TheLawMan 6,240 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 My belief is Whyte probably lied since day one.I agree Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Yes according to Whyte....Who never borrowed money from ticketusPretty sure Whyte didn't say that, but I'm sure you'll find the quote...Did Ticketus not say he hadn't borrowed money from them? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxdoblo 26 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 has anyone came out and disputed whyte's claim's about HMRC?Has anyone came out and backed up what Whyte said??To be honest i was willing to give whyte time believing(or hoping) he had some grand plan and it was all part of a game he was playing with HMRC. But i stopped believing a word that mans says after the past week!!!He lied about ticketusHe lied about investing at least £5m in the squadHe hid the fact about not paying PAYE and VATHe made us and our manager look terrible with his ludicrous offer for Grant HoltAnd im sure there are quite a few other things ive forgotten just now and i believe there is more to come out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Pretty sure Whyte didn't say that, but I'm sure you'll find the quote...Did Ticketus not say he hadn't borrowed money from them? Leaving Craig Whyte aside for the minute, Ticketus can dress it up however they want but what they do is lend money.There will be legal reasons for them being careful with their language but they give out large sums of money to organisations then demand it back with "interest" at a later date. Its borrowing Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theySTILLKNOW 80 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 What will it take for the whyte defenders to believe he's turned us over.He's plainly told sections of our support,that money has been taken from our club to be put back in,next he will say that he wasn't able "because the fans turned against him" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Even if we win, HMRC, have made it quite clear that they intend to appeal again and again...The saga needs to end.I've only ever heard that said by WhyteNo one else has said it and I would be surprised if the ruling went against HMRC if they could/would throw further millions at the case in legal fees Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersMedia 35,961 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Quite annoying. I used to have a contact who was a tax lawyer in Guernsey, unfortunately his sister was a nutter and I had to break up with her Otherwise RM would have had the full story a long time ago!I believe a booty call is in order . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theySTILLKNOW 80 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I've only ever heard that said by WhyteNo one else has said it and I would be surprised if the ruling went against HMRC if they could/would throw further millions at the case in legal feesHe's quite clearly using the fact that HMRC can't dispute what he's saying. Because their not allowed to. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tugbenson 13 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 i thought the tax man was meant to keep everything in house Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimfanciesthedude 24,960 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I've only ever heard that said by WhyteNo one else has said it and I would be surprised if the ruling went against HMRC if they could/would throw further millions at the case in legal feesIt depends on what HMRC want out of the caseIf they wish to recoup some funds then i agree with your last part, but if they are simply wishing to flex their muscles and show the bigger clubs that have apparently used them that they will simply not back down, then they may appeal until the cows come home Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Pretty sure Whyte didn't say that, but I'm sure you'll find the quote...Did Ticketus not say he hadn't borrowed money from them? Think the term used is that we (ticketus) do not lend monye. But they purchased the rights for a % season tickets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky_ 893 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 if this is true and we win the tax case, is it possible for Rangers to launch their own legal action against HRMC?Since they began hounding us for this cash a couple of years ago, they have severly hindered us from making any progress. It's unbelievable we have won the title 3 in a row. The tax case has tied our hands behind our backs, hindered us from keeping players like Miller for a measely 500k, selling Jela for 5.5m, from offering competitive transfer fees & wages such as conway & goodwillie. And finally, the threat of it has put us into administration & killed our chances of winning the title with the point deduction.If it transpires that we were never in the wrong with EBT's, and win the case just like Vodafone & BP, then HMRC have alot to answer for considering they crippled us and put us into our current state, and did so with no legal standing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Think the term used is that we (ticketus) do not lend monye. But they purchased the rights for a % season tickets.I've been wondering about that, and I'd be very surprised if it's a %age of the tickets rather than, say, the first 10,000 tickets per season. They're unlikely to say 25% of tickets, when that number could be anywhere from 0 to 10,000.But yeah, I thought they bought X amount of season tickets at a reduced price. When the tickets are sold they get the face value. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I've been wondering about that, and I'd be very surprised if it's a %age of the tickets rather than, say, the first 10,000 tickets per season. They're unlikely to say 25% of tickets, when that number could be anywhere from 0 to 10,000.But yeah, I thought they bought X amount of season tickets at a reduced price. When the tickets are sold they get the face value. re % they would have taken an average of say last 5 years season ticket sales or as you say a set amount. This maybe conforms why liewell said he never uses them as they are always inflating the number of season ticket holders and they would get shafted re numbers 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.