In Walter We Trust
Well-Known Member
This if true is utterly disgraceful, we had a good squad and 20 million could have been covered ,
A point lost on many people mate.
Was practically the first thing they did after smashing %^*& out of us.
For all the chaos of the time, I firmly believe not much of what happened wasn’t deliberate.
Ultimately, what does this mean for us?
Absolutely.
In wider terms, though, there is surely something wrong when HMRC deliberately chases a company into liquidation to prove some kind of point when it would have received (much) more tax revenue by keeping the company alive.
The other angle to this that seems to be ignored is that Lloyds (only kept afloat by taxpayers' money, remember) consciously gave ownership of Rangers to someone they knew was going to take the club into administration, thereby stiffing HMRC and minority shareholders. Just how ethical is that?
The whole episode has shown that the law effectively gives carte blanche to white-collar cowboys.
nope but thats the shite the media will come out withAnyone else bracing themself for a “ lets leave this in the past and build bridges “ statement from the club?
Anyone else bracing themself for a “ lets leave this in the past and build bridges “ statement from the club?
More likely to hear this from Kheevins and all the rest of the OPUS DEI mhedia mateAnyone else bracing themself for a “ lets leave this in the past and build bridges “ statement from the club?
How the fúck were our own accountants not pointing out that our tax bill was 25x bigger than it should have been?
Agreed.Financially probably nothing, but it highlights again, just how much we were fkn shafted and the whole affair could and should have been avoided
Unfortunately, yes.Anyone else bracing themself for a “ lets leave this in the past and build bridges “ statement from the club?
That’s what I want to know.Ultimately, what does this mean for us?
How the fúck were our own accountants not pointing out that our tax bill was 25x bigger than it should have been?
Totally agree mate.
But you could add we’re not just a normal company, we’re a worldwide known brand.
And that should come as mighty a price to them.
Why didn’t Murray stop using EBTs and pay off the ‘manageable’ debt in 2008 when HMRC began investigating?
It hasn’t changed my views on Murray - he could have afforded to pay the bill from his own savings.
Tbf to Murray(may he burn in hell) that was the point he was arguing that the amounts were incorrect that hmrc were demanding.How the fúck were our own accountants not pointing out that our tax bill was 25x bigger than it should have been?
You cant sue the HMRC mateIf only we had a fighting fund say, to take HMRC to court if this story is true. All those shareholders, bond holders etc would be due monies. Lost revenue for the club as clearly we have been wrongly been cited for debt we potentially didn't owe. Sue HMRC and let's see what happens. Nothing ventured and all that.
Why are you bracing yourself?Unfortunately, yes.
You cant sue the HMRC mate
Has the justice secretary spoke about thisIf this was the peasants who were deliberately fooked over like we were by HMRC, there would be an emergency debate at Holyrood with MSP's recalled and demands for heads to roll and jail time for those involved if proven that acts were deliberately made to destroy their club. A full and independent public inquiry would also be a given. The fog is slowly clearing now to this entire HMRC debacle, that much is true.
Try a swing of 114 million mate they tried to hit is with a bill of £134 millionJust how can our advisors at the time, ours used in the sense of Rangers, have got it so wrong. We’re talking of a swing of up to potentially £50M. Ha that down to interpretation of the tax calculation and if so, surely various models were used.
I genuinely dont think there is any if I'm honest but I'll gladly be proved wrongReally? What recourse is available?
IF HMRC say they are going to bill you £134 million then I would think you would assume that’s the bill your going to have to pay? I can fight it but it’s a debt lingering over you regardless and it never should have been.Surely this is something the clubs lawyers should have been all over right from the start, seems like a very basic error.
Obsessed terriers in high places is clearly what has happened here
What a very odd thread.
On a story that HMRC may have overcharged Rangers in 2012 for tax.
The first few pages dismiss the story without considering it at all.
This tax case relates to the previous board and not to Dave King’s Rangers at all.
I say move on and let the old board claim back any over charged tax for our previous creditors
I genuinely dont think there is any if I'm honest but I'll gladly be proved wrong
Try a swing of 114 million mate they tried to hit is with a bill of £134 million
I am spewing raging and very angry
Yeah youd think wouldn't you but they wontWould HMRC not be liable as it could be proven that their miscalculation paved the way for admin?
What a very odd thread.
On a story that HMRC may have overcharged Rangers in 2012 for tax.
The first few pages dismiss the story without considering it at all.
This tax case relates to the previous board and not to Dave King’s Rangers at all.
I say move on and let the old board claim back any over charged tax for our previous creditors
Shareholders must surely have legal recourse here?The company can recommence trading. That might be enough. Maybe it could carry on.
A liquidation can be "recalled" in certain circumstances but I'm not sure that would apply in this situation.
They’d just get a nominal payout from any surplus as a creditor. Ticketus, HMRC and ironically, Dave King, are some of the largest.Shareholders must surely have legal recourse here?
You cant sue the HMRC mate