Gribz 966 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 There might be a thread or 2 kicking around explaining this but I havent really keep up to speed on the situation since the take over. What Im confused about is this tax bill which some reports say could be up to 49m. The 3 things Im confused about are: What is this bill all about? (has it built up over the years of debt??) Is the amount of 49m realistic or exaggerated? Why didnt Whytes financial team know this would still be coming AFTER a takeover? With the amount of time they took I thought they would have done their homework. Why after the takeover was the reports all saying our debts are cleared when clearly there is the chance of this mass lump sum amount which was obviously created before Whyte took over? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 1 offshore tax avoidance payments to players during Advocatt era. 2 Could be that amount after penalties of 50% or.more plus interest. 3 They did know hence 1 pound price. 4 It is not a debt yet and may never be. 5 In which universe have you been hiding? :fish: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 There might be a thread or 2 kicking around explaining this but I havent really keep up to speed on the situation since the take over. What Im confused about is this tax bill which some reports say could be up to 49m. The 3 things Im confused about are: What is this bill all about? (has it built up over the years of debt??) Is the amount of 49m realistic or exaggerated? Why didnt Whytes financial team know this would still be coming AFTER a takeover? With the amount of time they took I thought they would have done their homework. Why after the takeover was the reports all saying our debts are cleared when clearly there is the chance of this mass lump sum amount which was obviously created before Whyte took over? Well it proves your no tim. They know more about it than we do. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 966 Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 1 offshore tax avoidance payments to players during Advocatt era. 2 Could be that amount after penalties of 50% or.more plus interest. 3 They did know hence 1 pound price. 4 It is not a debt yet and may never be. 5 In which universe have you been hiding? :fish: Mainly explains my questions. Really havent taken much notice of this side of it as I lost interest during the takeover "will it or wont it happen" stage that dragged on for months. Its a strange one if they didnt know about it though considering the time they took to get the deal through. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Well it proves your no tim. They know more about it than we do. That'll be their accounting degrees courtesy of kiddy-fiddler-street. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 That'll be their accounting degrees courtesy of kiddy-fiddler-street. First time in their life they have had anything to do with tax. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,785 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Mainly explains my questions. Really havent taken much notice of this side of it as I lost interest during the takeover "will it or wont it happen" stage that dragged on for months. Its a strange one if they didnt know about it though considering the time they took to get the deal through. They did know all about it. It's a large part of the reason that the club only cost £1, as Calscot says, and the way that everything was set up post-deal took the tax case into account. The payments were not only from the Advocaat era. They were still being made during the 09/10 season. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I just wonder why Whyte was shouting his head off about 5 mill every year for the first 5 years when he has now had to back-track to cutting the wage bill by at least 7 mill. Even a few months ago he gave an average player like Whittaker a massive pay hike suggested to be far higher than the 10mill wage limit he is now talking about. Things just don't seem to add up. I totally agree we have to learn to live within our means but then why was he preaching a lot of junk before hand. As far as I can see there are no new debts that were not known to his accountants when they were scrutinising the books. Even his outburst in the media over the last few days is just all hot air. Are we better off than a year ago? Were LLoyds not also only wanting us to cut the wage bill to within our means. Lloyds allowed us 4mill to buy Jelavic so they were giving us just as much slack as Whyte has done He has not removed the 22mill debt he has just moved it to another filing cabinet so can he really say we are better off than a Year ago. Personally I have my doubts as it certainly wouldn't have been in Lloyds best interest to let us go into administration as that would have cost them their own money. I am not sure but administration could be Whyte's best option. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I'm not a financial expert and I'm not interested in big money, other than to express my belief that it's one of the main reasons for most of the strife in the world. It cause's me a whole lot more grief to be hearing about my club going through all this crap in public, worse, when I realise that there is nothng I can do about it in order to save Rangers FC. I don't think we're going down, there may be some dodgy revelations, but the only thing I'm interested in is winning on the park. The sooner all this shit is done and dusted, the better. P.S. I didn't think much of Murray's 'fiver for every tenner' claim, even though it annoyed you know who. It was a stupid thing to say and secretly I was thinking what an arrogant bam, just cause he's got money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 The' fiver for every tenner', was when I first began to question his stewardship of Rangers. 0 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.