disgruntled_bear 157 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 HMRC now know that they have lost big time. They will get a fraction (or nothing) of what they think is owed. And they have lost control over the process. They will be absolutely furious today.However, it is still not impossible for a deal to be done at 3.29pm whereby HMRC get more than they otherwise would and we avoid Administration. In terms of the Treasury, that would be the best option re tax receipts. But will HMRC now deal? I suspect not, but stranger things have happened.If HMRC deal today for a settlement. Talk about us playing a blinder.But, as you said. It's severely unlikely, they will try to drag this out a bit longer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClintonGrey 365 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 That's the bit that's confusing me. I get that Whyte gets paid first, but we would, potentially, owe just short of £100m to HMRC, while we'd owe Whyte around £20m. Once we pay Whyte off, why wouldn't we owe money to HMRC still?Not likely, because if someone comes in and say buys us during administration, they would only need to pay secured creditors and Whyte's self appointed administrators are not going to asset strip if he is the only secured creditor (unless liquidation is what he was planning in the first place).Consider it a more lenient form of Bankruptcy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey_RFC 122 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 god help the rangers if the courts allow whyte to appoint his own manAye we should let HMRC do it instead eh Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KarlG45 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Because the court has sided with us and ordered them to, as we filed our petition first.That'll fucking show them eh? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTP 221 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 god help the rangers if the courts allow whyte to appoint his own manSo you would have rathered the revenue appoint one? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Monk 3,207 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 HMRC are in a big piss now, things are going against them I believe they just want some money. Strike a deal Whyte. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markybear 136 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Admin by 3.30?This true? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
broxibear87 129 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 god help the rangers if the courts allow whyte to appoint his own manWhy? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FernandoR20 2,133 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Whats the difference between Whyte appointing an administrator and the taxman appointing an administrator? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
debear 603 Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 god help the rangers if the courts allow whyte to appoint his own manYeah, HRMCs man would be much better for us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KarlG45 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 This could...COULD be an absolute stroke of fucking geniusgraspingatstrawsloyal.co.uk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef 436 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Fekk me read it all now, what you would rather hmrc appoint one due to your distrust of whyte Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Because the court has sided with us and ordered them to, as we filed our petition first.HMRC had to agree to the 3.30pm deadline which presumably means they could also have not agreed to that. You really don't think they'd put up more of a fight if the ramifications were as huge as people are saying on here? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marmalade1872 40 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Aye we should let HMRC do it instead eh i find it so hard to believe that the folk on these forums cant see what hes doing and its not for the good of rangers or the fans Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClintonGrey 365 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 HMRC are up shit creek without a paddle and they know it now.Unfortunately, we are the canoe.And the taigs are the shit Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
broxibear87 129 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The taxman's administrators would be working in the best interests of HMRC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyBlue 17,115 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Iv just popped some codeine, my heads spinning! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottBF2 3,540 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Not likely, because if someone comes in and say buys us during administration, they would only need to pay secured creditors and Whyte's self appointed administrators are not going to asset strip if he is the only secured creditor (unless liquidation is what he was planning in the first place).Consider it a more lenient form of Bankruptcy.So the Tax Case, what happens with that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_ger 1,454 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 oops Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
debear 603 Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 i find it so hard to believe that the folk on these forums cant see what hes doing and its not for the good of rangers or the fansI find it hard to believe you can't see that another administrator would be far, far worse. mairydilk 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FernandoR20 2,133 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The taxman's administrators would be working in the best interests of HMRC.Ok thanks, hopefully Whyte will get an administrator then! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClintonGrey 365 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 So the Tax Case, what happens with that?It is added to the list of unsecured credit, therefore if the administrators find we can't pay it back, we don't need to pay it back.It's a mechanism to stop people taking money that isn't there.Of course, there *could* have been a deal worked out wherein HMRC get something. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossS1873 1,656 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 If the taxman appoints an administrator, they have the obligation to get the best deal for HMRC which could result in us being worse off.If we appoint one, his job is to get a better deal for us. Thats what happened at Portsmouth and thats why HMRC dont want us to appoint our own administrator Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott-RFC 308 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Would be typical of Whyte's regime so far if we never got this done for 3.30 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_ger 1,454 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The tax man can't appoint an administrator but the court can appoint one that is seen to be completely neutral. As far as I can tell. Quote Link to post 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.