AGM Postponed- Early Next Year

[forlanssister 3,114]

Can't really see anything wrong with the above. The more information the shareholders will be told at an AGM the better, the more advanced all talks with HMRC and our lawyers are, the better. I'm sure some mean-ills will find something sinister in this news too and bring out flak of the biggest calibre.

 

 

I think you're missing the point altogether, the reason the AGM is not going ahead is not because Craig Whyte wants to give the shareholders more information but rather because he wants to keep them in the dark and most certainly doesn't want shareholders asking awkward questions in an open forum.

 

It should be noted that although an AGM can't be called at present because Whyte has not met the conditions required to call one, he can at any time call an EGM.

 

It should also be noted that MIH are dealing with HMRC regarding the big tax case as clearly stated in the Shareholders Circular if Whyte attempted to talk to HMRC he would be in breach of the purchase agreement and would leave himself open to having to cancel the debt owed to his RFC Group Ltd.

[Ergatrude 0]

It should also be noted that MIH are dealing with HMRC regarding the big tax case as clearly stated in the Shareholders Circular if Whyte attempted to talk to HMRC he would be in breach of the purchase agreement and would leave himself open to having to cancel the debt owed to his RFC Group Ltd.

 

Why would he take on a burden of that magnitude if he wasn't allowed to deal with it himself?

 

SunSport can reveal Whyte has been in detailed negotiations with HMRC to sort out the problems he inherited at Ibrox.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Why would he take on a burden of that magnitude if he wasn't allowed to deal with it himself?

 

The very question Paul Murray posed in the BBC documentary.

Edited December 8, 2011 by forlanssister
Crap grammar!

[Ergatrude 0]

The very question Paul Murray posed on the BBC documentary.

 

But he has said himself that he has spoken to HMRC, why would he say that if he risked such a sanction?

[forlanssister 3,114]

But he has said himself that he has spoken to HMRC, why would he say that if he risked such a sanction?

 

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!)

[Ergatrude 0]

I read the shareholder circular again & see no mention of any restrictions whereby Whyte could not speak to HMRC.

 

Have you not realised yet there is very little correlation between what Craig Whyte says and what Craig Whyte does.

 

Short answer; not really.

 

Long answer; we can only judge by what the media tell us as the club themselves are being pretty quiet about most issues. The information available in the media is either shockingly biased, sensationalism at it's best or it is showing that we have a corrupt owner in charge of Rangers.

 

One thing I do know is that, amongst other things, the stadium has had improvements, our squad has been improved (albeit at not much financial outlay), our club has attempted to branch out into new markets.

 

I'm branching off the topic here, I do think it is unprofessional of Whyte & co. to delay the AGM.

I also believe that we need to give the man a chance before we brand him a crook, especially since most of the information to support this comes from a home made smear campaign broadcast by the BBC.

[Ergatrude 0]

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!)

 

Until the AGM, no one will know for sure. I was under the impression that the arrestment of funds was procedure when a case was in dispute?

[Ergatrude 0]

Could this delay mean that the club incur any financial penalty?

 

We could incur fines, but only if a shareholder complains.

[craig 5,199]

What's wrong with a letter???

 

Nothing, but email/website offer a quicker method of delivery.

[forlanssister 3,114]

I read the shareholder circular again & see no mention of any restrictions whereby Whyte could not speak to HMRC.

 

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.

 

Long answer; we can only judge by what the media tell us as the club themselves are being pretty quiet about most issues. The information available in the media is either shockingly biased, sensationalism at it's best or it is showing that we have a corrupt owner in charge of Rangers.

 

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.

 

One thing I do know is that, amongst other things, the stadium has had improvements, our squad has been improved (albeit at not much financial outlay), our club has attempted to branch out into new markets.

 

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?

 

I'm branching off the topic here, I do think it is unprofessional of Whyte & co. to delay the AGM.

I also believe that we need to give the man a chance before we brand him a crook, especially since most of the information to support this comes from a home made smear campaign broadcast by the BBC.

 

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?

 

Until the AGM, no one will know for sure. I was under the impression that the arrestment of funds was procedure when a case was in dispute?

 

It's not standard procedure especially where there is an agreement to pay.