forlanssister

Symptomatic of how the club is now being run.

Anything's possible I suppose, but we don't know the debt total or how it's structured, bear in mind that neither LBG, Murray nor any of the former directors thought we would obtain a favourable result.

I think the lack of income from European competition put paid to him getting anything out of it. If we had CL monies (perhaps even EL monies) coupled with a positive result in the tax case then he would have got a massive quick return for his £1 and I for one would have doffed my cap to him. Perhaps not but it's patently obvious that that's his standard modus operandi. He may fell turn out to be the greatest financial genius ever to walk this planet but I'm not holding my breath.

Winning the case would mean Whyte has to waive the debt and gains absolutely nothing for doing so not so much as a single extra share, he also has to satisfy the holders of Liberty Capitals debts ( I think it's pretty safe to assume it's not his own funds), he would also have to fund the ongoing "black hole" on an annual basis. There is absolutely nothing in Whyte's business history that shows him successfully turning round ailing companies and then running them and selling them on for a profit there are however plenty examples of him liquidating companies securing profits for himself while other creditors are left 'whistling Dixie'. Their main motivation was to avoid any culpability for the "big tax case" and avoid the ensuing massive fallout both directly themselves and via MIH, that has been achieved how exactly it was achieved remains to be seen.

Liberty Capital our ultimate owner is based in the BVI as are six subsidiaries of LBG. LBG are bankers to some of if not all Whytes other companies, LBG hold the mortgage on Whytes (and Mrs Whytes) castle. Whyte has a long association with LBG, as far as I'm aware we still bank with LBG and LBG are the holders of the long lease on the Albion car park. Neither LBG nor Murray could be seen to publicly pull the plug on RFC and have found someone who simply wouldn't give a flying f*&k about doing so, LBG wins Murray wins Whyte wins the only losers are the fans, 26,000 small shareholders, a few thousand debenture holders, HMRC and a myriad of creditors.

It does indeed stink to the high heavens does merit a proper legal investigation but alas as you say there won't be one, the fans will be left to pick up the mess while those culpable get off scot free.

They are the number of directorships held the former active directorships the latter former (non active) directorships.

As far I know it is indeed as you surmise still LBG but stand to be corrected.

Whyte's plan (if that's the correct word) requires RFC to get a negative finding in the FTT, a positive result requires Whyte to provide funding to keep us going, money he simply doesn't have. I've no doubt Whyte will ride off into the sunset a fair few million better off than when he arrived, his reward for doing what both LBG and Murray couldn't countenance pulling the plug on RFC. There is absolutely no doubt that LBG were fully aware of Whyte's background and his modus operandi when they (not Murray) accepted the £1 after all they are bankers to his other companies and hold the charge over his castle. The unaudited accounts and failure to hold an AGM robs the shareholders of their once chance to hold him to account and ask pertinent questions. Those who think administration (God forbid even liquidation) is simply a case of wakening up the next day and we'll be debt free and everything will be hunky dory are in for one mighty shock, the ramifications will last for years.

Duly chastised.... In my wildest dreams I yearn for a positive outcome to the FTT then I awaken back to the real world where Carlsberg don't do Tax Tribunals. Attempting to clear up the financial carnage or taking advantage of the financial carnage for his own financial benefit to the detriment of the club itself the circa 26,000 shareholders and of course the fans, which ever one it is we have yet to discover. I do concede however if we actually win the FTT and his £1 bet pays off then I'll gladly give him kudos, my cap will be well and truly doffed. My ( admittedly extreme) scepticism of Craig Whyte would be drastically tempered if I could see any sign of him successfully running or turning around an ailing business but try as I may I can't find anything remotely positive in his business career only negatives. It would also have been tempered if I saw him abiding by the Shareholder Circular but alas I see no evidence of that either, a set of audited accounts would be a step in the right direction, an AGM where shareholders could have the opportunity to ask pertenant questions would be another (I concede it could be said the previous regime were not exactly fond of pertenant questioning either!) An actual libel writ being served against the BBC wouldn't go amiss either, and one to Private Eye after their latest issue should surely be in the offing too, but then the truth is the ultimate defence in libel actions. One of the reasons I like posting on this site as opposed to a couple of other larger Rangers forums I could mention is that here you can have a grown up adult discussion without an instant banning or accusations of "you're a Taig", "do one Timmy" or "you're just a KDS accountant", if earlier in the thread I have fallen below the standards of the site then I unequivocally apologise for doing so, it's not something I think I'm in the habit of doing. There may well eventually be a share offer of some description somewhere down the line but if comes after the formation of a newco in which only one existing shareholder will hold shares and 26,000 will see their holdings vanish and Bondholders collectively kiss goodbye to over £7m, then I think it may not exactly be a raging success leaving us with an owner who doesn't want to own us any longer alas an all to familiar tune.

The short bug eyed stammering boy ain't exactly taking his fiduciary duty to the 26,000 shareholders to seriously is he ?

Karma is a bitch!

So you are now saying the HMRC do in fact accept part payments just not from Mr Whyte ? There is absolutely nothing to stop Mr Whyte paying the amount he promised to pay in the shareholders circular and still appeal the penalty is there ? HMRC will not refuse to accept a cheque or cleared funds as payment of the balance of the "wee tax case" will they ?

Make your mind up, which one is it HMRC accepted a part payment or they refused a part payment?

How can there be a "shortfall" if as you say HMRC refused part payment the entire sum would be due, a "shortfall" suggests that part payment has been made and accepted. You are either stupid, ignorant or perhaps just shit stirring, my moneys on all three.

Here's the link to the findings of the FTT re AAM DOS scheme. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2010/TC00779.html It was as a result of those findings that HMRC sent RFC (and many other companies) an assessment for tax due for the DOS that they ran. I don not have unquestionable devotion to any regime (past or present) but also I'm not ignorant enough to blame Donald McIntyre for things that were nothing to do with him. Tell me then what is to stop Craig Whyte paying the bill you say he does not dispute and pursuing the penalty through the appropriate channels? absolutely nothing eh ?

If AAM had not lost their FTT in November 2010 there would have been no "wee tax bill", there was no liability until after that case when HMRC would have sent out and assessment, that assessment arrived during the period that due diligence was being carried out, hence the incorrect media spin that Whyte's agents discovered it during the due diligence process. There was no concealment of any liability re the DOS. Johnston's statement is factually correct. He could and should have paid the liability he said he would then appealed the subsequent fine, he hasn't therefore he has reneged on his promise/commitment (call it what you like). I very much doubt we would have received a fine of that scale had Whyte not decided to play silly buggers with HMRC.

Definitely was aimed at us, though I don't think it was really worth taking offence at I do concede if it was one of our players it would be all over the phone-ins and on the front pages in the morning such is the society we find ourselves now living in.

It was Leigh Griffiths

I find it strange Whyte would tell me (as a shareholder) in writing that he would settle it in full then renege on that commitment, but then Craig Whyte doesn't give a flying f*&k about me or any of the other 26,000 shareholders. Had it been paid and then AAM won their appeal to the UTT it would have repaid in full + interest, believe it or not it's not that strange an event in the world of taxation where some disputes take decades to settle.

That Whyte discoverd the "wee tax bill" is a myth, it only arose during the time Whyte was doing due diligence because Aberdeen Asset Management lost a FTT in November 2010 and now they're appealing to an UTT, so ironically enough we may end up not owing anything for the "wee tax bill"!.

Both the EBT's (big tax case) and the DoS (wee tax case) pre-dated McIntyre's employment by RFC but hey let's blame McIntyre!

No we don't know why Whyte was banned as a Company Director but it's safe to assume that to merit a 7 year ban it must have been a lot more severe offence than a mere "technicality". If Craig Whyte really has nothing to hide he can publish the Insolvency Service report into his banning, luckily for him it is exempt from FOI requests and third parties can only gain access to it by petitioning the High court in London. I think the apparent "murky" past allied to the present should be a concern to us all, but that's only my opinion and everybody else is entitled to hold their own opinion. Have to agree with you re going round in circles. History may indeed show Whyte to be the saviour ( and believe it or not I really hope he is!) because any other outcome is too unpalatable to contemplate. I'm not sure, we have more stability, as you say we still have HMRC hanging over us, and we've swapped a safe stable non onerous reasonably cheap term loan for something we don't know, we don't know if there was any arrangement fee we don't know the rate of interest charged we don't know any of the terms at all. We'll know come January 31 if you're correct in your assumptions re players, once again I sincerely hope you are. As a fan (excuse the plagiarism) but I think "we deserve better" than we are getting from the present custodian. Alas I have no faith in the current "board" ( if it's even worthy of being described as one) and while I certainly desire an AGM soon I'm unsure if there will be an AGM or a creditors meeting. *Admin* how about a combined "like" and "respectfully disagree" button!

My apologies you are correct in stating that it's not in the circular. A google search unfortunately just brings up RTC and other Tim sites which I'm not ignorant enough to quote as a source, but it is a Murray Group trust not an RFC trust and that's why it is being handled by Murray Group and not RFC. In my humble opinion the media have been unbelievably lenient on Craig Whyte since he stuck his head above the parapet (save the BBC documentary, I assume they have still to be served with the threatened writ).There was certainly no detailed investigation into Whyte's background by the press prior to or since the takeover (in defence of the Fourth Estate even the IBC's investigation has been proven to be woefully inadequate). All the press seem to do prior to the takeover was regurgitate Whyte's PR releases, £52m deal, "front ended investment" etc. etc. The OP in this thread just looks like another PR release rather than a proper article. The stadium improvements are the result of mortgaging our future catering income to Close Leasing in return for a one-off payment which means there will no catering income available to RFC for however long the lease with Close runs. Attempting to branch out to new markets sounds good but in reality is futile and would just be a case of throwing good money after bad, there is no vast untapped market anywhere for either us or the scum. Even if we signed the two Indians how many shirts could we honestly expect to sell in India certainly none at £40 a pop. Remember our ill fated venture into the Chinese market ? How much did we make out of that? Whyte delaying the AGM is simply a symptom of his modus operandi much like his non-disclosure of a 7 year banning order as a Company Director and the highly misleading statement to PLUS Markets confirming his banning. If the BBC programme about Whyte was factually inaccurate then why has he not followed through with his threat to sue, he couldn't possibly be scared of being cross-examined under oath by some of the country's leading QC's not with his brilliantly successful business career, could he? It's not standard procedure especially where there is an agreement to pay.

Have you not realised yet there is very little correlation between what Craig Whyte says and what Craig Whyte does. Assuming he is not talking to HMRC regarding the big tax case (EBT's) and that we (RFC) have already agreed to pay the wee tax bill (DOS's) although Whyte reneged on that deal, hence HMRC obtaining an Arrestment of Funds Order freezing £2.3m of RFC's cash, what could he possibly be talking to HMRC about ? the alleged £1.4m fine regarding the wee tax case if so then I guess he's perfectly entitled to do so or perhaps rather more worryingly he could be talking to them about overdue PAYE or NIC's (though I concede that there is no proof that we're behind with PAYE and NIC's, though someone may pose that question to the "board" at an AGM!)