Making sense of nonsense


The Scottish sports media has set new standards of incompetence and pandering over the proposed Craig Whyte deal to buy Rangers.  The conventional story being fed by PR agencies working on behalf of both Whyte and Sir David Murray is that Whyte will pay off the bank debt (with the implication that the debt will stay at zero), that Ally McCoist will be handed a fantastic sum to rebuild the team, and that the tax bill will be “handled”.  Of course, these stories never quite explain how a bill that could be £54-60m will be “handled”.  These PR placement stories seem to treat the tax case as if it is a trivial issue which is not going to be a significant issue in Rangers’ future.

However, for all of the nonsense from journalists who earn a salary doing no more than typing their names on the by-lines of articles written for them by others, I am told that Whyte’s efforts to conclude a deal are gathering pace.  Whyte is working hard to finalise financing that would clear the bank debt (£20m on 30 June 2010) and would allow Lloyds Banking Group to wash its hands of Rangers.  It is understood that the amount that would be paid for Rangers’ shares is collapsing and approaching a price close to zero pence.  This would allow Sir David Murray to be off-stage should the Grim Reaper appear on the scene.  The tax liability would remain with Rangers FC.

The remaining issues centre on Dave King’s 5% shareholding.  The combination of MIH’s 85% and King’s 5% (held through Metlika Trading) would meet the 90% threshold required to force all of Rangers’ shareholders to sell at the same terms offered to MIH and King.  With 100% of Rangers’ shares, Whyte would be able to take The Rangers Football Club plc private.  With a privately owned company, Whyte would be free to conduct business without the transparency required of a plc.

However, there are challenges to obtaining King’s 5%.  King is still prevented by court orders in England and Scotland from buying or selling assets in the UK.  The recent transfer of ownership of Rangers’ shares from Murray Sports Limited to Metlika Trading was permitted as it was seen as a ‘value-neutral’ administrative transaction.  However, a sale of these shares, even for a very low amount, could be a legal minefield.  The other issue is that a businessman like King is unlikely to surrender a keystone position for free.  If his stake is essential to throw a dark cloak around Whyte’s plans for Rangers, then King will want to extract a fee.  Of course, there are ways to structure such a transaction.  King could take an equivalent value shareholding in whichever legal entity Whyte wishes to use as the vehicle for owning Rangers.  That could again be considered a value-neutral exchange.  (A “consulting-fee” paid from one obscure company in the Caribbean to another would be very difficult to trace too).

No doubt if a deal is concluded it will be accompanied by a media blitz celebrating a new era for Rangers and how nothing but blue-skies are ahead.  Missing from these PR-agency articles will be the treatment of the tax bills.  I am told that the tax bills will remain with Rangers.  In effect nothing in Rangers’ financial position will have changed except that Lloyds and Murray, two parties that would have been dreading being seen to take tough actions will have managed to get off-stage.  Rangers fans need to ask themselves about the new owner: is Craig Whyte a ruthless financial operator who will think nothing of maximising his personal gain or is he a lifelong Rangers fan taking on the burden to protect and rescue the team he loves?

Those who believe that Craig Whyte is simply a devoted Rangers fan with fathomless wealth who is prepared to use a lot of it for the betterment of his team should ask to see evidence of his devotion to the club.  How many years has he been a season ticket holder?  Where are the photos of young Craig Whyte in his Rangers top?  Before the information age, Celtic fans were assured of Fergus McCann’s bone fides within a couple of days of his name being mentioned in the media.  The Scottish media have been strangely silent about the result of the investigations into the affairs of Craig Whyte.

Is Craig Whyte a heartless asset-stripper who will not waste valuable resources on legal fees for further appeals if HMRC win against Rangers in the First Tier Tribunal?  Or is he a scene-stealing hero arriving to save the day?  Rangers supporters groups who have lined up to celebrate the arrival of Whyte have failed their members by not doing their own due diligence on this man.  Of course, in the absence of anyone else, they may feel that they have no choice.

The recurring theme of this blog is “it is all about the tax case”.  This has not changed.  A Whyte takeover will not alter the fate that awaits Rangers FC.  All that will be changed is that people who would have been reluctant to be seen to bring down the axe on Rangers FC have been replaced by someone whom few of us know much about.

About rangerstaxcase
I have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications are for one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

96 Responses to Making sense of nonsense

  1. tomtom says:

    I understand the need to get security for any funding but would any institution really give Whyte approx £30m against Ibrox and Murray Park. I’ve recently borrowed £200k from my bank to fund a new building and the hoops that they put me through regarding valuations was frightening. I would be astonished if they managed to raise 50% of the valuation on these properties and I’m sure that any funders would want a true, current and unbiased valuation. The current Ibrox as a property is virtually worthless other than as a shrine to past glories but I can’t see that as cutting much with any financiers. Any funder is going to look at the value in a worst case scenario. Murray Park has some value but once again in a fire sale this will not raise anything like its true value. In the event of the foreclosure over these assets how long would it take to realise a sale and who would be paying the interest on the debt until that sale.

    The only other possible route is through high risk venture capitalists but surely the rate of interest they would demand would be extortionate. They would be looking to at least double their money. As I have previously stated I smell mint all over this particular lamb.

    In addition if I was involved at Ibrox I would be more worried about the “Ellis in the room”. His part in this whole thing has yet to be explained. Why would someone who walked away last year when he was the front runner come back as a bag carrier?

  2. Thomas314 says:

    Just read in the Herald that Rangers chairman claims that Whyte is a one man band!

    “My discussions were only with Craig,” said Johnston back then. “When you speak about ‘his people’ I think he is a one-man operation. I think he has people around him who do a lot of his analytical work but he is definitely the decision-maker. He said: ‘I’m going to need a lot of help’. He said: ‘I don’t have the skills to run a football club, I don’t know what I’m doing . . .’.”

    Well no change there! Also this must mean that he is the “Source close to the Whyte camp” .

  3. Mark Dickson says:

    Why would they increase the debt to Whyte by £10M (even if he has that secured lock tight) to fund rebuilding the squad IF they are staring down the drains of extinction?

    I mean it might make Minty look good that he can claim “I sold the club on to the new guy ensuring he would re-invest in the team – that’s my legacy to the fans etc etc”

    BUT it wouldn’t be fair to McCoist nor the players to bring them to or keep them at Ibrox if they are likely to be forced being sold within a year within administration.

    It doesn’t really matter to Whyte IF he can lock down his money with security over the assets ensuring he either gets his money back or can seize control of those assets.

    But the human cost is to the players, the football staff, the fans – it is them that will suffer if RFC end up in administration or liquidated so would they actuall spend money on retaining and bringing players IF administration is inevitable?

    Are HMRC being set up as the Bad-Guys who will bring down RFC and not Whyte/Murray/Lloyds?

  4. Boab says:

    No idea, but if as heas been reported he has lodged £28m with Lloyds, £18m to pay debt and £10m for “working capital” then that appears to be exactly what he has done. Moved £18m of debt to himself and added another £10m to it.

    Working capital is an interesting phrase. Do we think Lloyds have removed all facilities to the club and this is in lieu of their “overdraft”. That would suggest it is not all available for players etc as they will need working capital to pay wages etc until things like season ticket money come in. Unless of course there is plenty cash in the bank just now to deal with that. If memory serves that was kept quite healthy in the last interim report.

  5. Ciarans Dad says:

    Why would anyone lodge £28m of there own money (or borrowed) and lose the interest/pay the interest, when no anouncement has been made to the stock exchange or the deal concluded.
    Mibee’s thats how thing are done, i just dont know. All sounds a bit ‘smoke and mirrors’
    And why would this piece of moonbeams be released when we dont have a single solitary word from the new would be keyholder of snake mountain????

  6. Auldheid says:

    Is it no a bit like that scene from Jaws?

    You are in a leaking boat and know there is a shark in the water, the pump is just about keeping you afloat but wilting under the strain.
    Then you find another unused pump below deck. So you jettison the old pump and put the new one in place and are assured of staying afloat, maybe even baling out more than you are taking in.

    Then that great muckle shark with HMRC stamped on its head rears itself out of the water.

    “We are gonny need a bigger pump” is the cry.

  7. Paul says:

    The answer to your ‘which institution?’ question is simple: None.
    No lender would lend anyone 30m against Murray Park & Ibrox as they are not worth that money, and as you say, how long does it take to sell a football stadium? the only interested party would be Rangers 2011, who by then would be looking a lend of it, rather than a purchase.
    If Whyte is raising the cash through investors, then they will want their cash back quickly, with interest. To me, that means firstly there will be no player investment. Players on the park will make Rangers investors the square root of f*ck all in the short term.

  8. Who (apart from the corrupt Scottish media) said anything about £30m?
    £18m could get rid of Lloyds just now.

  9. eventlogger says:

    Interesting HMRC involvement in the Oddbins takeover.

    “Oddbins, which has 19 stores in Scotland, fell into administration earlier this month after a proposed rescue deal by former managing director Simon Baile fell through.

    After shutting 39 stores, the group had hoped to restructure its debts through a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) but HMRC, which was owed £8m by the chain, refused to vote for the scheme.”

    Source : http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business/Raj-Chatha-steps-in-to.6758332.jp

  10. Tschichold says:

    Hi RTC

    Are you able to give any more details of the PR companies that are working for Whyte and Murray? Do you think the likes of Tom English are influenced by these PR companies an if so how?

    Keep up the good work.

    T

  11. Big Bad Bob says:

    Whyte’s PR team is Hay and McKerron, former hacks with the Record and Herald, plus a liberal sprinkling of threats to call in the infamous London libel lawyers Carter Ruck.
    Murray is still a Media House man, using the services of veteran hacks and editors such as Jack Irvine and Ramsay Smith.
    To be fair, the Press poodles don’t need much persuasion to do what they’re told.
    Their obedience is virtually Pavlovian.

  12. cadizzy says:

    If CQN has read my off topic posts, then it’s only fair you all have to as well.

    Oddbins has had to call in the administrators after their proposal for a company voluntary arrangement (which allows a company to repay some, or all, of its historic debts out of future profits, over a period of time to be agreed) was vetoed by creditors who refused to take a hit on the amount of debt owed. 75% of creditors have to agree to the CVA

    The major creditor was HMRC who is owed £8m of the £20m total. HMRC wants its money. The 21 pence in the pound offered under the CVA was not enough in HMRC’s view. This is in spite of the fact that the insovency practitioner (Deloitte) estimated that administration would only provide 13p in the pound but still creditors wouldn’t bite.

    It doesn’t look to me that Rangers are going to get off lightly if they lose the tax case.

  13. tomtom says:

    But, if the press reports are true (and why would we have any reason to doubt the veracity of our boys with typewriters) Whyte has lodged £28m with Lloyds and/or a.n.o to prove his credentials so he must have got the money from somewhere.

    On a different note, given that the cash in hand at the end of December was £5.2m and the monthly running costs of RFC, what is the likelihood of the £18m being an accurate figure?

    On a different different note I recently spoke with someone who had dealings with Ellis when he was at Northampton. Let’s be kind and just say that he was not very flattering about him. Also, if Ellis is getting 25% of Murray’s shares how does this give Whyte complete control. If Dave King’s 7% is crucial at the moment what does that make Ellis’s portion worth. If he and Whyte fall out at some future date where would that leave RFC.

  14. ramsay smith says:

    PR companies know people. They know things about people. Things that people might prefer that other people didn’t know. PR companies can help journalists from time to time by giving them little titbits. Make their lives that little bit easier. And obviously PR companies are more likely to help journalists who are prepared to help them from time to time.

  15. apivotalfortyeighthoursinthemiddleofnextweek says:

    i was wondering how privvy to what happened at the FTT will Whyte be? is it possible that the T(f)akeover has been delayed until after the hearing to stop whyte finding out something?

  16. I STILL See No Subs Except.... says:

    I can’t see HMRC giving the Berz’ opinons much regard RTC.

    Let’s face it, HMRC are hardly high in anyone’s popularuity stakes anyway, and are more than probably thick-skinned enough to, erm, “cup thier ears” to any howling in the wildenrness from the soothside ae Gleska.

    Though, strangely enough, they do seem to be going up in a number of Hoops fans estimations!!

  17. I STILL See No Subs Except.... says:

    f) on the payroll?

  18. Thanks. There was a press release (of course!) about this back a few months ago and Hay and McKerron are not exactly making a secret of it: http://www.hay-mckerron.co.uk/our-clients.html

  19. Mark Dickson says:

    Just a few snippets from Liberty Capital website (google cache – main website under reconstruction…)

    About us

    Liberty Capital provides funding to businesses that are capable of strong cash generation within 12 months of our investment. We also acquire existing businesses for our portfolio where there is already strong positive cashflow.

    Liberty also specialises in providing finance to ‘Turnaround’ situations where an established business has cashflow problems and requires both cash and expertise to turnaround the business.

    Liberty Capital was founded by entrepreneur Craig Whyte and has offices in London and Scotland. Liberty currently has investments across several market sectors including Marketing, Communications, Ticketing and Commodities Trading, with operations in the UK, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Russia and France.

    Email:info@libertycapital.co.uk

    and more ……

    We buy distressed companies and assets

    Do you have a loss making company that has a turnover in excess of £5m per year?

    Would you like to get out of it quickly and get away from the hassle?

    If so we might be able to help. It might even be worth more than you think.

    We are in a unique position to acquire loss making businesses. We can look at the situation from a different angle, knowing exactly what it will take to restructure the business.

    So if you’d like to sell your loss making company quickly get in touch with us now on 020 7332 2200 or email craig@libertycapital.co.uk

  20. Ian Ferguson says:

    Hi Jacqui:

    When I was small and impatient for something to come, Christmas etc, my big sister used to say I’d get it on Halacaplunk Tuesday when it falls on a Wednesday.

    Whyte has added new meaning to that saying & I offer that up as the completion date + 48 hours to tie up the odds and ends which seem to keep on popping up to confound his well laid plans.

  21. tomtom says:

    Has the possibility ever been explored that Whyte is merely a front man for Ellis. Let’s face it Ellis was trying to take over the club last year, he already knew, or at the very least should have known, the perilous state of the finances and pulled away. Less than 6 months later he is named as part of a “new interest” in the club but as the junior partner.

    Could he be working on the basis that one year on the club debt would be substantially reduced but the pressure on Murray to sell would be even greater given Minty’s other debt mountain. How much has the purchase price of RFC come down in the last 12 months?

  22. tomtom says:

    If I was the PR team for Liberty Capital the first thing I would tell them is “get your website up and running” For most people this is their first port of call and doesn’t exactly hit you with the “wow, I’d like to deal with this company” feeling. More like who’s bedroom is this scam being run from.

  23. Why not just come forward yourself? Why use a front?

    There are very few constants in this situation, but one thing you can take to the bank is the fact that the story as told to millions of expectant Rangers supporters is not true.

    Your theory is as good as any other, but it would be one which I don’t think makes sense. However, few other versions make sense either.

    Things that make sense:
    – it is all a fakeover
    – it is part of a liquidation play as outlined in the last 2 articles
    – Whyte is actually a fabulously wealthy guy who does not care about losing about £90m+

    Take your pick or add your own.

  24. tomtom says:

    What was the reason for not continuing with the deal last year? Murray has always insisted that he would only sell to someone who was “the right man for Rangers”. Now maybe Ellis wasn’t the right man for Rangers in the sense that he had no connection with the club, and let’s face it, he had a lot more scrutiny than Whyte has had. He might have had access to the funds but, if as has been speculated here and elsewhere, this takeover has more to do with venture capitalism than a love of Rangers Murray would have been slaughtered eventually in the press. Murray however needs to do some kind of a deal and get rid of the monkey.

    Solution, get a “Rangers fan” to front the only bid in town. If he turns out to be a “wrong un” who duped us all then Murray crawls away with his integrity intact. Ok I’m jumping to huge, and maybe, wild conclusions here but one big question remains – what the hell is Ellis in this for? 25% is no minority stake, he is not a fan, but he is contributing a huge sum of money for what? If, as I have suggested elsewhere, he takes on the role of CEO what’s in it for him. It’s certainly not for the salary. Maybe the opportunity to press flesh with those members of Scottish society who can open a lot of doors. It certainly worked for Murray, without Rangers he would be a nobody. Now I can’t claim to begin to understand Ellis’s desire to involve himself in Rangers but he isn’t doing it for the good of the club.

    We don’t know anything for certain that’s for sure but one thing I can be pretty convinced about is that this takeover has been one of the most convoluted affairs I have ever witnessed. A man who undertook “due diligence” pulls out at the last moment only to re-emerge some months later as a major part of a new bid who then go through the same “due diligence”. When I was at school pupils used to get a prize for diligence. It didn’t mean they were particularly good at anything but they made the effort. It was basically a prize for turning up! We’re expected to believe that Whyte hooks up with Ellis to make a bid for RFC but Whyte doesn’t trust the “due diligence” that Ellis carried out. Instead he is going to spend another shedlaod of cash with another set of lawyers/accountants. Ellis being the nice man that he is goes along with this but still agrees to give him 25% of the purchase price. If Ellis thought the deal was wrong last year why throw money at it this year. Sorry but I don’t buy into this. Nobody gives you that amount of cash without getting something in return. According to Alastair Johnson Whyte is acting on his own. Sorry, but getting 25% of the funds from another party is not acting on your own Alastair, no matter how you try to dress it up.

    Ellis is more involved in this than is being alluded to. And I would be more than willing to believe that Minty is involved in the plot as well. No buyers for 5 years and suddenly 2 within a year? The Rangers fans would never have taken to Ellis, he came with baggage, and would have been hounded eventually by the press. Better to get a “Rangers fan” to be the public face and pull the strings from behind the stage than to go out in front of the audience and get heckled.

    It’s only conjecture I know but it’s worth keeping in mind. This is no one man show by Whyte and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

  25. Corpachbhoy says:

    Oh the [B]hassle[/B] of running a company with a turnover of £5M

    BTW Thank you RTC (and others) for detailing this matter in a manner that is capable of being understood by those of us with little knowledge of the vagaries of law as regards taxes and business transactions

  26. gert.canada says:

    I think I love u. You should actually be up for sports journalist of the year.”BRING IN THE BULLDOZERS”.

  27. gert.canada says:

    I,m talking about the lad or lassie that started this fabulous site. RTC.

  28. TheBlackKnight says:

    Could this be the vehicle for the purchase? Wonder how much they have raised :/

    http://www.merchant-capital.com/recent-press/launch-of-new-fund

  29. tomtom says:

    You can judge a man by the company he keeps. David Roberts is a director of 13 company’s, 12 of whom’s credit rating is either under threat or suspended. Interestingly enough the only company that gets a good credit rating is run by a couple who live in an ex council house in Knightswood. And this is a man to trust with £50m!

  30. Carlos duvall says:

    I have been asked to appear on this site on behalf of mr whyte. There is no basis to the above point. Rangers have an extremely strong case against hmrc. Also may I add that we cannot asset strip. Ie ibrox is a listed building and would be worthless to developers. Player values approx 25 mil and murry park appox 27 mil. Planned take over cost including debt take on 76mil, so mr whyte could not recoup his investment that way. Mr whyte believes he can increase rangers operational profit to 12.6 mil in 3 years, and gain double what he paid in 12 years. Conspiracy theories seem to sell best and this site reiterates this fact.

  31. Post approved for comedic value if nothing else.

  32. Boab says:

    I thought the planned takeover cost was more like £50m, Carlos. £25m including shares and debt clearing, then another £25m, over 5 years, allocated to squad building.

    Where are you getting the £76m from, is Mr Whyte not very good with numbers.

  33. ciarans Dad says:

    Right Carlos, If we assume your not at the wind up. Where on this planet will you get £27m for Murray park when it is leased and has prohibitions on the lease that prevent change to housing. Even if you could, at best you would mibee get about £5m in a bouyant market.
    Yet again someone close to Whyte, not whyte himself!!!!
    He must be trying to get Murrays hide and seek crown off him ffs!!!

    Right, let’s cut to the chase Carlos, what’s the hold up? Why no appearance from the future dark lord? on what basis does he think he can make that profit with no champions league money? Just how do you get to £76m for a takeover? How strong a case do they have against HMRC? What about Dave Kings shares?
    And the biggy, how do you manage to get the marauding hordes to purchase season books when HMRC won’t be settled until at least August/September ??

    At the end of the day Whyte like Murray is full of pish and wind and a master at controlling the media. Does he own his own smoke and mirrors, or does he get minty’s as part of the sale.

    Ps… Well done RTC, even the ‘Whyte Knight’ now reads your blog. Mibee he’s looking for ideas as to how he manages to pull it off 🙂

  34. tomtom says:

    People who can spell and properly punctuate their text stand a better chance of being believed.

  35. Carlos duvall says:

    As I posted yesterday I can confirm that there are no sinister motives behind this takeover. In fact Mr Whyte has been more than transparent in his takeover dealings. I do offer this question though. On this site you seem to have an insight into whyte/HMRC and takeover. Do any of these posters have an insight to site? What are his motives in operating this site? My own opinion on free Lance journalists is that there information is unreliable or they would be working for a large tabloid. It would seem to me that this site is set up to feed the ego of a failed journalist and thus give him some validation. Can you confim RTC are you a tax expert? Are you part of the takeover?? Unless the answer to these questions are yes your postings here is gossip at best. I warn fellow posters here that are so eger to believe, u no nothing of the owner of this site, no not of his qualifications to comment of such tax issues. I put it toward you that you know far more about mr whyte that RTC.

    Moving on to Mr Whytes intentions, if he were as to put it transfer shares to debt, he would not be above HMRC n the creditor order of payment. If fact it would be the other way around. There is an opening to make decent profits over and extended period. Which investors want to see. There would be no way what so ever whyte could recoup his funds over the short term.

    As for proper spelling ect, I do apologise English is my 3rd language. also Rtc I would be suprised if you posted this even for ” comical purposes ”

  36. Boab says:

    “he would not be above HMRC n the creditor order of payment”

    Why not, HMRC have no special status as a creditor, whereas Mr Whyte could organise things in such a way as to have secured creditor status.

    I certainly know more about Craig Whyte than I do about RTC. All of it bad, from his own tax investigation by the Inland Revenue and HMCE, through his businesses going into liquidation, to his problems with the stock market and his current business model of offering “rescue packages” to failing businesses. Yet to see one of those which went well.

    So you are right. I do know much more about him than I do about the person making this blog.

  37. Carlos duvall says:

    Hmrc would surpass all other unsecured creditors, what would mr whyte secure on?? Ibrox (worthless to developers), murry park and players are what is left along with some land to the east of ibrox. My point is bob that Mr Whyte would be unable to recoup the funds from his investors this way, in fact the only way would be in the long term. RTC advised earlier in this form that rangers fans here what they want, yet u are prepared to believe as gospel RTC despite knowing nothing about the persons. Again I urge you to question RTC motives for this sight before you question whytes. Again all his comments reek of a faild journalist seeking validation.

  38. Boab says:

    Why would HMRC “surpass all other unsecured creditors”, that simply isn’t true. The preferred status was taken away years ago. In all honesty I don’t think they ever really used it, as it would have been seen as unfair on small businesses. The Government taking their money ahead of other people, possibly putting them into liquidation, would have been a very poor show.

    I don’t take anything RTC says as being Gospel, he hasn’t actually put very much up which I didn’t already know. He just does a very good job of explaining it to people. He has also put on some very interesting analysis, and clearly done a lot of research on the subjects he has discussed.

    In relation to the tax bill, it is real and is not just going away. If Rangers lose it they could be in very serious problems depending on the amount the tribunal finally decides on.

    In relation to Craig Whyte, he is a rogue and a charlatan, I would have no problem with him taking control of Rangers and Rangers’ debt. I wouldn’t want him within a mile of my own club.

  39. tomtom says:

    So Mr Whyte asks someone who can hardly string a sentence together in plain English to represent him on this site and we are expected to give him credence. Why bother with this muppet?

    If Mr Whyte has indeed got a dastardly plan he would hardly go to pains to explain it here. Even if English is only your 3rd language you seem to have knack of getting the spelling wrong in all the right places. Charlatans will always be found out as Mr White(sic) will soon find out.

  40. Boab says:

    I think it’s comedy gold, mate. The “3rd language” was inspired. Not even “2nd”, “3rd”.

  41. To the point about HMRC’s status:
    They will be an unsecured creditor, but as they will be the majority creditor (i.e. >50% of the value of the liabilities) will be owed to HMRC, no deal to keep Rangers FC going and to recover from an administration filing can proceed without HMRC’s agreement.

  42. Paulsatim says:

    Sounds like one of those Nigerian scam emails!

  43. Boab says:

    Indeed, they will be the most important creditor, simply because they will be the biggest one and will be who the potential administrator will have to deal with. However the chap was suggesting that they were ahead of other creditors if and when money was being dished out.

    That used to be the case but they had that staus removed a few years ago. In fact it was the old IR and HMCE who had the preferred status, so strictly speaking HMRC has never had it.

    It was the Enterprise Act 2002 which removed it if anyone is that interested. HMRC didn’t come into existence until April 2005.

  44. Boab says:

    Oh and we don’t really know if they will be over 50% until the Tribunal has ruled a, that there is tax due and b, how much that tax / interest is. As I understand it they could rule a, yes but b, smaller amount.

    I could be wrong in that though.

  45. Per another comment, HMRC only has a veto on rescue packages. In the event of liquidation, all unsecured creditors will receive exactly the same payout rate. E.g. if HMRC are owed £60m and (let’s say) £6m for The Rangers Bond holders and £4m for trade creditors. If after all of the more senior creditors (i.e. secured / preferred creditors) are paid off 100%, if there was £10m left over. The unsecured creditors would divide up the £10m pro rata. i.e. HMRC would get £10m x (60/70) = £8.6m.

    As for the rest of your post, I have allowed a lot of constructive criticism on here. Others have questioned my motives and it is a fair point to raise.
    However, they have done so in factually based posts that use standard English or at least a close approximation. If you cannot get the facts correct, either as laid out here or elsewhere, then you do not add anything to the discussion. There have been a few Rangers fans who have provided alternative analyses around the same understood facts, and we have had good discussions. So this is not about my version of “the truth”. If you continue in this vein, don’t be surprised to see your posts disappear. (Sorry forgot who you are Carlos. As a representative of “Mr. Whyte” you are of course welcome to post any time! :-))

  46. Ciarans Dad says:

    Carlos, as expected you failed to answer any of the questions I asked you yesterday. Yet you question RTC on his right to ask questions of this fakeover.
    For starters he is only providing a platform for factual information already in the public domain and doing a damn good job of putting this info into laymans terms.
    His motives, simple, the Hun press, aka murray’s poodles, haven’t asked any questions and so far no credible information has been forthcoming from your ‘Mr Whyte’ so what’s not to ask, especially when the whole soap opera is as far fetched as a Harry potter book.
    (well when did a ginger kid have 2 friends?)
    So go on, answer me these annd give this whole farce!!

    1) what is your remit in this whole affair?
    2) do you work for the ‘Whyte Knight’ ?
    3) did he ask u to post on here or are you just defending his honour
    4) what have you seen on here, other than conjecture, that isn’t factually correct (to allow the various posters to reply)

    As RTC has already said, discussion is welcome and would be lovely to hear from you 🙂

%d bloggers like this: