Jump to content

Big tax case


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 252
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The decision has 100% definitely already been made, it may be that it is made public on the 24th but the panel members are having no further discussion on it and have agreed the outcome which has already been passed to the parties involved

Would maybe explain why whyte was back talking about 'dm and previous board'. I take it he would have been told?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think dm probably knew about it being a future possibility and wanted to pass the club on before it became assured. The other reasons you mention were probably his main reasons but without the btc I don't think dm would have been as desperate as to sell to Whyte. Maybe I'm wrong but to me it looks as if dm wanted out before the btc at any cost and that's why he ignored all warnings about whyte. Guy's a shitebag, should have been big enough to stand up and defend his actions and to point out it was him and not the club if found to be wrong.

Murray wanted out years ago, in fact when he handed the reins to John McClelland. If he had reservations about the EBT scheme before HMRC got on the case then why did he continue using it? He could have stopped it at any time. EBTs were not illegal and many companies were using them. Not just us and the tims in Scottish football either. Lloyds put him under a lot of pressure over MIH. He had to get the debt down. He did a £150m debt for equity swap with Llloyds who also wanted their cash back from the RFC branch of MIH and quicker than the old deal agreed with HBOS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know this?

As I said earlier I work closely with one of the panel members and again he hasn't said much to me but it is apparent, or at least appears that, he has given more detal to others. It's out of his hands now though, so as much as he believed the publication of the decision to be due today it's in the hands of administrative staff now

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember the original SPA between murray and whyte made it crystal clear that murray and his "people" would be handling everything about BTC. I suppose thats betweeen murray and D&P now but the point remains that murray made sure he still pulled the strings re the BTC after the initial sale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Murray wanted out years ago, in fact when he handed the reins to John McClelland. If he had reservations about the EBT scheme before HMRC got on the case then why did he continue using it? He could have stopped it at any time. EBTs were not illegal and many companies were using them. Not just us and the tims in Scottish football either. Lloyds put him under a lot of pressure over MIH. He had to get the debt down. He did a £150m debt for equity swap with Llloyds who also wanted their cash back from the RFC branch of MIH and quicker than the old deal agreed with HBOS.

your right bud but I think lloyds must have wanted paid before the btc and if whyte was telling the truth about the sale documents being full of admin and newco patter then it suggests dm sold the club in a less than confident mood about it's future under the old holding company. It all stinks but 18m of debt would not normally force the sale of a club like Rangers to a venture capitalist with a bad reputation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember the original SPA between murray and whyte made it crystal clear that murray and his "people" would be handling everything about BTC. I suppose thats betweeen murray and D&P now but the point remains that murray made sure he still pulled the strings re the BTC after the initial sale.

Liability would have been with the old holding company so who ever owned that was going to be left to deal with the problems if the case was lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drawing from previous threads.........It seems the BTC outcome is to be made public on 24/10........and the affected parties already know the outcome (presumably as a courtesy so that they can take legal etc advice and prepare their press statements in time for the public announcement).

So there are bound to be non-disclosure agreements binding the parties not to disclose or discuss with those not authorised to know ahead of the public announcement. Wonder how long it will take for key bits of the the outcome to be leaked?

I'm hoping that the outcome falls substantially in oldco's favour ie that they complied with the laws in force at the time of the transactions and that if any breaches occurred that they were of a minor or technical nature and not matters of substance. I say this because I strongly suspect that the agreements were drawn up by tax advisers and solicitors who will have had a duty to ensure that the agreements were tax-compliant; that those who were the beneficiaries will themselves have taken independent legal and tax advice for the same tax-compliance reasons; and that the football authorities having had plenty of time to examine and challenge Rangers accounts and did not (it seems to me) have any query at the time of the transactions.

Now if there were technical or procedural breaches that are not matters of substance, then I still suspect that the rampant anti-Rangers fever that thas been whipped this year will doubtless produce reactions way out of proportion. So unless it is a resounding unequivocal finding in oldco's favour I would expect more abuse directed at Rangers which in turn hardens attitudes all round.

At least uncertainty will be ended, the outcome will be known and we can examine it and decide what reaction to give as Rangers fans. Then gird the loins for the next assault in the form of the SPL mercenary Nimmo and his title-stripping band of lawyers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said earlier I work closely with one of the panel members and again he hasn't said much to me but it is apparent, or at least appears that, he has given more detal to others. It's out of his hands now though, so as much as he believed the publication of the decision to be due today it's in the hands of administrative staff now

If he's been giving out information to others can you not ask them what's been said ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drawing from previous threads.........It seems the BTC outcome is to be made public on 24/10........and the affected parties already know the outcome (presumably as a courtesy so that they can take legal etc advice and prepare their press statements in time for the public announcement).

So there are bound to be non-disclosure agreements binding the parties not to disclose or discuss with those not authorised to know ahead of the public announcement. Wonder how long it will take for key bits of the the outcome to be leaked?

I'm hoping that the outcome falls substantially in oldco's favour ie that they complied with the laws in force at the time of the transactions and that if any breaches occurred that they were of a minor or technical nature and not matters of substance. I say this because I strongly suspect that the agreements were drawn up by tax advisers and solicitors who will have had a duty to ensure that the agreements were tax-compliant; that those who were the beneficiaries will themselves have taken independent legal and tax advice for the same tax-compliance reasons; and that the football authorities having had plenty of time to examine and challenge Rangers accounts and did not (it seems to me) have any query at the time of the transactions.

Now if there were technical or procedural breaches that are not matters of substance, then I still suspect that the rampant anti-Rangers fever that thas been whipped this year will doubtless produce reactions way out of proportion. So unless it is a resounding unequivocal finding in oldco's favour I would expect more abuse directed at Rangers which in turn hardens attitudes all round.

At least uncertainty will be ended, the outcome will be known and we can examine it and decide what reaction to give as Rangers fans. Then gird the loins for the next assault in the form of the SPL mercenary Nimmo and his title-stripping band of lawyers.

Not getting at you but you appear to be basing your post on other posters' rumours. Where did 24 Oct come from ? If I was in charge of the release of such private information, someone's job would be out the window if there was early disclosure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Far too many rumours without any foundation about the outcome of the BTC.

If my best pal was involved in the BTC and I knew he was obliged to stay quiet I wouldn't ask him. No matter how much I really wanted to know. I wouldn't jeopardise his career just to find out a few hours or days before everyone else. I simply don't believe that anyone on here or any other site has knowledge of the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do believe the old holding company will "win" the BTC

Monday's revelations will prove that otherwise!! And tbh, i'll be very surprised if many people wish to invest in us ever gain after Monday,

it's coming, beleive me it's coming, Green will be heading for the hills in the not too distant future.

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.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found

×
×
  • Create New...