ShedTA Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Even if we assume he has been correct in the past, it would have made sod all difference to the insolvency event which was an unfortunate inevitability. This chap thrives on bending facts to suit his agenda (e.g. suggesting that a perfectly understandable and expected meeting by King/Ashley might be something more sinister) and if you continue to write about the same subject with limited sources, it's likely that you'll get something correct now and again. To suggest this guy is some kind of soothsayer is ridiculous. He's just a bloke who dislikes Rangers intensely, obsessively writes about them in source-less internet blogs, loves the attention when others reference him and who occasionally gets lucky. I suspect he's the kind of bloke who regularly Googles his own name. Very possibly. So who suggested he is a soothsayer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairbairn Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Really? If the fans hadn't welcomed whyte and green and danced to Charlie's tune nothing would've been different? Bold statement.The fans welcomed Whyte after the deal was done. If the like of Johnstone, Bain and Murray who were all on the board at the time couldn't stop David Murray going through with the sale then there's not a lot we could have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slasher Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Why don't Greece just rename themselves Greece International and blame everyone else for their demise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairbairn Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Why don't Greece just rename themselves Greece International and blame everyone else for their demise?Biting satire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Biting satire. It's a bit of a tragedy he wrote that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Sooooooo..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Sooooooo.....A needle pulling thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andymac Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Lah..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Col Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Sooooooo..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCdjvTTnzDU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCdjvTTnzDU I wish the effort of correcting the faulty hyper-link would have been worth the 1.3 seconds of my time. You weren't here when thplinth was desperately trying to get any Rangers fan attention to let them know how badly run the club was financially. Unfortunately it wasn't listened to and a lot of financial hardship was felt by anyone who did business with the company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 I wish the effort of correcting the faulty hyper-link would have been worth the 1.3 seconds of my time. You weren't here when thplinth was desperately trying to get any Rangers fan attention to let them know how badly run the club was financially. Unfortunately it wasn't listened to and a lot of financial hardship was felt by anyone who did business with the company. Ah trust you to be sniffing about... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 I think you would now have to think that King deliberately allowed the shares to be de-listed from the exchange in order to reduce the financial and management transparency of the company. He pretty much said he thought working behind closed doors / in secret was how the company should be run. No one really knows what has happened since then and all you can assume is the losses are continuing (what changed to reverse them?). So someone or something must be funding them. I think it also maybe suits King to see the share price fall so he was not bothered about the de-listing knock on.. This court case, the duration of it and any appeals and the ongoing liquidation could mean all assets are frozen in their current arrangement and King therefore might be very limited in what costs he can cut until then. Or he may be using it to stop paying some costs pending an outcome in which case this might have helped a lot but if the court case does not go his way he could see RFC facing another big liability. The court case with Whyte & Green is going to be fascinating. When does it kick off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Liquidators have pretty extensive powers once fraudulent activity is proven. I believe they can reverse assets sales and nullify contracts that sort of thing. King hinted that RFC 1899 might even be recoverable with all the assets restored. This is now a possibility with the court case running but it would have to go your way obviously and more importantly you can't lose the appeal in the big tax case. (The masonic connections are working wonders there considering it was a most blatant case of tax evasion.) Edited October 21, 2015 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 (The masonic connections are working wonders there considering it was a most blatant case of tax evasion.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 The people dealing with the "big tax case" are incredulous at the rulings hence their continued escalation up the court system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 The people dealing with the "big tax case" are incredulous at the rulings hence their continued escalation up the court system. It is a very interesting situation. HMRC cannot lose as it makes a mockery of income tax rules. Why would any of us pay the ridiculous rates of income tax we are charged when multi millionaire footballers can take the utter piss out of it. So let's all have EBTs, the precedent will have been set in stone if RFC win. Which is why I think they must finally lose. If they don't then it will be game on for every piss taking scheme imaginable. I think HMRC are hoping when it gets to the top echelons they will get a fair hearing (mibbes aye mibbes naw). Crazy that RFC are still in it as it was an huge tax evasion piss take... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TartanJon Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 It was interesting that the Daily Record printed a correction to an article they published saying Rangers were liquidated because of the big tax case and owed the tax man nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 It is a very interesting situation. HMRC cannot lose as it makes a mockery of income tax rules. Why would any of us pay the ridiculous rates of income tax we are charged when multi millionaire footballers can take the utter piss out of it. So let's all have EBTs, the precedent will have been set in stone if RFC win. Which is why I think they must finally lose. If they don't then it will be game on for every piss taking scheme imaginable. I think HMRC are hoping when it gets to the top echelons they will get a fair hearing (mibbes aye mibbes naw). Crazy that RFC are still in it as it was an huge tax evasion piss take... I thought the loophole used by Rangers and so many others had been closed thereby meaning it can't be replicated? Either way the talk of masonic conspiracy puts you firmly in the tin foil hat brigade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Q Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Put to one side any debate about the morality behind using EBTs, any competently run organisation should have shied away from them. If they were technically legal, they were so clearly wrong that ultimately, at some point, they were going to be targeted. I guess HMRC are fairly certain they will ultimately win this, otherwise why bother spending public money pursuing it? It would seem to be easier, and cheaper, to change the relevant laws/rules. Edited October 21, 2015 by Pool Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Put to one side any debate about the morality behind using EBTs, any competently run organisation should have shied away from them. If they were technically legal, they were so clearly wrong that ultimately, at some point, they were going to be targeted. I guess HMRC are fairly certain they will ultimately win this, otherwise why bother spending public money pursuing it? It would seem to be easier, and cheaper, to change the relevant laws/rules.Perhaps because they view it as a test case that will enable them to go after other organisations and individuals operating EBTs. I also doubt that HMRC really bother that much about whether or not they waste public money. This ceased to be about getting any money out of Rangers a long time ago. I guess the point as far as appealing up the chain is concerned, HMRC only have to win once, there's no-one around to appeal against that. Agree with your point about any competent organisation not getting involved though. Edited October 21, 2015 by aaid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddardStark Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Lots of good structural improvements going on behind the scenes as the club gets some sort of normality back. Fans are engaged and players are giving 100% unlike like previous seasons. Things are looking up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Q Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Perhaps because they view it as a test case that will enable them to go after other organisations and individuals operating EBTs. I also doubt that HMRC really bother that much about whether or not they waste public money. This ceased to be about getting any money out of Rangers a long time ago. I guess the point as far as appealing up the chain is concerned, HMRC only have to win once, there's no-one around to appeal against that. Agree with your point about any competent organisation not getting involved though. Any organisation still operating EBTs deserves what is coming their way. And if such a ruling were to help HMRC go after them that is good news. I guess the sums involved must be fairly substantial, otherwise they would simply go with closing the loophole. HMRC are as strapped for cash, and under as much scrutiny, as the rest of the public sector, I doubt that they would be continuing with this (very much in the public view) if it were a just a vanity thing unless, ultimately, it was seen as being cost effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgowmancity Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 It is a very interesting situation. HMRC cannot lose as it makes a mockery of income tax rules. Why would any of us pay the ridiculous rates of income tax we are charged when multi millionaire footballers can take the utter piss out of it. There will always be loopholes to stop you having to pay as much tax, there is a reason why none of the top people at HMRC are "employed" and a re generally contracted as a Limited Company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce778 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Any organisation still operating EBTs deserves what is coming their way. And if such a ruling were to help HMRC go after them that is good news. I guess the sums involved must be fairly substantial, otherwise they would simply go with closing the loophole. HMRC are as strapped for cash, and under as much scrutiny, as the rest of the public sector, I doubt that they would be continuing with this (very much in the public view) if it were a just a vanity thing unless, ultimately, it was seen as being cost effective.Appeals are not that expensive. All the cost of evidence being prepared has been expended. The argument is limited to points of law and no new evidence can be introduced so tends to be legal submissions only. They have come this far they may as well pursue it. Plus there is some money in the creditors pot given the £25m settlement with collyer bristows insurers (less £6m legal fees). Quote Link to comment 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.