Jump to content

Conspiracy


Edmiston Drive

Recommended Posts

The theory doing the rounds about our club going into admin? And Craig Whyte planning for this

Nature of Craig Whytes business this is something that he could plan, as would make the club an even better buy for him! But the club is not like any other business venture, in we would lose points and don't forgot those two ghouls from the est end that sit on the SFA now although we have Campbell there.

So apart from points what else, would make it very hard to win the league! Europe well not in (as we all know :() But, what about the start of next season! if we are still in administration we would be barred from competing in Europe. leading to further income loss.

The players, would their contracts be null and void , i don't know the answer to that one, or to use the title was this the reason our big named players put on those lucrative contracts?

Only a very chosen few actually know what is going on, now that is fact. Forgot about all those numpties of the press and media, just think back to prick Young and all his guff during the lead up to the takeover and fat Traynor another who hinted but never came up with anything

Stories will appear but these are used to catch the loudmouth(s) within the club that may be leaking stuff.

As for who leaked stories about papers being served on the club , well that could be anyone of numerous sourecs,, someone in the courts after all have to go to court for the order to serve, couls ot have been someone at the Sheriff Officers list can go on and on.

That it is right and proper that the club through Craig Whyte or his legal team should nip this in the bud right now.And tell us the supporters of our club. Then if bad we can take it on the chin and move on.

:uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk:

:uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk:And i for one am still counting :21:

The above are as i see it , others may know certain points that i have made are wrong and I welcome their views.

BEFORE ANYONE DIGS ME UP, THERE WAS 54 FLAGS POSTED, BUT DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED doh

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whyte took the club on geared up if the cub goes into Administration i dont see it happening.

I can't (pray) either, that is why I tried to outline (kack handedly I admit) That the club is different from his usual acquisitions. Just tired to post points to highlight tits like prick young and traynor

Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory doing the rounds about our club going into admin? And Craig Whyte planning for this

Nature of Craig Whytes business this is something that he could plan, as would make the club an even better buy for him! But the club is not like any other business venture, in we would lose points and don't forgot those two ghouls from the est end that sit on the SFA now although we have Campbell there.

So apart from points what else, would make it very hard to win the league! Europe well not in (as we all know :() But, what about the start of next season! if we are still in administration we would be barred from competing in Europe. leading to further income loss.

The players, would their contracts be null and void , i don't know the answer to that one, or to use the title was this the reason our big named players put on those lucrative contracts?

Only a very chosen few actually know what is going on, now that is fact. Forgot about all those numpties of the press and media, just think back to prick Young and all his guff during the lead up to the takeover and fat Traynor another who hinted but never came up with anything

Stories will appear but these are used to catch the loudmouth(s) within the club that may be leaking stuff.

As for who leaked stories about papers being served on the club , well that could be anyone of numerous sourecs,, someone in the courts after all have to go to court for the order to serve, couls ot have been someone at the Sheriff Officers list can go on and on.

That it is right and proper that the club through Craig Whyte or his legal team should nip this in the bud right now.And tell us the supporters of our club. Then if bad we can take it on the chin and move on.

:uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk:

:uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk::uk:And i for one am still counting :21:

The above are as i see it , others may know certain points that i have made are wrong and I welcome their views.

BEFORE ANYONE DIGS ME UP, THERE WAS 54 FLAGS POSTED, BUT DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED doh

aye fly the flag and dont listen to any of this bunkum .

Link to post
Share on other sites

The money is there for the wee tax bill, so that won't put us in administration.

The wee court cases with Bain and Lawyers are for small amounts, so that won't put us in administration.

The cash flow issue, if there is one, would have been alleviated by selling a player, we didn't do that, so that won't put us into administration.

The big tax case could run for another couple of years, from what I can see, and the bill won't be anywhere near as high as suggested - negotiable. So that won't put us into administration.

There is no doubt we will take a financial hit, but we'll come out the other end debt free and stronger the ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The money is there for the wee tax bill, so that won't put us in administration.

The wee court cases with Bain and Lawyers are for small amounts, so that won't put us in administration.

The cash flow issue, if there is one, would have been alleviated by selling a player, we didn't do that, so that won't put us into administration.

The big tax case could run for another couple of years, from what I can see, and the bill won't be anywhere near as high as suggested - negotiable. So that won't put us into administration.

There is no doubt we will take a financial hit, but we'll come out the other end debt free and stronger the ever.

Big cheer to that mate :beer1:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The money is there for the wee tax bill, so that won't put us in administration.

The wee court cases with Bain and Lawyers are for small amounts, so that won't put us in administration.

The cash flow issue, if there is one, would have been alleviated by selling a player, we didn't do that, so that won't put us into administration.

The big tax case could run for another couple of years, from what I can see, and the bill won't be anywhere near as high as suggested - negotiable. So that won't put us into administration.

There is no doubt we will take a financial hit, but we'll come out the other end debt free and stronger the ever.

Oh FFS stop being so positive you'll give some folks on here a heart attack. :pipe:

I agree but would still be nice to hear something from the club though. Unless they're too busy smoking out their moles!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this forum the other night on EBTs, Its long and just glanced through it as its a bit too much for me lol

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accounting-legal/63073-loans-ebts-other-trusts-35.html

But on the last page a poster posted this

Taxman’s letters to EBT users ‘are hot air’

HM Revenue & Customs is writing to individuals who lowered their tax bills through Employee Benefit Trusts, asking to them to pay what it says they owe or face potential litigation, an advisor says.

According to UHY Hacker Young, HMRC claims in one letter to an affected taxpayer that £160,000 in tax is still outstanding, with the offer that settling up will see any financial penalty quashed.

Other terms of the offer, which the accountancy firm says is likely to be received in writing by thousands of taxpayers, include the prospect of being taken to court for refusing to pay the Revenue’s estimate in full.

“These letters are essentially hot air,” reflected Hacker Young partner Steve Theaker. “Several of the letters I have seen are wildly inaccurate estimates of the amounts of tax actually in dispute. HMRC could at least get the numbers right.

“HMRC is in effect saying, ‘pay all of the tax you would have paid if you had taken your loan as a bonus, and we’ll forget all about it’. But why would anyone who has entered into this form of tax planning to pay less tax do that?”

EBTs, which date back to the 1980s, became popular in the IT and consultant sectors, for allowing employers to ring-fence cash to pay bonuses, which were taken tax-free as loans, or to buy shares on behalf of staff.

“HMRC has litigated twice on the taxability of loans from EBTs and lost on both occasions,” Mr Theaker said. “ The courts have essentially ruled that EBTs were a legitimate form of tax planning prior to HMRC’s announcement last December. HMRC seems to be pinning its hopes on judges reversing the precedent which has already been set – but why would they do that?”

As a result, “HMRC’s case is far from watertight,” the advisor said, adding: “Taxpayers should think very carefully about how they respond to these letters.

“If they chose to settle they may end up paying tax which HMRC has no legal right to. The letter actually says that if taxpayers chose to settle, but subsequent litigation finds in taxpayers’ favour, the settlement cannot be reopened.”

The last few paragraphs there i think show why we are fighting this

Link to post
Share on other sites

the only way we will loose this is if the ebt scheme was administered badly.

as it says the tax man has proven ebt's are legal.

I might be wrong but I think we are a test case for HMRC. IF they win (which if a precedent has been set I don't see how they will)they will then move onto your big clubs in England, I'm sure Arsenal were using EBT's as well and probably many more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the only way we will loose this is if the ebt scheme was administered badly.

as it says the tax man has proven ebt's are legal.

loose [lOOs] adj not fastened or pre-packed; not tied up or confined; able to move freely; not tight, not firmly fixed; not close-fitting; careless, inaccurate, vague; dissolute, immoral; not closely woven; flabby; (of bowels) inclined to diarrhoea; l. box stable or van in which an animal can move about; at a l. end uncertain what to do next; unoccupied ~ loose adv in a loose way; play fast and l. behave rashly or unscupulously ~ loose n release; on the l. free from restraint; on a spree; ~ loose v/t untie, undo; release from confinement or constraint, set free; detatch; fire (gun); shoot (arrow); (eccles) absolve.

lose (p/t and p/part lost) [lOOz] v/t and i no longer have; be deprived of by accident or misfortune; mislay, fail to find; fail to get or win; be too late for; be bereaved of; waste; be defeated or beaten; suffer loss, become worse off; fail to hear, see or understand; cause or allow to perish; (of clock or watch) go too slowly; (refl) miss the right path; become absorbed in; l. one's head become flustered, panic; l. one's temper grow angry; l. one's way fail to find the right path; l. out (US) be defeated after a struggle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be wrong but I think we are a test case for HMRC. IF they win (which if a precedent has been set I don't see how they will)they will then move onto your big clubs in England, I'm sure Arsenal were using EBT's as well and probably many more.

they already lost 2 huge test cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tax man is full of shit. These letters are scare tactics. I receive a letter from the tax man every month claiming I owe them £1000's from when I was self employed, my accountant says I do not owe them anything, they do it to shit you up. He will sort it out by submitting another tax return.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be wrong but I think we are a test case for HMRC. IF they win (which if a precedent has been set I don't see how they will)they will then move onto your big clubs in England, I'm sure Arsenal were using EBT's as well and probably many more.

I believe this is a big part of this - I doubt we are the only club to be using EBT's (I am pretty sure Man U were also doing this) but, for what ever reason (conspiracy theories on a post card to FF), we are a test case for this.

I have dealt with the tax man on a number of occasions for clients - and it is very rarely, even when we agree how much tax is due, that we dont negotiate reasnoble payment schedules as it is NOT in their interest to put the company under. It is in their interest to recover the tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is a big part of this - I doubt we are the only club to be using EBT's (I am pretty sure Man U were also doing this) but, for what ever reason (conspiracy theories on a post card to FF), we are a test case for this.

I have dealt with the tax man on a number of occasions for clients - and it is very rarely, even when we agree how much tax is due, that we dont negotiate reasnoble payment schedules as it is NOT in their interest to put the company under. It is in their interest to recover the tax.

The tims dont seem to understand this in their quest for our closure

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tims dont seem to understand this in their quest for our closure

The tims (along with many on here) dont even understand the basics of running a business let alone dealing with some of the more difficult stuff.

Its kind of sad that one of the main topics of a football forum is finance but it is a topic (topics) that has given me many a laugh with the ill-informed, leading the mis-informed and creating FUD factor amongst the support (FUD Factor: Marketing term for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).

FFS Chick Young even thinks he can write about (our) finance! :disappointment: What next ? Kirk Broadfoot writing about cooking? Neil Lemmon writing about beauty tips? Peter Liewell on sporting integrity?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tims (along with many on here) dont even understand the basics of running a business let alone dealing with some of the more difficult stuff.

Its kind of sad that one of the main topics of a football forum is finance but it is a topic (topics) that has given me many a laugh with the ill-informed, leading the mis-informed and creating FUD factor amongst the support (FUD Factor: Marketing term for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).

FFS Chick Young even thinks he can write about (our) finance! :disappointment: What next ? Kirk Broadfoot writing about cooking? Neil Lemmon writing about beauty tips? Peter Liewell on sporting integrity?

Thats the problem with online sites. people like Boss, Bluedell etc are well clued up on finacial stuff and post in the doom and gloom threads stating how the scenario being spoke about can not happen. Yet everyone ignores it and another 50+ pages of total bullshit follows. I have never once claimed to understand finances but i base my opinion on those who know about it.

Although when a fianace story breaks i am always amazed at the amount of new posters who sign up who are accountants/tax experts :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is a big part of this - I doubt we are the only club to be using EBT's (I am pretty sure Man U were also doing this) but, for what ever reason (conspiracy theories on a post card to FF), we are a test case for this.

I have dealt with the tax man on a number of occasions for clients - and it is very rarely, even when we agree how much tax is due, that we dont negotiate reasnoble payment schedules as it is NOT in their interest to put the company under. It is in their interest to recover the tax.

Is it not also the case that the tax man is in danger of not getting a penny from Rangers if their demands are too high?

I was led to believe that Whyte has structured the purchase of Rangers in such a way that we still owe the previous debt to his new company, and that they would be first creditor if we went into administration, leaving the tax man with nothing.

If this is the case, then I can't see the benefit of HMRC trying to screw us to the wall over how much we owe, then going away empty handed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not also the case that the tax man is in danger of not getting a penny from Rangers if their demands are too high?

I was led to believe that Whyte has structured the purchase of Rangers in such a way that we still owe the previous debt to his new company, and that they would be first creditor if we went into administration, leaving the tax man with nothing.

If this is the case, then I can't see the benefit of HMRC trying to screw us to the wall over how much we owe, then going away empty handed.

I have always thought they take first take along with redundancy payments for all staff that qualify then preferential creditors, HMRC being one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rangers folding or going in to administration...ok i will pose this question to all the Rangers fans on here.

If we were told that the club had 14 days to trade and would then go in to liquidation do any of you honestly think that the club would fold?

Even if the debt was £50M or £100M do you still think the club would fold or go in to administration?

I for one don't and the reason it won't is very simple.

There are far too many bears all over the world who if push came to shove would donate £10 or £100 or £1000 or £10,000 etc etc to ensure there will always be a Rangers FC.

If Paul Murray and Alistair Johnston could miraculously pull out £25M from thin air when pushed then i have no doubts at all that huge sums could be raised very quickly if we were in dire straits.

We took over 250,000 fans to Manchester and if all of them put in an average of only £100 you immediately have £25M to go towards saving the club.

Now we all know there are many many wealthy bears dotted all over the world who could contribute far larger sums so if you put all the Rangers fans on the spot and asked for their help they would give it.

Talk about it all you want Tims but the simple fact of the matter is the Rangers will be here for years to come regardless of any financial problems no matter how exaggerated they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought they take first take along with redundancy payments for all staff that qualify then preferential creditors, HMRC being one.

I know little about it except what I've read on the internet, and that was that this was why Whyte wasn't clearing our debt. Instead choosing to have Rangers owe his company the money until the tax case was settled.

I was given the impression that Whyte's company was first in line to get full whack.

That may be shite right enough. I'm only repeating what I've read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the problem with online sites. people like Boss, Bluedell etc are well clued up on finacial stuff and post in the doom and gloom threads stating how the scenario being spoke about can not happen. Yet everyone ignores it and another 50+ pages of total bullshit follows. I have never once claimed to understand finances but i base my opinion on those who know about it.

Although when a fianace story breaks i am always amazed at the amount of new posters who sign up who are accountants/tax experts :lol:

Yep - thats the FUD Factor at work!

Link to post
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

×
×
  • Create New...