Drewball
Well-Known Member
Sick of hearing the 100m figure trotted out all the time. The debt was never that high.
I think the debt, in terms of the Admin at least, was accepted at circa £94m or so. Since reduced substantially due to the efforts of BDO. I think to £60m+ - and they are still seeking to reduce it further with HMRC.Sick of hearing the 100m figure trotted out all the time. The debt was never that high.
So Mr Green has settled for more than him and his merry band made the purchase of the assets for! Astounding incompetence from the justice system.
Yet idiots vote for the snp.
A viable threat of a terrorist attack on his family, really!
Or 2 Cal Mac ferries.How many Hospitals, Schools etc etc could have been built with all that taxpayers cash ?
No outcry from the usual places ?
no ?
anyone ?
All that time, effort and money trying to murder an institution out of sheer hatred and envy.
There were two separate issuesdid hmrc have enough of the debt to deny a cva.not the over inflated debt but the real debt.also did hmrc allow white to run up all sorts of non payment to them before calling him in for it.if so did this result in rangers owing even more money to hmrc helping them to deny a cva..maybe old co can take hmrc to court for damages.
I'm pretty sure they did mate. Without the Big Tax Case they still had over £15m of the debt for the Wee Tax Case, unpaid PAYE and an an Inheritance Tax item as at the last report in Dec 2020. That's come down from over £20m, presumably through BDO negotiations with HMRC. The £74m HMRC were claiming for the Big Tax Case has also been negotiated down by many millions. Even with the Big Tax Case taken out in its entirety that probably still gave them the 25% of the remaining debt they needed to veto. Though I'd have to go back and do some number-crunching to be certain. Some details in this link to the last Creditors Report. All previous Reports to Creditors can be found on the BDO website.did hmrc have enough of the debt to deny a cva.not the over inflated debt but the real debt.also did hmrc allow white to run up all sorts of non payment to them before calling him in for it.if so did this result in rangers owing even more money to hmrc helping them to deny a cva..maybe old co can take hmrc to court for damages.
That's saying nothing of the fact they retrospectively changed the tax law.For me this whole mess primarily sits at the door of HMRC, this tax case farce has achieved absolutely nothing and in the end and left them and the public purse out of pocket.
Millions spent on court cases, Whyte withholding £9.5m and the money they are alleged to have turned down to settle the case originally all gone just for them to walk away with a few pence in the pound after over a decade.
The excuse that they pursued Rangers so that they could go after other clubs and companies has been shot to bits as well, in 3 years we've seen zero from them on that front.
They settled with Arsenal over EBT use years before our case as well but told Rangers they don't do deals?
The whole thing was nothing more than a total farce and the stupid amounts being paid out in compensation to the people at Duffy and Duffer is the icing on top of the cake.
The small tax case with Whyte didn't warrant immediate action by HMRC though, it was a recent debt.There were two separate issues
The big tax case and the small tax case.
It was the small tax case and Whyte withholding Paye that forced the issue.
I’ll stand corrected if Im wrong but thats how I remember it.
The wee tax case was, from memory, circa £3m, so small in the grand scheme of things. It also went back further than the EBTs. The bigger, immediate, issue was Whyte‘s deliberate withholding of PAYE. That was virtually inviting HMRC to take action. He’d have been as well standing at the doors of Ibrox, waving a flag and inviting them it. Complete headcase of a man. His ‘strategy’ made no sense whatsoever.The small tax case with Whyte didn't warrant immediate action by HMRC though, it was a recent debt.
It made complete sense to him, he was inviting administration.The wee tax case was, from memory, circa £3m, so small in the grand scheme of things. It also went back further than the EBTs. The bigger, immediate, issue was Whyte‘s deliberate withholding of PAYE. That was virtually inviting HMRC to take action. He’d have been as well standing at the doors of Ibrox, waving a flag and inviting them it. Complete headcase of a man. His ‘strategy’ made no sense whatsoever.
Correct; EBTs are still legal, but were retrospectively deemed not tax efficient. That's an affront to stable state policy and good tax governance. It remains a stain on the UK as a financial capital.That's saying nothing of the fact they retrospectively changed the tax law.
Always confused by his lack of strategy, and by the lack of a Floating Charge. With a FC he could have done a pre pack and defeated the Crown. But then again he would have needed to have invested some of his off the scale wealth.The wee tax case was, from memory, circa £3m, so small in the grand scheme of things. It also went back further than the EBTs. The bigger, immediate, issue was Whyte‘s deliberate withholding of PAYE. That was virtually inviting HMRC to take action. He’d have been as well standing at the doors of Ibrox, waving a flag and inviting them it. Complete headcase of a man. His ‘strategy’ made no sense whatsoever.
His strategy made perfect sense to him. Distress the company, send it in to liquidation and probably then try to gain certain assets through a shell company he has control of but can't be linked to the Tickets debt. Whyte knew exactly what he was doing.The wee tax case was, from memory, circa £3m, so small in the grand scheme of things. It also went back further than the EBTs. The bigger, immediate, issue was Whyte‘s deliberate withholding of PAYE. That was virtually inviting HMRC to take action. He’d have been as well standing at the doors of Ibrox, waving a flag and inviting them it. Complete headcase of a man. His ‘strategy’ made no sense whatsoever.
Didn't that require the floating charge and the pre-pack admin though?His strategy made perfect sense to him. Distress the company, send it in to liquidation and probably then try to gain certain assets through a shell company he has control of but can't be linked to the Tickets debt. Whyte knew exactly what he was doing.
Good post mate but the Q re. Craig Whyte is he was the front who was the orchestratorIt made complete sense to him, he was inviting administration.
HMRC were also content to let the PAYE and NI debt run up so that could veto any CVA.
HMRC were taking out interdicts (or whatever) against Hearts when tax debts reached £500,000. They let Rangers run up more than £10M before mentioning it.
Whyte's initial intention was to shed the debt through admin then sell Rangers as a viable company even with the Ticketus debt.
Then the rest of the predators stiffed him, and proceeded to milk the club for £70m over 4 years.
All imo.
It was 12 months without paying PAYE and other taxes that were due.The small tax case with Whyte didn't warrant immediate action by HMRC though, it was a recent debt.
Even worse, the Crown lawyers made a ‘political’ decision to say that these were malicious prosecutions so that the public purse could be robbed to pay the damages.Seems like the sinister attempt to destroy Rangers has made some dodgy characters multi millionaires, enabled celtic to amass a load of trophies including a league championship even though they didn't really win it has gone awry and not one person in Scotland who was behind this atrocity will ever be brought to justice.
Is that the 'Frank Mulholland' influence?Even worse, the Crown lawyers made a ‘political’ decision to say that these were malicious prosecutions so that the public purse could be robbed to pay the damages.
If this had been in England, there would be moves to sue the Crown lawyers individually for their negligence in the handling of the actions.
Normally, in cases like this, it would be civil actions and the damages claims would be against the insurance of the legal professionals involved.
But we could not possibly have that happening in Scotland as these top lawyers have kept the SNP in power and continue to do so.
Whoever came up with the idea of accepting that the Crown’s actions were malicious prosecutions, should be heading to jail
Mike Baird? A job for the FF detectives?
Because the crown office decides based on evidence presented to them by cops whether toFrom what I remember it was a Police Scotland balls up, the crown had the charges and the warrants but when PS went down south the grabbed everything instead of just evidence relating to Rangers. As a result the defence lawyer rightly argued all the evidence was inadmissible as it had been gathered outside scope of warrant. This meant the case collapsed with no evidence. However, I don’t see how it could be described as a malicious prosecution.
For legal reasons it would be inappropriate to speculate!!!Is that the 'Frank Mulholland' influence?
Mike Baird? A job for the FF detectives?
From what I remember it was a Police Scotland balls up, the crown had the charges and the warrants but when PS went down south the grabbed everything instead of just evidence relating to Rangers. As a result the defence lawyer rightly argued all the evidence was inadmissible as it had been gathered outside scope of warrant. This meant the case collapsed with no evidence. However, I don’t see how it could be described as a malicious prosecution.