CVA vote (June, 2012) - HMRC

V

Virgil Hilts

Well-Known Member
After the revelations over the last 36 hours, did HMRC actually have 25% (+) of Rangers unsecured debt, the amount required to block the administrators’ CVA proposals?
 
Virgil Hilts said:
After the revelations over the last 36 hours, did HMRC actually have 25% (+) of Rangers unsecured debt, the amount required to block the administrators’ CVA proposals?
Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter, you’re looking at it the wrong way, the only reason there was administration was because of the £75m ‘mistake’.

If Hmrc has set the big tax bill at £20M we would’ve traded our way out of it, simply serviced it at a reasonable level or found a credible buyer. The bank forced Murray to get rid of us at all costs as we were toxic due to the £75M liability - they ran the risk of losing the £22M(?) that we owed them.

Bear in mind that we’d significantly reduced the debt In the years leading up to 2012, while painful, we could’ve continued to downsize or sell Jelavic, Davis and Naeshame to continue operations.
 
Heisenberg said:
It doesn’t matter, you’re looking at it the wrong way, the only reason there was administration was because of the £75m ‘mistake’.

If Hmrc has set the big tax bill at £20M we would’ve traded our way out of it, simply serviced it at a reasonable level or found a credible buyer. The bank forced Murray to get rid of us at all costs as we were toxic due to the £75M liability - they ran the risk of losing the £22M(?) that we owed them.

Bear in mind that we’d significantly reduced the debt In the years leading up to 2012, while painful, we could’ve continued to downsize or sell Jelavic, Davis and Naeshame to continue operations.
Click to expand...

I was just wondering if HMRC had enough unsecured debt to effectively veto a CVA, I know it might not be priority, if they’ve had undue influence on another event that was pivotal in the fate of the company that used to operate Rangers football club it might be worth looking at.

It was loosely reported as £14.5m against approximately £55m (total CVA),, if HMRC are 5% out they might not have had the effective veto.

maybe just clutching at straws, 2012 fućked me, woke up at 4 with sore guts this morning, funny how things like this affect people.
 
Virgil Hilts said:
I was just wondering if HMRC had enough unsecured debt to effectively veto a CVA, I know it might not be priority, if they’ve had undue influence on another event that was pivotal in the fate of the company that used to operate Rangers football club it might be worth looking at.

It was loosely reported as £14.5m against approximately £55m (total CVA),, if HMRC are 5% out they might not have had the effective veto.

maybe just clutching at straws, 2012 fućked me, woke up at 4 with sore guts this morning, funny how things like this affect people.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about this also but don't have the original CVA figures. Many companies voted for the CVA and the total claim voting for it, taking into account the new HMRC estimated claim, may have been more than those claims against it. Not sure if this is the rule but wouldn't mind seeing the figures and getting the rules for a CVA approval.
 
Certain folk in the media are peddling the narrative that we will never know if we would have secured a buyer to take us out of admin even with the reduced tax liability.

The point is that admin would not have happened in the first place.

If the tax bill had been estimated properly, there would have been no Craig Whyte, no admin and no liquidation.

None of the events from 2012 onwards would have happened.

2012-present in Scottish football really are the asterisk years.
 
I used to have the full result of the CVA vote but have since lost it due to a new computer and thinking it was all in the past.

My memory might be playing tricks on me here but if I recall correctly the CVA proposal bore no relation to reality regarding the debt in terms of what it subsequently became.

Was it not the case that the CVA didn’t include, for example, the Big Tax Case at all? I seem to recall a debt figure of circa £55m, with £21m of that being HMRC and £27m being Ticketus. With a note to the effect that the debt could rise substantially depending on FTT result.

I can’t seem to track down any real detail online either.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I used to have the full result of the CVA vote but have since lost it due to a new computer and thinking it was all in the past.

My memory might be playing tricks on me here but if I recall correctly the CVA proposal bore no relation to reality regarding the debt in terms of what it subsequently became.

Was it not the case that the CVA didn’t include, for example, the Big Tax Case at all? I seem to recall a debt figure of circa £55m, with £21m of that being HMRC and £27m being Ticketus. With a note to the effect that the debt could rise substantially depending on FTT result.

I can’t seem to track down any real detail online either.
Click to expand...
IIRC, and reading some posts confirming the same, only the smaller tax case (the bit Whyte fessed up) was in the CVA pot.
However, that’s not really the issue. Whyte should never have been near the club. There should have been no requirement for the bank to force Murray to sell Rangers to Whyte due to the supposed tax penalty liability. HMRC, could have settled as they did elsewhere for the amount offered, which now seems much more reasonable.
Whyte couldn’t have given two fucks what was in the CVA pot. He was always aiming for this.
 
Brother Crockett said:
IIRC, and reading some posts confirming the same, only the smaller tax case (the bit Whyte fessed up) was in the CVA pot.
However, that’s not really the issue. Whyte should never have been near the club. There should have been no requirement for the bank to force Murray to sell Rangers to Whyte due to the supposed tax penalty liability. HMRC, could have settled as they did elsewhere for the amount offered, which now seems much more reasonable.
Whyte couldn’t have given two fucks what was in the CVA pot. He was always aiming for this.
Click to expand...

My point was in response to the OPs question regarding voting percentages at the CVA mate. Nothing you say is incorrect however.
 
Brick_Top said:
Certain folk in the media are peddling the narrative that we will never know if we would have secured a buyer to take us out of admin even with the reduced tax liability.

The point is that admin would not have happened in the first place.

If the tax bill had been estimated properly, there would have been no Craig Whyte, no admin and no liquidation.

None of the events from 2012 onwards would have happened.

2012-present in Scottish football really are the asterisk years.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly certain Dave King would have bought Murray out had he known that the potential liability was around 20m.
 
Ballymena Bear said:
Anyone know where this 140mill number all the tim tax experts come up with?
Click to expand...

If you took all the potential penalties and interest on both the EBT cases and Whyte's refusal to pay tax, it could have got that high. HMRC's approach on those is very aggressive, designed to encourage people to pay up and not contest things
 
Brick_Top said:
Certain folk in the media are peddling the narrative that we will never know if we would have secured a buyer to take us out of admin even with the reduced tax liability.

The point is that admin would not have happened in the first place.

If the tax bill had been estimated properly, there would have been no Craig Whyte, no admin and no liquidation.

None of the events from 2012 onwards would have happened.

2012-present in Scottish football really are the asterisk years.
Click to expand...
My piss is f.ucking boiling as all this sinks in.

I didn't think I could hate Scottish football any more than I did but I genuinely now hope that every single one of those clubs die.
 
thetoptier said:
the bbc quoting a duff and phelps report

as useful as the hitler diaries

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17628749
Click to expand...

For what it’s worth the figure BDO run with in their Statement of Affairs is more than £168m. That includes absolutely everything that could possibly be included.

Page 7 on the attached, running total of the left-hand column.

 
Valley Bluenose said:
For what it’s worth the figure BDO run with in their Statement of Affairs is more than £168m. That includes absolutely everything that could possibly be included.

Page 7 on the attached, running total of the left-hand column.

Click to expand...
Surely this is out of an abundance of caution and prudence that assumes worst case, losing every court case and no reduction in the tax liabilities?

The 24m comes from CB ?
 
Brick_Top said:
Certain folk in the media are peddling the narrative that we will never know if we would have secured a buyer to take us out of admin even with the reduced tax liability.

The point is that admin would not have happened in the first place.

If the tax bill had been estimated properly, there would have been no Craig Whyte, no admin and no liquidation.

None of the events from 2012 onwards would have happened.

2012-present in Scottish football really are the asterisk years.
Click to expand...

Good post. I cant understand our former chairman talking about the size of the debt putting buyers off. If the debt was so much lower than HMRC claimed then there would have been no need to sell.
 
Brother Crockett said:
Surely this is out of an abundance of caution and prudence that assumes worst case, losing every court case and no reduction in the tax liabilities?

The 24m comes from CB ?
Click to expand...

I’m no expert on these things, quite the opposite in fact. However, from the look of it the left-hand column totals all the debts/liabilities and the right-hand column the ‘incomings’, which includes the £24m from Collyer Bristow.

What it all means I have no idea, just wanted to get it out there when we have folk ‘complaining’ about figures of £140m in the media. Unless you know how to explain it all - and I don’t - it’s probably not a wise thing to get into a debate with anyone on, because they could easily throw the BDO figure at you.
 
From what I recall, sadly the HMRC DID have enough of a percentage to hold sway over the granting of a CVA, even without the Big Tax Case figure.
Whyte saw to that.
I had been surprised at the time, with admin being a possibility looming, that Whyte hadn't run up more debt to other individuals and agencies, to dilute the HMRC %.


As others have posted, it was this massive (and when you look back on it, it was fecking gargantuan) Big Tax debt that was being branded onto the Club, that fecked us up.

That, and the fact that the Administrators were clearly in on it, and quite happy to guide us down the path to what they hoped would be oblivion.
 
£14,472,042 against a debt of £55,415,632.

Would be great if BDO could get a forensic audit of HMRC’s penalties & assessments

D & P are on record effectively saying that HMRC would treat Rangers withhostility because of the “ big tax case “

Ifthatfigure is6% our HMRC didn’t have an effective CVA veto
 
From what I remember HMRC were granted £100 million as the amount we owed them despite the figure being unresolved. Some people on here claimed that it should only have been £1 they were granted as the debt was not established. HMRC had the say over our liquidation, I think they wanted us liquidated to get Whyte who had escaped them before. Well done SFA for fit and proper test.
 
biodoc said:
From what I remember HMRC were granted £100 million as the amount we owed them despite the figure being unresolved. Some people on here claimed that it should only have been £1 they were granted as the debt was not established. HMRC had the say over our liquidation, I think they wanted us liquidated to get Whyte who had escaped them before. Well done SFA for fit and proper test.
Click to expand...

Had that been the case Ticketus could’ve unilaterally carried The CVA proposal
 
Last edited:
I would really like to hear someone from HMRC come out and detail what was actually achieved for the public purse in this case?

- Take into account the £9m Whyte did not pay

- Small tax case money

- Income lost to them because of Rangers having a much smaller wage bill down the leagues therefore paying much less tax

- The massive legal costs of 4 different tribunals

All that lost just to get back a potential 3p in the pound from the creditors pot?

Oh I forget they will pursue others for EBT use? Well 2 and a half years later and we are still waiting.
 
Walters80 said:
I would really like to hear someone from HMRC come out and detail what was actually achieved for the public purse in this case?

- Take into account the £9m Whyte did not pay

- Small tax case money

- Income lost to them because of Rangers having a much smaller wage bill down the leagues therefore paying much less tax

- The massive legal costs of 4 different tribunals

All that lost just to get back a potential 3p in the pound from the creditors pot?

Oh I forget they will pursue others for EBT use? Well 2 and a half years later and we are still waiting.
Click to expand...

Force majeure

Was listed as a mitigating factor in the governing bodies’ disciplinary procedures for insolvency events.

If it’s not applicable to what happen to the most successful club in the world who had Murray, HMRC, Whyte and Duff & Phelps to Christmas tend with; nothing does.

No wonder they forced us to sign the 5 way accord ( ie let us kneecap you orwe’ll cut your fućking throat).
 
Who in HMRC would have made the decision to accept a settlement from Arsenal but not accept an offer from Rangers/Murray ?
 
GodStruth said:
Lets be honest, Duff & Phelps, on behalf of their clients, were never really seeking a CVA

Not that it shoukd ever have come to that...
Click to expand...

They just needed to get another £3m worth of debt.

Fućking season ticket holders over from Feb 12 would’ve done it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top