forlanssister

Link to the podcast http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/scotland/scotfoot/scotfoot_20121121-1918a.mp3

It's crystal clear Spiers has absolutely no idea what the "wee tax case" relates to or when the assessment was made how the f*&k he can use the "wee tax case" to defend his previous utterings is simply bizarre.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xusM0K9WU20

Agreed, and the various fan groups should ensure that a serious concerted push is made for a full judicial enquiry is made into the circumstances surrounding the actions of HMRC and LBG in regards to the persecution of RFC and the enforced sale to Craig Whyte.

The club will have already received the money for any shares I purchase in the market will it not?

Hoisted by his own petard.....

That's irrelevant to the quote you selected which related to your failure to understand just what a prospectus in relation to a share flotation on the AIM market actually constitutes.

You've not got much experience in shares and the stock market in general have you?

I fear your expectations of just what the prospectus is isn't matched with reality, consider the various prospectuses issued by the various banks in relation to rights issues during the banking crisis. I've already stated I won't purchase shares in the flotation but in all probability will purchase in the market at a later date.

Take a look at some of the prospectuses issued for companies floated on AIM and then see how they panned out and you'll see how naive in the extreme that statement is. Think 'shareholders circular'.

I have no doubt the document will match your expectations! I hold almost identical expectation!

If that indeed is the case then every time Green claimed we were "debt fee" he in fact lied. I view the loan via the CVA as simply a method of hedging (it also has certain tax efficiencies) I'm not convinced of the same need to hedge in the 'newco' scenario of straight asset purchase. I assume any confusion should be cleared when the prospectus is revealed.

If the proceeds of the flotation are used to pay off any loans then effectively that's fans money or at least a pro rata amount of repayments would be fans money.

Depending on interpretation it was either the entire £8.5m or £8.3m the difference being the treatment of the £200k exclusivity payment (it's unclear if that was part of the loan or not). It's worth noting that the prize monies, transfer fees receivable et al would not have reduced the loan which was interest baring and had to be paid back before Dec 31 2020, the rate of interest payable was not revealed.

Then according to your logic Charlie lied.

I was present at the meeting in the Ibrox Suite (as were other posters from here) one of the many occasions he's made the "debt free" claim, no mention at all of "external debt". At no time has Green or any of his investors intimated that the £5.5m for the asset purchase was a loan. The details of a loan for the CVA monies was declared in the CVA proposal, no mention of a loan in regards to the straight asset purchase was made.

Aye the one that only crystallised in Feb 2011 after Aberdeen Asset Management lost a FTT which is presently being appealed to an UTT.....

Not that I'm aware of (other than the initial £8.5m CVA) but please feel free to point me in the direction of that particular statement.

So Green's frequent "debt free" claims were A) Lies B) Untruths C) Fairy Stories D) All three ?

We didn't enter liquidation in order to avoid our liabilities, HMRC (in effect) placed us into liquidation for the reasons they stated, just how the f*&k could they then turn round and say we were a Phoenix company?

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/201754-alastair-johnston-says-tax-ruling-means-rangers-must-keep-titles/?

So basically post #74 is bollocks?

Some tell me the moon is made of green cheese, doesn't make it true through.

We're not a Phoenix company.

HMRC themselves made their position clear in the statement regarding the rejection of the CVA proposal.