Jump to content

Ticketus


Raghead

Recommended Posts

Are they not the largest creditors now? And did they not agree to a CVA? Where does this stand with BDO being in place?

Not to sure on this but, now we have been found not guilty of any wrong doing by HMRC, surely that makes the subsequent refusal of the CVA (by the then supposed largest creditor) to be null and void and the "new" largest creditor to be Ticketus?

Seriously, i started a thread on a similar topic because the ramifications of this could potentially be huge and no one seems to have spotted this yet (outwith the Rangers supporters).

The death of the SPL caused by having to pay us circa 50 million in lost earnings?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They would certainly be the largest creditor, not sure if HMRC with CW's PAYE/NI debt as well as 'wee' tax case would still of been in a position to block CVA (given 75% approval was needed). Would be interesting to see the results of CVA vote re-interpreted under the true debt figures...although not sure to what end or if it even helps us to know the answer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whyte's wilful non-payment of PAYE, a statutory obligation meant, they said, that they had no alternative but to reject the CVA to allow a deeper investigation into his actions and those of all office bearers in the last 5 years.

Therefore, if that information is accurate, Whyte's strategy was what got us here. Had he paid tax, even by selling players, then we would be in a very much better position, albeit with a weakened team and still in the SPL, but with access to CL money via the qualifiers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall it was decided it was Whyte they leant the money to and their only means of recovering that money is from him. They are not a creditor of oldco.

Quite what they were thinking lending Whyte money against an asset (the future season ticket revenue) he didn't own I will never know.

What Whyte is alleged to have done is known as financial assistance ie buying a company using that company's assets. The police investigation into that is one of many issues yet to run its course

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're tickets also not knocked off as being a creditor by d&p and therefore not owed any money.

That's what I thought, although not so sure now.

Was it that the contract was ripped up and so the new owners didn't have to honour it, therefore they became creditors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall it was decided it was Whyte they leant the money to and their only means of recovering that money is from him. They are not a creditor of oldco.

Quite what they were thinking lending Whyte money against an asset (the future season ticket revenue) he didn't own I will never know.

What Whyte is alleged to have done is known as financial assistance ie buying a company using that company's assets. The police investigation into that is one of many issues yet to run its course

So if this is the case HMRC would be major creditor due to £ stole by Cw but if his lawyers where sued for that £ the major creditor would be the fans?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if this is the case HMRC would be major creditor due to £ stole by Cw but if his lawyers where sued for that £ the major creditor would be the fans?

I would imagine whyte's non payment means HmRC remain the major creditors. I'd need to check the detail but I don't think losing the tax case would mean that changes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they not the largest creditors now? And did they not agree to a CVA? Where does this stand with BDO being in place?

The undisputed HMRC debt was £21m out of a total of £55m. Ticketus was £26.6m, so HMRC would still have had a veto.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We needed something like 75% of creditors (i.e. amount owed) to accept the C.V.A. That was never gonna happen without the bloodsuckers.

Tbh we are in a better financial position now than we woulda been with the C.V.A. Only downside is our absence from the top flight although even that is proving to be a blessing I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought HMRC categorically stated they would never agree a CVA for non-payment of PAYE and NI, as a matter of principle.

Reduced liability as a result of the BTC victory, may have meant someone would have been willing to pay ALL the debts as they stood at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We needed something like 75% of creditors (i.e. amount owed) to accept the C.V.A. That was never gonna happen without the bloodsuckers.

Tbh we are in a better financial position now than we woulda been with the C.V.A. Only downside is our absence from the top flight although even that is proving to be a blessing I think.

Although I see where you are coming from, it still gives the Mhanky Mob a free run at the Champions League for another three seasons at least, all things remaining as they are. In my book that is not acceptable and a police investigation needs to be opened up so we can get to the bottom (Peter slant eyes) of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So HMRC were made biggest creditor because of "what they thought" we owed them? Our CVA proposal was refused by a company who should not even have had a say?

Tha

t was clear from the outset. Apparently HMRC do it all the time, adding on penalties etc so they become the biggest creditor and refuse CVAs. Think if this was a company that had actually folded and people had lost jobs because of this. If you were one of they people, you would be suing the fuck out of HMRC. I don't see any reason why we can't do the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tha

t was clear from the outset. Apparently HMRC do it all the time, adding on penalties etc so they become the biggest creditor and refuse CVAs. Think if this was a company that had actually folded and people had lost jobs because of this. If you were one of they people, you would be suing the fuck out of HMRC. I don't see any reason why we can't do the same.

That is incredible. (tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tha

t was clear from the outset. Apparently HMRC do it all the time, adding on penalties etc so they become the biggest creditor and refuse CVAs. Think if this was a company that had actually folded and people had lost jobs because of this. If you were one of they people, you would be suing the fuck out of HMRC. I don't see any reason why we can't do the same.

There ARE people who lost their jobs at Rangers because of hmrc

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I love to see some sort of justice for the club Im puzzled to see how we could claim anything from HMRC. Its like waiting to go to court for something you didn`t do but to cover your arse for a heafty charge you sell all your furniture. Court day your`e found not guilty and for that you try to have the court buy back all your furniture because they tried to find you guilty.

Am I being naive ?

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...