CanadianBacon 2,088 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Riddle me this.Who was it within Rangers Football Club that made the so-called "offer of £10m" to HMRC to "settle" this large tax case (you know, the one we've just won and have no need to pay any bastard anything for)???Yours, no offence intended, but what-the-fuck-were-they-thinking-of-throwing-away-£10m-for-fuck-all?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 15,990 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Because the outcome was not certain? A no blame settlement was sensible.Tbh hmrc need to stop lumping fines penalties and interest. They may find that more successful. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef 436 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Was it not a starting offer, could have risen somewhat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Nice to see you back Mark always Follow Follow Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianBacon 2,088 Posted November 24, 2012 Author Share Posted November 24, 2012 Because the outcome was not certain? A no blame settlement was sensible.Tbh hmrc need to stop lumping fines penalties and interest. They may find that more successful.The offer (if it ever existed) must have come from someone.I'm asking, "Who was that"? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Because the outcome was not certain? A no blame settlement was sensible.Tbh hmrc need to stop lumping fines penalties and interest. They may find that more successful.You may find that be using this obscene tactic that they do indeed force settlements through. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWR1979 1,964 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Think it was Bain.15 million HMRC have wasted going after us.10 million settlement.5 million legal fees.Bet they wish they had taken the money now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 15,990 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 The offer (if it ever existed) must have come from someone.I'm asking, "Who was that"?Sorry CB forgot to answer that i am sure the financial guy when interviewed last week on talksport suggested it was him and his team. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 15,990 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 You may find that be using this obscene tactic that they do indeed force settlements through.They lose more than they win so shit tactic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 They lose more than they win so shit tactic.I would disagree with that. as they would dump this tactic as their bosses would be questioning this tactic. Have you just made this assumption based on EBTs Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianBacon 2,088 Posted November 24, 2012 Author Share Posted November 24, 2012 Sorry CB forgot to answer that i am sure the financial guy when interviewed last week on talksport suggested it was him and his team.Do you have a name for this individual?Who authorised his offer?Was it under the auspices of Minty International Wine Sipping Conglomerate, plc? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crabbit bear 139 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I kind of wish they would just have taken the £10m if it would have meant avoiding all of this shite thats happened this past year.Its cost us a lot more than £10m now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonRFC82 305 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 The FTT playing out to conclusion cost us a lot more than £10m, regardless of it eventually ruling in our favour! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 15,990 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Do you have a name for this individual?Who authorised his offer?Was it under the auspices of Minty International Wine Sipping Conglomerate, plc?I could be wrong as i was listening at work but i think it was the mih guy never caught the name. Sdm also i think suggested it was though mih. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 15,990 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I would disagree with that. as they would dump this tactic as their bosses would be questioning this tactic. Have you just made this assumption based on EBTsOk i'll rephrase they seem to lose more high profile cases than they win. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBear. 8,499 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 HMRC - "£10,000,000? 10 pissy million. Why take 10 when I can get 100 in 2 years?"Oops Delusions of grandeur, where have we seen that before? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaywalker 377 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 It made perfect sense to make the offer, the final verdict (if it is final) was not certain.If it had been accepted back then, we would still be in the SPL and last years collapse wouldnt have happened.Do we have an agenda here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWTC 2,247 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Do you have a name for this individual?Who authorised his offer?Was it under the auspices of Minty International Wine Sipping Conglomerate, plc?You seem to be under the impression that this offer was a bad idea?£10million to avoid the disaster of recent times? Would have been a good deal. No one knows the terms of the offer either, it may well have been on the condition we accept X was a liabilty, and Y was not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 The only person who could and would have made that offer is David Murray. People tend to forget that this case was against MIH of which we were a big part of. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWTC 2,247 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 The only person who could and would have made that offer is David Murray. People tend to forget that this case was against MIH of which we were a big part of. No, the case was against us, people seem to forget that. Despite being told umpteen times. 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.