Bluedell 5,953 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 It was the CLUB that didnt pay the PAYE, not Whyte (technically). He would hide behind the corporate veil... I'd argue he that he should get done for illegal trading. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Funny how they still do this "up to 124m" bollocks but never do the same with the transfer ban, "which the court found to be illegal". Weird story though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 I'd argue he that he should get done for illegal trading. It wouldn't surprise me if in the whole concoction, no one is prosecuted. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 I'd argue he that he should get done for illegal trading. Would still be the club though, would it not ? The club is the one trading. I am sure he would be up on charges in his capacity as owner/director. Either way, I am not sure he would be charged for the non-payment of PAYE - PAYE payments which are the company's obligation. This is Whyte, he would undoubtedly say that he was being kept in the dark by his accounts department - I know, I know, that still doesnt absolve him of his fiduciary duty as an officer of the company. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nevergreen Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Would still be the club though, would it not ? The club is the one trading. I am sure he would be up on charges in his capacity as owner/director. Either way, I am not sure he would be charged for the non-payment of PAYE - PAYE payments which are the company's obligation. This is Whyte, he would undoubtedly say that he was being kept in the dark by his accounts department - I know, I know, that still doesnt absolve him of his fiduciary duty as an officer of the company. This thought makes me sad.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,953 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Would still be the club though, would it not ? The club is the one trading. I am sure he would be up on charges in his capacity as owner/director. Either way, I am not sure he would be charged for the non-payment of PAYE - PAYE payments which are the company's obligation. This is Whyte, he would undoubtedly say that he was being kept in the dark by his accounts department - I know, I know, that still doesnt absolve him of his fiduciary duty as an officer of the company. No, it would be him as a director. He can be charged if the company was insolvent and the directors continued to allow it to trade. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 No, it would be him as a director. He can be charged if the company was insolvent and the directors continued to allow it to trade. In which case others would be charged too (or had he expunged the rest from the boardroom by then ?) - would we be happy enough with the other directors being charged to get at Whyte ? Maybe so. How many other instances have you seen of directors being charged for this ? I had a client who did the same thing and there was never any attempt to charge him for the same thing - admittedly on a far smaller scale and nowhere near the size of institution that RFC is - but you dont often see this punished by charges being brought against the directors, do you ? I cant say I have seen many instances. Would also be interesting in terms of being "insolvent" - part of a company's trade is player transfers, right ? Surely he could have said that he was going to sell 3 players to recover the funds to pay the PAYE (the sale of McGregor, Davis and Naismith would alone would have pretty much covered the HMRC PAYE & NIC obligations). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 4,021 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Would still be the club though, would it not ? The club is the one trading. I am sure he would be up on charges in his capacity as owner/director. Either way, I am not sure he would be charged for the non-payment of PAYE - PAYE payments which are the company's obligation. This is Whyte, he would undoubtedly say that he was being kept in the dark by his accounts department - I know, I know, that still doesnt absolve him of his fiduciary duty as an officer of the company. The police are bound to have asked Ken Olverman why PAYE/NI wasn't paid i.e. whose decision was it to withhold these payments. I think we know the answer 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,132 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 I'd argue he that he should get done for illegal trading. Looks like Grant Thornton held a similar view. Also interesting is their view on "financial assistance". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 D'ye think Craig is 'feart' to come into the country, or did he genuinely think he didn't need to appear in court today? 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.