Bhoyzilla,
If he is not taking account of the rules differences between the leagues, it has a huge impact!
Rangers would need to arrange a CVA to meet the insolvency rules in England. In Scotland, this is not a rule (he obviously doesnt know the scottish rules if he doesnt know the football creditors rules does not stretch).
If applying English Rules, then Rangers would have to settle a CVA, which we wont be able to do before we were saved (unless given an exemption like Leeds). So would be in trouble.
In Scotland, there is no such rule, so its not an issue.
If applying English rule then the footballing debt has to be paid first...In Scotland that's not the case. I get it.
What I'm saying is that HMRC might use this as a test case and it's possible that by being as harsh to Rangers as they possibly can, they're looking at the big picture....So they might not agree to a cva that could stop the liquidation event.
Bhoyzilla,
The CVA is not the issue. Leeds didnt agree a CVA. They were sold prior to being liquidated.
The HMRC blocked the CVA. But they could not block the sale.
THe danger facing Leeds was the fact that the Football League were going to block their application to rejoin. They ended up caving, and handed Leeds a 15 point penalty instead of killing them!
There are no rules to do that in Scotland.
I'll say one thing only. Rangers, if they are found liable to the tax cases, only hope of a CVA is if the main creditor agrees. If we assume they are liable for the money then HMRC are now the main creditors.
HMRC have made it clear they will not accept pence in the pound from clubs who have deliberately tried to evade paying. A major defence from Rangers lads are that liquidating the club means HMRC will get nothing. Apparently HMRC say fine, at least all the bigger fish will now queue up to pay if they see what happens to Rangers.
Now, ahm away tae put a coupon on and back a horse called Some Target in the Irish Grand National.
All tax advice and racing tips are free, courtesy of the Albert Camus Celtic Supporters Club.
If a guy is held up as the fountain of knowledge on the case, you would think he would get the basics correct!
fountains of knowledge are blawhards
Albert, I tend to agree with that.
Mitre, I think Rangers getting to keep their history in a liquidation event unlikely........That's the feeling I get I'm afraid. But, we shall see soon I suppose.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
mitre_mouldmaster (The Rangers One) (U13206)
posted on 22/2/12
Willmcq, its not about the reasons though.
The question is. Did the Original Celtic stop trading in 1994, with a NewCo formed to replace it? If so you lost your history.
Two months ago this is how much mitre knew about the process. Now he proclaims to know more than an Insolvency Expert.
It also makes you wonder why none of the other Insolvency Experts who've appeared on Newsnight Scotland or STV have thought of it.
But then mitre's clearly the expert on these matters
Albert,
If i can conclusively prove that the HMRC blocked the CVA proposed by Leeds, but Leeds then decided to do a pre-pack (causing a liquidation event), to which the HMRC could do nothing to stop actually happened. Will it make you thinkI might have a point?
Cheers Subs,
This is no longer about proving Rangers save their history! Its now only about proving my logic is sound!!!
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Mitre it seems there are things that can be used for Rangers in the Leeds outcome and there are things that don't apply to Rangers too because of differing laws.
If these can be argued in a court of law successfully then Rangers stand a chance.
But, I must admit to agreeing with Albert on this one due to the amount of people singing from the same song sheet.
There's defo more financial experts out there taking that stance than the other arguments.
But, it is refreshing to see a good argument about it.
For the record I'd rather defeat Rangers on the playing field than in the courts.
I like mouldy..he talks a lot of sense.
mitre conveniently overlooks the facts:
- 83.5% of Ranger's shares are owned by Craig Whyte
- Unlike at Leeds, HMRC will be one of the creditors at Rangers and will therefore have a direct say on what happens next
- Leeds were not previously found guilty of tax avoidance, tax evasion or fraud
- If Rangers lose the BTC they will be and HMRC say they will not cut a deal
- HMRC also say they will not do a deal as long as Craig Whyte remains at the club
But apart from that...
I don't know if there will be a CVA and I seriously doubt anyone else on here really knows either. There can be guesses or wishful thinking on both sides of course, but we'll just have to wait and see what actually happens.
Facts facts facts Mr Freeze.. dont bother with the Facts..chill bro.
Right, lets look at the points and see what ones we agree on.
1. Leeds UTD are a NewCo
2. Leeds UTD kept their history.
3. Leeds OldCo went into liquidation
4. Leeds UTD did not pay out on a CVA.
5. HMRC could not block Leeds becoming a NewCo with an intact history.
6. The English football league states in its insolvency policy that a CVA must be agreed to regain league share, unless an exceltion is granted. Scotland has no such rule. We only need to transfer the share over, or apply for a new one.
7. Rangers are very unlikely not to be allowed back into at least the 3rd division.
Point out what points you agree with and what ones you dont.
Leeds Utd are not Rangers FC
The situations they found/find themselves are different.
It's really that simple.
Mouldy..just keep it calm and put your points across. Over to you Mr Freeze.
Mr Freeze - I agree 100% with your post
HMRC have bigger fish to fry on this issue and as a point of principal they will not agree a CVA if they win the BTC and will appeal if they lose
A CVA for tax avoidance would set a very dangerous precedent
Just to be clear on the tribunal, it does not hand down a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict. Rangers are appealing an assessment (strictly speaking it's Murray Group who are conducting the case). The tribunal will either uphold that appeal or not.
(And please, spare us the cracks about Rangers not being appealing. )
BH
You would still be found to have avoided paying tax (let's face it you were put into administration for that very reason).
That's what mitre does not seem to grasp. He also keeps conveniently overlooking the fact that Craig Whyte still owns 83.5% of the shares and that no one has suggested doing what he's suggested for a variety of reasons.
'Ding Ding' Thats it boys, take a breather.
- 83.5% of Ranger's shares are owned by Craig Whyte - So?
- Unlike at Leeds, HMRC will be one of the creditors at Rangers and will therefore have a direct say on what happens next - HMRC were a creditor you tool! They were owed about £8m and blocked the CVA.
- Leeds were not previously found guilty of tax avoidance, tax evasion or fraud - You are not 'found guilty' of tax evasion. Leeds were being investigated due to their 'foreign ownership' which was heavily expected to be performing Tax Evasion.
- If Rangers lose the BTC they will be and HMRC say they will not cut a deal - Dont need to cut a deal. Leeds didnt.
- HMRC also say they will not do a deal as long as Craig Whyte remains at the club - Dont need the HMRC's approval, and Rangers(business) can be sold from the Rangers company without Craig Whytes approval. He may hold security on Ibrox though.
Sign in if you want to comment
mitre_mouldmaster (The Rangers One)
Page 2 of 15
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 9/4/12
Bhoyzilla,
If he is not taking account of the rules differences between the leagues, it has a huge impact!
Rangers would need to arrange a CVA to meet the insolvency rules in England. In Scotland, this is not a rule (he obviously doesnt know the scottish rules if he doesnt know the football creditors rules does not stretch).
If applying English Rules, then Rangers would have to settle a CVA, which we wont be able to do before we were saved (unless given an exemption like Leeds). So would be in trouble.
In Scotland, there is no such rule, so its not an issue.
posted on 9/4/12
If applying English rule then the footballing debt has to be paid first...In Scotland that's not the case. I get it.
What I'm saying is that HMRC might use this as a test case and it's possible that by being as harsh to Rangers as they possibly can, they're looking at the big picture....So they might not agree to a cva that could stop the liquidation event.
posted on 9/4/12
Bhoyzilla,
The CVA is not the issue. Leeds didnt agree a CVA. They were sold prior to being liquidated.
The HMRC blocked the CVA. But they could not block the sale.
THe danger facing Leeds was the fact that the Football League were going to block their application to rejoin. They ended up caving, and handed Leeds a 15 point penalty instead of killing them!
There are no rules to do that in Scotland.
posted on 9/4/12
I'll say one thing only. Rangers, if they are found liable to the tax cases, only hope of a CVA is if the main creditor agrees. If we assume they are liable for the money then HMRC are now the main creditors.
HMRC have made it clear they will not accept pence in the pound from clubs who have deliberately tried to evade paying. A major defence from Rangers lads are that liquidating the club means HMRC will get nothing. Apparently HMRC say fine, at least all the bigger fish will now queue up to pay if they see what happens to Rangers.
Now, ahm away tae put a coupon on and back a horse called Some Target in the Irish Grand National.
All tax advice and racing tips are free, courtesy of the Albert Camus Celtic Supporters Club.
posted on 9/4/12
If a guy is held up as the fountain of knowledge on the case, you would think he would get the basics correct!
fountains of knowledge are blawhards
posted on 9/4/12
Albert, I tend to agree with that.
Mitre, I think Rangers getting to keep their history in a liquidation event unlikely........That's the feeling I get I'm afraid. But, we shall see soon I suppose.
posted on 9/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/4/12
mitre_mouldmaster (The Rangers One) (U13206)
posted on 22/2/12
Willmcq, its not about the reasons though.
The question is. Did the Original Celtic stop trading in 1994, with a NewCo formed to replace it? If so you lost your history.
Two months ago this is how much mitre knew about the process. Now he proclaims to know more than an Insolvency Expert.
It also makes you wonder why none of the other Insolvency Experts who've appeared on Newsnight Scotland or STV have thought of it.
But then mitre's clearly the expert on these matters
posted on 9/4/12
Albert,
If i can conclusively prove that the HMRC blocked the CVA proposed by Leeds, but Leeds then decided to do a pre-pack (causing a liquidation event), to which the HMRC could do nothing to stop actually happened. Will it make you thinkI might have a point?
posted on 9/4/12
Cheers Subs,
This is no longer about proving Rangers save their history! Its now only about proving my logic is sound!!!
posted on 9/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/4/12
Mitre it seems there are things that can be used for Rangers in the Leeds outcome and there are things that don't apply to Rangers too because of differing laws.
If these can be argued in a court of law successfully then Rangers stand a chance.
But, I must admit to agreeing with Albert on this one due to the amount of people singing from the same song sheet.
There's defo more financial experts out there taking that stance than the other arguments.
But, it is refreshing to see a good argument about it.
For the record I'd rather defeat Rangers on the playing field than in the courts.
posted on 9/4/12
I like mouldy..he talks a lot of sense.
posted on 9/4/12
mitre conveniently overlooks the facts:
- 83.5% of Ranger's shares are owned by Craig Whyte
- Unlike at Leeds, HMRC will be one of the creditors at Rangers and will therefore have a direct say on what happens next
- Leeds were not previously found guilty of tax avoidance, tax evasion or fraud
- If Rangers lose the BTC they will be and HMRC say they will not cut a deal
- HMRC also say they will not do a deal as long as Craig Whyte remains at the club
But apart from that...
posted on 9/4/12
I don't know if there will be a CVA and I seriously doubt anyone else on here really knows either. There can be guesses or wishful thinking on both sides of course, but we'll just have to wait and see what actually happens.
posted on 9/4/12
Facts facts facts Mr Freeze.. dont bother with the Facts..chill bro.
posted on 9/4/12
Right, lets look at the points and see what ones we agree on.
1. Leeds UTD are a NewCo
2. Leeds UTD kept their history.
3. Leeds OldCo went into liquidation
4. Leeds UTD did not pay out on a CVA.
5. HMRC could not block Leeds becoming a NewCo with an intact history.
6. The English football league states in its insolvency policy that a CVA must be agreed to regain league share, unless an exceltion is granted. Scotland has no such rule. We only need to transfer the share over, or apply for a new one.
7. Rangers are very unlikely not to be allowed back into at least the 3rd division.
Point out what points you agree with and what ones you dont.
posted on 9/4/12
Have 5 on me Mr Freeze.
posted on 9/4/12
Leeds Utd are not Rangers FC
The situations they found/find themselves are different.
It's really that simple.
posted on 9/4/12
Mouldy..just keep it calm and put your points across. Over to you Mr Freeze.
posted on 9/4/12
Mr Freeze - I agree 100% with your post
HMRC have bigger fish to fry on this issue and as a point of principal they will not agree a CVA if they win the BTC and will appeal if they lose
A CVA for tax avoidance would set a very dangerous precedent
posted on 9/4/12
Just to be clear on the tribunal, it does not hand down a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict. Rangers are appealing an assessment (strictly speaking it's Murray Group who are conducting the case). The tribunal will either uphold that appeal or not.
(And please, spare us the cracks about Rangers not being appealing. )
posted on 9/4/12
BH
You would still be found to have avoided paying tax (let's face it you were put into administration for that very reason).
That's what mitre does not seem to grasp. He also keeps conveniently overlooking the fact that Craig Whyte still owns 83.5% of the shares and that no one has suggested doing what he's suggested for a variety of reasons.
posted on 9/4/12
'Ding Ding' Thats it boys, take a breather.
posted on 9/4/12
- 83.5% of Ranger's shares are owned by Craig Whyte - So?
- Unlike at Leeds, HMRC will be one of the creditors at Rangers and will therefore have a direct say on what happens next - HMRC were a creditor you tool! They were owed about £8m and blocked the CVA.
- Leeds were not previously found guilty of tax avoidance, tax evasion or fraud - You are not 'found guilty' of tax evasion. Leeds were being investigated due to their 'foreign ownership' which was heavily expected to be performing Tax Evasion.
- If Rangers lose the BTC they will be and HMRC say they will not cut a deal - Dont need to cut a deal. Leeds didnt.
- HMRC also say they will not do a deal as long as Craig Whyte remains at the club - Dont need the HMRC's approval, and Rangers(business) can be sold from the Rangers company without Craig Whytes approval. He may hold security on Ibrox though.
Page 2 of 15
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10