Tax officials blamed for the downfall of Rangers

[der Berliner 3,744]

Given how strange the law system in Britain / Scotland deals and dealt with our case (be it admin / HMRC / Whyte or Sports Direct), you would have hope that this would be done in the US. There sure would be lawyers about chasing HMRC et al from pillar to post for damages new and old.

[Bluedell 5,625]

36 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

we were required by UEFA or FIFA to pay football debts. 

 

I am not sure voluntarily is quite right on that. 

Maybe voluntary was the wrong word, but that's probably how the legal system would look at it.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

5 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Maybe voluntary was the wrong word, but that's probably how the legal system would look at it.

probably not but who knows. 

 

 

[buster. 5,194]

2 hours ago, Bluedell said:

I believe that you're correct. 75% of creditors by value must agree for a CVA to proceed.

OK, ...then it would come down to the numbers wrt the different parts of the total HMRC claim.

ie. was quantum big enough (25%) to block CVA

.

It was clear what the HMRC wanted out of this (precedent re. EBT's)  and they kept at it for years. 

Whilst an individual may have leaked documents at certain times, I don't buy the rumours re. HMRC and dark deeds. 

However, I was always more inclined to entertain a conspiracy from other angles within the saga but the bastards have got away with it.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

you would have to think there is a lot of votes in it for anyone calling for or promising a proper impartial review of this. 

[Bluedell 5,625]

38 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

you would have to think there is a lot of votes in it for anyone calling for or promising a proper impartial review of this. 

The SNP and Labour have done well in elections over the years despite being anti-Rangers, so there's no real incentive for anyone to call for it.?

[Frankie 8,562]

2 hours ago, Bluedell said:

Just to clarify that HMRC have dropped the £24m penalty charge and submitted an amended claim for £68.3m. It's not £20m.

 

There are further appeals in place that could see it drop to £20m, but The Times don't give any suggestion as to who it it that thinks that.

It's all a bit unclear at this stage.

 

The last BDO report (in June) is the source of most of the info in The Times article (i.e. the amended £68m claim) but, like you say, there's no detail in how they suddenly think that will be reduced by a further £50m.

 

I assume the next BDO report is imminent so perhaps Greig Cameron has had sight of that and new information on any appeal status.

[Frankie 8,562]

What now for oldco Rangers?

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/18037028.analysis-now-oldco-rangers/?ref=twtrec

 

Quote

THERE is an argument that the UK would not have had to endure a decade of Tory austerity had it not been for the willingness of the Liberal Democrats to enter into coalition with David Cameron’s Conservative Party in 2010.

While the circumstances are obviously very different, fans of Rangers are today arguing that the “oldco” operating company could ultimately have been saved from the fate of liquidation in 2012 – and the humiliation that followed through years of subsequent mismanagement and demotion – had the tax bill it faced been significantly lower, as is now argued to be the case.

 

In a story like this, there is an abundance of ifs, buts and maybes, as the Lib Dems would now surely attest. Rangers fans will say the oldco would have survived and their club would have been spared the embarrassment of not just having to start again in the Third Division, even though continual allegations that their team effectively cheated their way to several league title wins may not have dissipated.

Opposing fans will continue to argue Rangers had an unfair sporting advantage during the period Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) were used, between 2001 and 2010.

In sporting terms it is a deeply grey area, and what is equally unclear at this stage is whether there will be any corporate implications going forward.

Back in 2015, current Rangers chairman Dave King floated the prospect of reviving the oldco, a process which would involve returning assets from the current holding company to the original operating vehicle, and repaying some of the oldco’s debts.

That line may hold some emotional appeal for fans eager to counter the view that their club had “died”. But it is difficult to see the business appeal for King and the current regime at Ibrox.

At a time when the club continues to rely heavily on the financial goodwill of King and other major shareholders, what would be the attraction of taking on more debt? Even if the tax liability from the EBT scandal is reduced to £23m, it is hard to see how the Rangers of today could afford to absorb that, or why it would even want to. There is only one Alfredo Morelos in the current squad, after all.

One other dimension concerns former Rangers owner Sir David Murray, and how he may respond to the latest developments. The controversial metals and property magnate has long defended the use of EBTs while at the club, stating repeatedly that, at the time of their operation that they were a legal means to avoid tax.  In the final accounts of Sir David’s Murray International Holdings, which was wound up in 2015, he argued that the club “need not have entered liquidation” after the first tier tax tribunal regarding EBTs ruled in Rangers’ favour.

Of course, HMRC went on to successfully appeal that ruling. But perhaps the judgment would not have ultimately led Rangers slipping into administration then liquidation in 2012, had the original tax bill facing the club not been as high as originally calculated.

Indeed, former chairman John McClelland has said this week that the club would have been more appealing to potential buyers had the tax liability hanging over it not been so high.

In the bitter world of football in the west of Scotland, others will see it differently. With the club already owing £18m to Lloyds Banking Group at the point Sir David sold up to Craig Whyte in 2011, some observers believe that a £23m tax liability on top of that would have been enough to ensure the club was not able to avoid insolvency.

 

[compo 7,042]

Mind you it's been good for keeping Rangers forums busy since  valentine's day 2012 

[ian1964 10,724]