Mikhailichenko 90 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2745-tax-case-decision-statement Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted November 20, 2012 Author Share Posted November 20, 2012 THE Board of The Rangers Football Club issued the following statement today. Charles Green, chief executive commented: “I am sure that all Rangers fans will welcome that a judgment has been reached on this case at last.“That said, the judgment will not affect the operations of the Club nor the proposed flotation of the business as a public company. “This case is historic and was a matter for The Rangers Football Club plc ('oldco') which is in liquidation.“The Rangers Football Club Ltd is a corporate entity formed following the acquisition in June this year, by a consortium led by me, of the business and assets of Rangers, including the Club and its honours.“As HMRC stated in June when they decided to vote against the proposed oldco CVA, no tax liabilities relating to 'oldco' would transfer across to the new company. HMRC have recently reaffirmed this position to the Club's tax advisers, Deloitte.“The Rangers Football Club Ltd is a company free of external debt.“The judgment serves to further undermine the validity of the SPL Commission into the use of EBTs. “As we have said all along the SPL decision to press ahead with a commission was ill-timed and fundamentally misconceived.” Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Carpintero 546 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 The Rangers Football Club Ltd is a company free of external debt. ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Correct about the commission. I wonder about the use of no 'external' debt. Does this mean the 5.5m the Green consortium paid is owed back? ie internal debt. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted November 20, 2012 Author Share Posted November 20, 2012 I take it any debt we have will be due to the investors/ shareholders. No biggy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky_ 893 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Correct about the commission. I wonder about the use of no 'external' debt. Does this mean the 5.5m the Green consortium paid is owed back? ie internal debt.indeed, Green needs to clear that up. We expect investors to invest cash in return for shares. We don't want a Mike Ashley situation where every penny he put into Newcastle is a 'loan', now in the region of £130m+ Newcastle owe him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimfanciesthedude 25,043 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 not enough of an attack, he must have been eating his afternoon tea when the news comes outi expect a fuller, more strongly worded statement tomorrow compromising of the terms such as"haw you liewell ya prick your fucking gettin it""regan ya wank im gonna get big bubba to wreck you a new arsehole""doncaster, oh boy doncaster do i have my aiming sight trained on you ya horrible wee puppet to lawwell cunt" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elephants stoned 2,994 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Pretty generic statement there, i think we need something a bit stronger than that after a year from hell. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis 1,011 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 not enough of an attack, he must have been eating his afternoon tea when the news comes outi expect a fuller, more strongly worded statement tomorrow compromising of the terms such as"haw you liewell ya prick your fucking gettin it""regan ya wank im gonna get big bubba to wreck you a new arsehole""doncaster, oh boy doncaster do i have my aiming sight trained on you ya horrible wee puppet to lawwell cunt"I think that will be pretty much that concerning statements from chick green and RFC. After all he and his consortium have done well from our position. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Correct about the commission. I wonder about the use of no 'external' debt. Does this mean the 5.5m the Green consortium paid is owed back? ie internal debt.Erm, yes, but we already know that. If the money had been put in as shares we would have seen that at Companies House. I am surprised that this comes as a surprise to anyone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBear. 8,499 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 The Rangers Football Club Ltd is a company free of external debt. ?Yeah?We owe CG consortium £5.5 million for their initial investment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Correct about the commission. I wonder about the use of no 'external' debt. Does this mean the 5.5m the Green consortium paid is owed back? ie internal debt.are investors not technically owed money back therefor also internal debt? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
falwheel 222 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 i am surprised that you are surprised that we are surprised. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Carpintero 546 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Yeah?We owe CG consortium £5.5 million for their initial investment.Is that all? Any ideas of repayments rate or if we are paying interest on it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBear. 8,499 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Is that all? Any ideas of repayments rate or if we are paying interest on it?I was speaking from a common sense point of view to your original question. How would I know the answers to these questions Fish? Ask Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Carpintero 546 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I was speaking from a common sense point of view to your original question. How would I know the answers to these questions Fish? Ask And i was genuinely interested. Oh well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_ger 1,454 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Surprise surprise! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
allanh91 75 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Green's only concern is with the dual contracts investigation.Expect more dramatic statements when it comes to that as it affects the club and not the previous holding company.As mentioned in another article, the "Juninho Scenario" could go in our favour, unless the SPL decide to move the goalposts again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
allanh91 75 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Also, we have internal debt, I read on here, and kind of understand, that to make money you have to spend it. But we owe nothing to anyone, such as HMRC or other clubs etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Ok Boss I have read your reply and not being knowledgable in the subject of how takeovers work I don't understand why we would owe the Green consortium the 5.5m or whatever it is he paid for us? Surely that money bought him the assets (stadium, players, history, brand) and was money well spent. Why would we owe it back to him? Does this mean he effectively got the whole lot for potentially free? Sorry if I'm totally off track here just looking to make it clear in my mind and probably there are a few other fans in same boat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blumhoilann 6,712 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Green's only concern is with the dual contracts investigation.Expect more dramatic statements when it comes to that as it affects the club and not the previous holding company.As mentioned in another article, the "Juninho Scenario" could go in our favour, unless the SPL decide to move the goalposts again.Nothing like the 'Juninho scenario' imo,they admitted guilt and paid tax on his 'earnings'= dual contract.The BTC judgement clearly states that the alleged monies 'were loans' and repayable, from/to a trust,set up by MIH=NO DUAL CONTRACTS,therefore no Sphell case agin us imo ofcourse. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,439 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Ok Boss I have read your reply and not being knowledgable in the subject of how takeovers work I don't understand why we would owe the Green consortium the 5.5m or whatever it is he paid for us? Surely that money bought him the assets (stadium, players, history, brand) and was money well spent. Why would we owe it back to him? Does this mean he effectively got the whole lot for potentially free? Sorry if I'm totally off track here just looking to make it clear in my mind and probably there are a few other fans in same boat.Green and the consortium didn't directly pay for the club and assets. Newco did. Green and co invested money into newco to enable it to do so. That's why it remains outstanding to them. They could've invested the cash into newco in return for shares instead but it's much easier to get your cash back out if it's invested as a loan. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Green and the consortium didn't directly pay for the club and assets. Newco did. Green and co invested money into newco to enable it to do so. That's why it remains outstanding to them. They could've invested the cash into newco in return for shares instead but it's much easier to get your cash back out if it's invested as a loan.But Green and his consortium are newco as you put it? They created the newco? How can they distinguish themselves from the entity they created and loan it money? It only exists because they bought Rangers and created the company as the ownership vehicle no? . Im really not getting this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky_ 893 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 But Green and his consortium are newco as you put it? They created the newco? How can they distinguish themselves from the entity they created and loan it money? It only exists because they bought Rangers and created the company as the ownership vehicle no? . Im really not getting this.Think of a company as a fake person. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Think of a company as a fake person.That hasn't helped! Let's say I want to buy Rangers tomorrow. I agree a fee of a pound. I then set up a company to buy the club and loan it a pound. I buy Rangers through the company. Have I not just loaned myself a pound? How can Green loan his own company 5.5m? btw I not for a minute suggesting im right in my thinking I simply can't understand the process. 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.