SDM Hits Out At King

[barca72 440]

It looks like all conspiracy theories are off. There was only one culprit - Whyte.

As per usual if you are going to be a liar you better have a long memory. Imagine, it was a department in Ticketus that was responsible for Whyte being caught, probably earlier than he wanted.

He was playing his dodgy little games with HMRC, and they swatted him down. They probably waited with their strategy until they became the major creditor to be able to control acceptance of the CVA.

I believe that they can bring more severe laws against Whyte when a company goes into liquidation than they can if it is administration. I can't quote the law yet, but maybe I'll find it.

It looks like Rangers the club, was just taken along for the ride in this little charlatan's plans.

 

52.

That Mr Ken Olverman was the Financial Controller of Rangers FC prior to 6 May 2011 and continued in that role after that date. Prior to 6 May 2011 he had a very substantial responsibility for the management of the business administration of Rangers FC as previously explained. He had the responsibility of assimilating and compiling financial data for the information of directors and the preparing of financial reports, accounts and projections. He reported directly to Mr Donald McIntyre the Executive Finance Director. From 18 June 2011 his line manager was Mr Alistair Russell, the Chief Operations Officer and Executive Director.

55.

That whereas prior to 6 May 2011 Mr Ken Olverman as Financial Controller of the ordinary business and trading operations of Rangers FC had substantial personal bank instrument signing authority and joint bank instrument signing authority with an Executive Director up to a value of £10,000, upon the implementation of the new policies he was instructed by Mr Craig Whyte that this previous bank authority was revoked and his limit for signing cheques etc was reduced to £100.

57.

That Mr Ken Olverman was instructed that despite Mr Alistair Russell being the Chief Operations Officer and Executive Director, Mr Ken Olverman was to report directly to and take instructions directly from Mr Craig Whyte. He instructed that no one except Mr Craig Whyte should be provided with information by Mr Ken Olverman. Mr Craig Whyte emphasised to Mr Ken Olverman that no information about the finance or affairs of Rangers FC was to be provided to anyone not specifically approved by Mr Craig Whyte. Mr Ken Olverman was instructed that this prohibition also applied to directors of Rangers FC. Mr Ken Olverman was concerned about the policy in which he was instructed but implemented it.

58.

That whereas prior to 6 May 2011 all of the directors of Rangers FC were provided by Mr Ken Olverman and other managers with briefing papers, management accounts, bank correspondence, financial accounts and projections and other materials to assist in the corporate governance of Rangers FC, after that date, on the instructions of Mr Craig Whyte, little or no information relating to the affairs of Rangers FC was made available to Mr David King (NonExecutive Director), Mr John McClelland, ( Non Executive Director) orMr John Greig ( Non Executive Director). Mr Ken Olverman was concerned about the policy in which he was instructed but implemented it.

60.

That as Financial Controller and as the company officer directly involved in its trading and financial affairs, Mr Ken Olverman was aware at all times of the state of the bank operating accounts and other bank accounts of Rangers FC. At no time between 6 May 2011 and October 2011 was he aware of any sum of money being received from Mr Craig Whyte or any company with which Mr Craig Whyte had a connection, into any account of Rangers FC.

66.

That shortly before 19 September 2011 Mr Ken Olverman was aware that Rangers FC were due to make a payment to HMRC in respect of PAYE income tax, National Insurance Contributions and Value added Tax. On making enquiry with Mr Craig Whyte about said payments, he was not authorised to make the payment which was therefore not paid on the due date. Upon his expressing his concern to Mr Craig Whyte, Mr Ken Olverman was in due course instructed that payments to HMRC were to be suspended and withheld. At the time of the first withheld payment in September 2011 Rangers FC’s financial situation was such that it could have made the payment due to HMRC.

67.

That in the course of his subsequent communications with Mr Craig Whyte about the payment of these social taxes due to HMRC, Mr Craig Whyte stated to Mr Olverman that non payment of the sums due was a tactic or negotiating ploy intended to improve the position of Rangers FC in any attempted negotiation with HMRC of a settlement in “the Big Tax Case”.

68.

That between September 2011 and February 2012 Rangers FC withheld in excess of £13,000,000 from HMRC due in respect of PAYE income tax, National Insurance Contributions and VAT.

74.

That in the course of the latter part of August 2011 Mr Ken Olverman was contacted by two senior officials of the Customs and Excise (VAT)division of HMRC. Their enquiry was in relation to invoices which had been discovered in the business records of Ticketus which bore to have been raised by Rangers FC. The invoices related to sums of many millions of pounds and the VAT element in each of them had been the subject of offset by Ticketus in the submission of its VAT returns for the last period. Such was the size and impact of this offset of VAT which had been paid by Ticketus in respect of these invoices, that Ticketus had made a claim for payment of a substantial sum to it by HMRC by way of recovery of VAT paid.

75.

That Mr Ken Olverman, the Financial Controller of Rangers FC had no knowledge of the existence of the invoices purportedly raised by Rangers FC. The raising of such invoices was a matter which fell squarely within his sphere of responsibility and it was inconceivable that such invoices for such large sums could be raised and issued from the finance office of Rangers FC without his knowledge. He had no knowledge of any agreement with Ticketus which might give rise to any invoice within the period concerned. He was unaware of any current transaction with Ticketus and knew that no sums of money had been received in recent times from Ticketus into any accounts of Rangers FC.

76.

That in the course of September 2011 Mr Ken Olverman had sight of the said invoices. The nature and format of the invoices was entirely different to that of invoices raised within the finance office of Rangers FC. He was of the view that it appeared as though “Clip Art” computer processes had been involved in their creation. They did not appear to him to resemble any invoices he had ever seen issued by Rangers FC. Having sight of the invoices confirmed his view even further that they had not been created within the finance office of Rangers FC.

77.

That Mr Ken Olverman believed from his conversations with the HMRC official that the invoices were the subject of further investigation. He accordingly took no further action in relation to the invoices. He did not make enquiry of Mr Craig Whyte nor of Mr Gary Withey. He did not inform any of the current directors of Rangers FC of the matter.

83.

That in mid November 2011 Mr Ken Olverman realised that the revenue accounts of Rangers FC were significantly under pressure and that a situation was arising in which there was insufficient cash at hand or within its borrowing facilities to meet the obligations of Rangers FC. He reported the position to Mr Craig Whyte and Mr Gary Withey and requested that there be an injection of working capital.

83

That in later November 2011 a sum of some £200,000 was transferred from Messrs Collyer Bristow, Solicitors, London to the revenue accounts of Rangers FC, and the obligations of Rangers FC were met.

84

That in early December 2011 Mr Ken Olverman realised that there were insufficient funds within the revenue accounts of Rangers FC or within its borrowing facilities to meet its current liabilities including its wages and salaries due in December 2011. He contacted Mr Craig Whyte and Mr Gary Withey and advised them of the situation and advised them that a working capital injection of £800,000 was required to cover the obligations which required to be met.

85

That in the course of December 2011 a sum of £800,000 was transferred from Collyer Bristow , Solicitors, London, to the revenue accounts of Rangers FC.

86

That the two sums of £200,000 and £800,00 from Collyer Bristow, Solicitors, London, transferred to Rangers FC upon Mr Ken Olverman’s requests in November and December of 2011 comprise the only sums of capital paid into the revenue accounts of Rangers FC between 6 May 2011 and 6 March 2012.

87

That in recent years the wages and salaries payable by Rangers FC under the Pay As You Earn tax accounting scheme amounted to between £1,000,000 and £1,500.000 per month. This level of income tax liability arising from the wages and salaries continued during the period between 6 May 2011 and 6 March 2012.

88

That during that period between September and February, no payments were made by Rangers FC in respect of PAYE income tax, National Insurance Contributions and VAT. The non-payment was a deliberate act in furtherance of a decision of the Chairman and director of Rangers FC not to make payment as a negotiating tactic in the resolution of “the Big Tax Case”.

92

That on 14 February 2012 Rangers FC were placed in Administration by order of the Court of Session. Two insolvency practitioners from the firm of Duff and Phelps were appointed administrators. The principal Creditor was HMRC and sums owed to it were in excess of £13,000,000.

93

That in all material respects, between 6 May 2011 and 14 February 2012 Mr Craig Whyte was “the directing mind and will” of Rangers FC.

[forlanssister 3,114]

It looks like all conspiracy theories are off. There was only one culprit - Whyte.

As per usual if you are going to be a liar you better have a long memory. Imagine, it was a department in Ticketus that was responsible for Whyte being caught, probably earlier than he wanted.

He was playing his dodgy little games with HMRC, and they swatted him down. They probably waited with their strategy until they became the major creditor to be able to control acceptance of the CVA.

I believe that they can bring more severe laws against Whyte when a company goes into liquidation than they can if it is administration. I can't quote the law yet, but maybe I'll find it.

It looks like Rangers the club, was just taken along for the ride in this little charlatan's plans.

 

HMRC became the major creditor the day the submitted the bill for the EBT's.

[Frankie 8,562]

Where is that stuff from? Court papers?

[barca72 440]

HMRC became the major creditor the day the submitted the bill for the EBT's.

 

Well then, your guess is as good as mine as to why they waited for as long as they did before taking action.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Well then, your guess is as good as mine as to why they waited for as long as they did before taking action.

 

They wanted a judgement in the EBT case, neither they nor Whyte expected it to take so long.

[barca72 440]

Where is that stuff from? Court papers?

 

Sorry, I omitted to list the link ...

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93212354/SFA-Rangers-Note-of-Reasons

[RANGERRAB 3,674]

HMRC became the major creditor the day the submitted the bill for the EBT's.

 

A Bill to which they had no entitlement

[barca72 440]

They wanted a judgement in the EBT case, neither they nor Whyte expected it to take so long.

 

Aahh, okay then.

[forlanssister 3,114]

A Bill to which they had no entitlement

 

I'm not disputing that, but it is a bill the Administrators and the Liquidators have recognised.

[RANGERRAB 3,674]

I'm not disputing that, but it is a bill the Administrators and the Liquidators have recognised.

 

And when HMRC do finally realise they're getting hee haw what happens then?

Do we all go back to where we once were and live happily ever after?

Or will there be some serious litigation? This f@ckin phantom EBT Tax Bill put oldco out of business and cost Rangers tens of millions of pounds. Will there be some sort of attempt to recover this money?