 2.The main case which everyone knew about, and the one nobody except SDM knew about, dating back a number of years.This is the one that was partly responsible for the takeover being held up.It's the same investigation.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcheVinny 1,003 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 What's so bad about owing someone else the money? We had perfectly manageable levels of debt for a company our size with the turnover we have. So we owe someone else the money and pay it back sensibly without shrinking like we have done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 No, I call ripping the board room apart going for the jugular.Asking the old board to leave when the current owner sells a business is fairly standard ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 It should come from the fans. Supporters assembly or something.He should start as he means to go on and be open to fan interaction. If he isnt, then its just gonna be same old shit, different day.I totally agree, but our various fan organisations are even more toothless than the Scottish press. They're all too busy trying to feather their own nests. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebooler 4,509 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 It's the same investigation....Craig Whyte never knew that at the time.He wasn't even aware of the "other" issue until he was about to complete his takeover.A certain member on here will confirm (or deny) I told him back in January that the takeover would be completed by March 31st (2011!!!!!). This was Craig Whyte's aim, as well as SDM's.It was held up due to this "other" tax issue, and the Bank Holidays at around the same time never helped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis 1,011 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Asking the old board to leave when the current owner sells a business is fairly standard ......I understand what you are saying, but the board where not for leaving, they have stuck the boot into Whyte from start to finish, and are not shining in a good light while doing so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I understand what you are saying, but the board where not for leaving, they have stuck the boot into Whyte from start to finish, and are not shining in a good light while doing so.They said the same about Hugh Adam. Time will be the judge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCDBigBear 10,835 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Eh?! There's two separate tax cases, or two investigations in the one?I wasn't aware of this.One is the Tax Case which is still at tribunal. At this point we do not owe the tax. That is the main one.The second "case" is an actual liability which only came to light during the takeover in February. It is £1.87m plus £0.9 in interest. Think I can see why Mr McIntyre has to go!!!http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/d5/6f/0,,5~159701,00.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebooler 4,509 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 One is the Tax Case which is still at tribunal. At this point we do not owe the tax. That is the main one.The second "case" is an actual liability which only came to light during the takeover in February. It is £1.87m plus £0.9 in interest. Think I can see why Mr McIntyre has to go!!!http://www.rangers.c...5~159701,00.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottBF2 3,540 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Really ?Do you not want conformation on the debt situation or are you happy to wait and hope it is included in the shareholders information (if it is i will be happy to congratulate the man and start to reassess my opinion).Did he not say it's been cleared - isn't being held against The Rangers Football Club anymore?Or does he just mean we don't owe Lloyds anymore? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Which member of the fourth estate will have the balls to ask those probing questions, and in doing so risk life on the outside, looking in?I suppose Darrell King, the enemy without, has nothing to lose... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Did he not say it's been cleared - isn't being held against The Rangers Football Club anymore?Or does he just mean we don't owe Lloyds anymore?the Club's debt to the Lloyds Banking Group has been clearedHe Says we don't owe Lloyds anymore...but that is as far as he goes.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace 3,556 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 under an obligation to waive this debt in the foreseeable futureI think you're on to plums on this one...This is the bit that has continually worried me ... it doesn't say clear the debt enitrely or forever or anything else that suggests a finality to it.I really hope I'm am worrying over nothing, but those two words suggest the sometime to come, the debt could come back or or be presented in a different manner ... I'm not sure in what manner but it just clouds what could have been a statement which said "Rangers FC will no longer owe the £18m .. to anyone"As i said, i hope I am just seeing something that isn't there but ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottBF2 3,540 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 He Says we don't owe Lloyds anymore...but that is as far as he goes....So we could effectively owe the money to Whyte himself, or one of his companies?That can't really be bad, as I'm sure Whyte will be happy to hold onto the debt until such time when he can get his money back through another Takeover. I just hope he isn't expecting the club to repay him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianBacon 2,088 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Six-months of due diligence and not a peep or hint of this recent £1.8m (?) extra tax bill that Sir David Vineyard and only Sir David Vineyard knew about.Either the petite London-based spiv's due diligence guys weren't doing their job properly, or, Sir David Edinburgh-based spiv was being economical with the truth to the shareholders of Rangers FC for a number of years.If the latter is true then surely legal action against the Edinburgh-based spiv should have followed this last tax bill's discovery? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I suppose Darrell King, the enemy without, has nothing to lose... You're just baiting gunny now! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebooler 4,509 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Six-months of due diligence and not a peep or hint of this recent £1.8m (?) extra tax bill that Sir David Vineyard and only Sir David Vineyard knew about.Either the petite London-based spiv's due diligence guys weren't doing their job properly, or, Sir David Edinburgh-based spiv was being economical with the truth to the shareholders of Rangers FC for a number of years.If the latter is true then surely legal action against the Edinburgh-based spiv should have followed this last tax bill's discovery? It was uncovered during the due diligence, no matter how long that due diligence took.I'd imagine due diligence on some companies will take much longer than others, depending on the size of the company, or in SDM's case, the way Rangers FC were tied up in his wider web of companies.Personally, I think the time it took only shows the professionalism of the company carrying it out, that they found everything out before taking over the club, and left no stone unturned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts