Paul Murray registers interest in buying Rangers

[Juancornetto 1]

And not one shred of evidence to back up any one of those claims.

[ascender 352]

Until there's clarity around the big tax case, I don't think anything's really changed since Whyte took over in the eyes of potential investors. There's no doubt a debt free and successful Rangers could be run by living within its means, but who in their right mind would put millions In which could be lost overnight.

 

Could the administration thing force the hand of the tax tribunal to release its verdict? If we go in to liquidation then I thought it doesn't matter when they come knocking because it's a brand new company who aren't liable for the bill, but posters elsewhere are suggesting otherwise. But if we come out of administration with a package to pay this year's tax, we could then have to go in to admin again if the tribunal or subsequent appeals go against us?

 

Whichever way I look at it, it's still the elephant in the room.

[rbr 1,266]

Until there's clarity around the big tax case, I don't think anything's really changed since Whyte took over in the eyes of potential investors. There's no doubt a debt free and successful Rangers could be run by living within its means, but who in their right mind would put millions In which could be lost overnight.

 

Could the administration thing force the hand of the tax tribunal to release its verdict? If we go in to liquidation then I thought it doesn't matter when they come knocking because it's a brand new company who aren't liable for the bill, but posters elsewhere are suggesting otherwise. But if we come out of administration with a package to pay this year's tax, we could then have to go in to admin again if the tribunal or subsequent appeals go against us?

Whichever way I look at it, it's still the elephant in the room.

 

Why , we have no money , we are in administration , the HMRC case cannot be cherry picked time wise , if they have won as we believe is the case then thats it , they tried to get us into administration over the £9 million unpaid , not over the £75 which if it is that high is now lost to them

[capstans 0]

I cant do link on phone but it was a definitive that CVA is for unsecured creditors. Simms & partners website states clearly secured creditors do not vote on CVA's.

[craig 5,199]

Tax people could only appeal if allowed to, serioud questions need asking as to why the auditors kept signing off the accounts without mention of either tax problem or indeef any alloeance for them.

 

Murray should keep quiet and put up or shut up.

 

At the time the audits were being signed off EBT's would have been legal loopholes. HMRC have attempted to close them and force those using them to pay back-taxes.

 

The auditors dont have the benefit of foresight when signing off the financials. They would more than likely reviewed/audited the payroll and they would definitely have seen the EBT stuff (they would have done a basic payroll tax test and found that taxes werent being paid at 40% and asked why not, to be told that the club were using EBT's. The auditors would then have had their tax departments investigate the veracity of using such schemes and, at that time, they were prefectly legal, if operated properly).

[capstans 0]

That is untrue the Ebt's were in dispute and still the books were cleared with nary a word about the small tax case either. EBT's are still perfectly legal of utilised correctly.