Raghead 24 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Are they not the largest creditors now? And did they not agree to a CVA? Where does this stand with BDO being in place? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamibianBear 1,851 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 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? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghead 24 Posted November 22, 2012 Author Share Posted November 22, 2012 I would think its more than £50m in damages the loss of the squad players must be over £20m at least Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonRFC82 305 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 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? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamibianBear 1,851 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I would think its more than £50m in damages the loss of the squad players must be over £20m at leastTongue-in-cheek.....£134m? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlegKuznetsov 10,816 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghead 24 Posted November 22, 2012 Author Share Posted November 22, 2012 Also would an investigation into the ticketus deal not leave the debt on whytes door? And what about d&p suing his lawyers for £25m? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachothelegend 1,932 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Rangers foitball club have probably lost something in the region of 50 mill with transfer fees and assets being given away for free.Then count in income fron tickets and revenue from europe and irs wyewatering.We get shafted hmrc get ball all and our club are villified. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenosebrad 452 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I wonder what they must be thinking NOW!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1mgg 3,766 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 We're tickets also not knocked off as being a creditor by d&p and therefore not owed any money. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Cameron 179 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,384 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghead 24 Posted November 22, 2012 Author Share Posted November 22, 2012 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 courseSo 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? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Cameron 179 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonbryce 63 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimrod 62 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCDBigBear 10,927 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 The CVA required 75% in favour. HMRC debt was just over 40% (based on the BTC being excluded). What isn't clear is whether any offers for the club would have been significantly more without the BTC case for the CVA. HMRC may have accepted that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,384 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluechip 359 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Carpintero 546 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 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? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Tongue-in-cheek.....£134m?£300m with added interest Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwhiteandblue 3,330 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 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?That 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Carpintero 546 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 That 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack1690 793 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 That 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Gers 66 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 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 ? 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.