A Very Bad Scenario

[der Berliner 3,813]

Weren't we told only recently that we may have apparently settled a deal with HMRC for 8m for both cases, after Whyte talked to the London HQ of said institution?

 

In any case, we could - no matter what Whyte said before - still challenge any negative outcome of the case and take it into next season, if not beyond. Not nice, but very much an option.

 

Anyways, I doubt that we need to sell players to pay other people's wages. I do wonder what keeps the smaller case from being concluded - lawyers' wages apart.

Edited December 29, 2011 by der Berliner

[rbr 1,266]

Weren't we told only recently that we may have apparently settled a deal with HMRC for 8m for both cases, after Whyte talked to the London HQ of said institution?

 

In any case, we could - no matter what Whyte said before - still challenge any negative outcome of the case and take it into next season, if not beyond. Not nice, but very much an option.

 

Anyways, I doubt that we need to sell players to pay other people's wages. I do wonder what keeps the smaller case from being concluded - lawyers' wages apart.

Whyte cannot talk to HMRC it was one of the stipulations of the takeover that Thornhill qc who is being paid for by the MIH group is the only one dealing with HMRC , Murray is still controlling the whole ball game , we are fast running out of cash and things are looking very very bleak

[der Berliner 3,813]

Whyte cannot talk to HMRC it was one of the stipulations of the takeover that Thornhill qc who is being paid for by the MIH group is the only one dealing with HMRC , Murray is still controlling the whole ball game , we are fast running out of cash and things are looking very very bleak

 

Which is an assumption by yourself, I assume?

[Bluedell 5,679]

Weren't we told only recently that we may have apparently settled a deal with HMRC for 8m for both cases, after Whyte talked to the London HQ of said institution?

Newspaper speculation only.

 

 

Whyte cannot talk to HMRC it was one of the stipulations of the takeover that Thornhill qc who is being paid for by the MIH group is the only one dealing with HMRC , Murray is still controlling the whole ball game ,

Has that been confirmed by a reputable source?

[rbr 1,266]

The HMRC dealings are a matter of public record now , the Herald and evening times newspapers have seen the signed agreement between Murray/MIH and Whyte which states that only MIH/Andrew Thornhill has the power to negotiate with HMRC , any representation that we make or are asked for by HMRC have to be cleared first by Mr Thornhill .

 

Craig Whyte is very fast going up a dead end and is approaching the end very very quickly , that the bastard Murray still appears to be manipulating the timeline's is very very worrying , as is the unaudited accounts and the very real possibility of no european football for 3 years , some thing that would be nigh on fatal for us .

[der Berliner 3,813]

Which is essentially what it all boils down to. Speculation and assumption. We'll have to wait and see what January holds in store.

 

As one of my fellow German boarders keeps on saying: winning the HMRC case and/or getting rid of the debts is essentially more important than another title this season. Not what your average Bear will like to hear, but that is what it boils down too. Obviously, retaining the title and getting into the CL proper should be a grand motivator for the players ... though from recent displays some of our "veterans" (at European level) seem to have lost that particular bite, perhaps thinking that reaching one European Final in their Rangers career was all what Fortune held in store for them (at this club).

 

From rbr

The HMRC dealings are a matter of public record now , the Herald and evening times newspapers have seen the signed agreement between Murray/MIH and Whyte which states that only MIH/Andrew Thornhill has the power to negotiate with HMRC , any representation that we make or are asked for by HMRC have to be cleared first by Mr Thornhill .

 

... or so the papers claim. Who says that inbetween this agreement has not been edited or removed? Just out of interest.

Edited December 29, 2011 by der Berliner

[khan 0]

Daryll King also claimed to have seen incriminating side letters, which if it was true would negate the need for any tribunal. Even it was true what if those side letters were on MIH paper as opposed to RFC headed notepaper or letters.

[der Berliner 3,813]

Daryll King also claimed to have seen incriminating side letters, which if it was true would negate the need for any tribunal. Even it was true what if those side letters were on MIH paper as opposed to RFC headed notepaper or letters.

 

Care to expand why this would negate the need for a tribunal? Isn't the latter exactly what is "holding" the HMRC cases "up" these days?

[Stimpy 0]

Every month this case swings from doomsday to things will be alright.

[Whosthedado 1,709]

Every month this case swings from doomsday to things will be alright.

 

Spot on and nobody really has any idea. I'm almost as sick of this as I am of the team at the moment. I just want a decision one way or another then we can - hopefully - deal with it and move on