The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored


Monday evening’s Newsnight report on Rangers financial troubles came just three days before BBC Scotland’s much anticipated documentary “Scotland Investigates: Rangers – The Inside Story”.  It is now clear that this blog has achieved its central mission: to open up discussion on the most important story in the history of Scottish football.  I found it difficult to sit back and listen to the conspiracy of silence within the mainstream Scottish media.  Their failure to do their jobs allowed the many falsehoods promulgated by the club’s executives to fill the void and be accepted as truth.

It is hard to believe how far, and how fast, this story has moved since May 2010.  Stories of Rangers’ tax troubles were initially derided by many as just malicious Internet rumours.  A skillful disinformation campaign left Rangers fans with the clear impression that it was Sir David Murray’s Murray International Holdings Ltd (Rangers’ parent company until just over four months ago) who would be responsible for paying any tax liabilities.  The amounts of the bills were ridiculed by journalists briefed by senior Rangers employees.  We were told that the club had expert advice saying that the risks of the tax case were negligible.  In any case, Rangers’ tax advisers’ professional liability insurance would be picking up the tab!  This was all typical of mainstream opinion just a matter of three months ago.  It is with some degree of pride that I look at how far the truth has come.

This blog is not solely responsible for bringing light to the darkness.  A small cadre of bloggers, messageboard posters, and journalists were on this story before this blog was even a gleam in my eye.  However, it would be disingenuous to not acknowledge the role that this blog, and its many contributors, have played in establishing the truth in the Scottish public’s consciousness.

In particular, we all owe a lot of gratitude to the real heroes of this story: the sources who had the courage to approach an anonymous blogger with information that could end their careers or worse.   When I publicised the leaking of the Bain Papers, this story was forever altered.  Craig Whyte’s claim that this blog was “99% crap” became laughable to even the most sceptical reader.  I believe that this was the  point when this story moved mainstream.

Yet for all of the sense of vindication regarding our revelations related to ‘the big case’, Rangers appear to be grasping at the last straws of solvency over more prosaic issues.  The failure to qualify for the group stages of either European competition, the arrestment of cash by former executives and solicitors, and money blown on expensive PR agencies in a forlorn effort to paint a picture of confidence and competence around the club’s new owner, have all combined to drain the Ibrox coffers faster than Craig Whyte had imagined.   Survival to the end of the current season without filing for insolvency seems unlikely.  Some even say that matters will come to a head in just a few more weeks.  If this long dance comes to an abrupt halt in just a few more movements, it will have been the less heralded ‘wee tax case’ that delivered the knockout blow.  While Scotland sits back to absorb BBC Scotland’s take on the larger issues that make insolvency a virtual certainty upon losing ‘the big case’, I thought that some more background on the ‘wee tax case’ might be interesting.  It is a tale that will leave the layman surprised at the transparent sham and fraudulent nature of the transactions.  As we will see, HMRC must have had very strong evidence indeed for Rangers to admit liability for the underpaid tax and interest.

We will simplify the facts to explain the concept, but the following is a good facsimilie of the Discounted Options Scheme used to compensate some players.  To execute this scam, a club would form an offshore company in a tax haven like the Bahamas or the British Virgin Islands.  Cash would be deposited in a bank account owned by the newly formed offshore company.  Let us suppose that £10 million was deposited.   Rather than paying players this money as wages that would have seen about 50%  taken in UK PAYE and NIC taxes, players would be given options in the offshore company.   Options provide holders with the opportunity, but not the obligation, to buy shares in the company at a predetermined price by a certain date.  As the shares in this company do not trade on the stock market (indeed the offshore company does not do any meaningful trading of any type), their real value will simply be a function of the amount of cash held in its bank accounts.  So the decision to buy the shares or let them expire worthless should be a simple one.

So let us hypothesize that ten players are granted 1 option each in the offshore company.  Assessing the taxable value of each option is easy.  (Let us suppose for simplicity that 1 option buys 1 real share).  With 10 options for £10 million cash, the value of each option would be £1 million.  Each player would be able to convert his option into a real share and would then receive a dividend, tax-free, that would pay him his £1 million cash.  So far, this story is just a blatant money laundering scam and transparently illegal if tax is not paid on the full value of the cash received by the players.  However, here comes the “clever” bit: the football club issues itself with, let us say, 9,999,990 options.  This would mean that there were now 10 million options for £10 million cash in the bank.  The value of each option is now £1 each.  By a flaw  UK law at the time, the players would only pay tax on the value of the options at the time their issue.  So each player would pay 50p in tax.  You might be asking yourself:  “So what?  The club owns most of the options!”  – and that is where this scam gets clever.  The football club allows its options to expire worthless a few weeks later- after each player has paid his 50p tax.  The players all exercise their options and divide the £10 million in the bank between them.  (The money is actually held in an offshore trust to prevent any squabbling between the players later.  A trustee pays each player according to rules provided by the football club).

Such a scheme is obviously a way to avoid paying the tax that mere mortals have to pay every day.  I am told by tax specialists that this scheme is not as illegal as it might seem.  The use of a Discounted Options Scheme like this would straddle the line of legality.   For Rangers to have rolled over and signed an agreement to pay tax and interest of £2.8 million rather than delay payment by appealing the assessments  (just as it did in ‘the big case’), HMRC must have had a massive degree of leverage over the club’s (former) executives.  While I have received confirmation from two independent sources that Rangers did indeed use a scheme like this, I do not have specific information that would indicate an inept or criminal implementation of this scheme, but I do know what they were doing with the EBT scheme during the same period.  It does not seem unreasonable to think that something must have been seriously wrong with how Rangers implemented this scheme.  Why else would the old board have folded when an appeal was the obvious next move?

Even more interesting is the curious case of the bill for the £1.4 million penalty.  Whyte was reported to have been ‘foaming at the mouth’ when this bill was received.  Rangers would have had 30 days to appeal this bill and defer it until it is decided by its own First Tier Tribunal.  Rangers have made no statement claiming to have filed an appeal for this penalty.  My enquiries have failed to produce any evidence of an appeal having been filed at all.  (A late appeal would almost certainly be allowed).  Why might Rangers not appeal?  The tribunals service in Scotland is settling down into a more established process and private tribunal hearings are increasingly difficult to obtain without a national security angle.  It would be quite likely that a new First Tier Tribunal for the penalty in ‘the wee case’ would be held in public.   In a case that the old board agreed in writing to pay when it could have filed an appeal, and where evidence of Whyte filing an appeal for the penalty is conspicuous by its absence, I am very curious as to what Rangers might have done that it would want to keep so quiet?

Perhaps the members of the Rangers Supporters Trust who are reported to be meeting with Whyte tomorrow (Wednesday) might want to ask if the penalty has been appealed?  Now that the case has become worthy of investigation by the likes of the BBC, perhaps the Scottish football mediapack might try to redeem itself by investigating this point for itself?

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 for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

1,562 Responses to The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored

  1. b1ckerstaff says:

    Johnboy says:
    23/10/2011 at 2:04 am
    Rab,
    She’s… locked up in his decrepit auld castle in the Highlands.

    Surely you mean, “esconced in his Castle Grant stronghold” (J Traynor)

  2. AllWhyteOnTheNight says:

    Anyone know how much equity he has in that castle.

    What’s that you say, it’s worth less than the mortgages on it. Surely not, he’s a billionaire, he has wealth off the scale.

  3. DAVE says:

    I wonder if his ex-wife will spill the beans ? or will he pay for her silence

  4. excilecelt says:

    If she gets Paul McConville as her lawyer CW will settle pretty quick. BTW who do you think blinks more per minute CW or there old manager from 60’s or 70’s Davie White?

  5. scoobytees says:

    What’s happened to the posting?

  6. TheBlackKnight says:

    rangerstaxcase says:
    23/10/2011 at 5:36 am

    I posted this on Paul McConville’ site http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/did-craig-whyte-and-rangers-mislead-the-court-of-session/

    In relation to the rumours variously and stated ” ” comments from The Whyte Knight, I believe Counsel and Lord Hodge should look at the comments made in Lord Hodges judgment

    http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSOH158.html

    “Mr Whyte’s affidavit suggests that HMRC have been able to arrest £2.3 million in Rangers’ bank account. Discussions are continuing between HMRC and Rangers in relation to the level of penalties imposed. In any event, the purchaser of Rangers has undertaken to pay the debt to HMRC. ”

    An affidavit to a Lord of the High Court of Session (assumed as signed by CW) that confirms his intention (undertaking) to pay the debt.

    Is this perhaps another lie?

  7. TheBlackKnight says:
    23/10/2011 at 2:25 pm
    ——————————————————
    I understand that the affidavit is a very interesting document. As you say, TBK, it is sworn by Mr Whyte.

    If the case goes to proof, then Counsel for Mr Bain would be expected to question Mr Whyte on any alleged discrepancies.

    The telling of untruths in an affidavit is the same as lying in court (though I am not suggesting that Mr Whyte is guilty of doing so).

  8. TheBlackKnight says:

    Paul McConville says:
    23/10/2011 at 2:58 pm

    Many thanks Paul, I too agree that it appears that way and I too am not suggesting that is the case 😉

    It makes an interesting set of circumstances that could unfurl for The Whyte Knight 🙂

  9. ashton says:

    Presenting a false affidavit to a court of record is a criminal offence as it is perjury, we can safely say that whyte has no case to answer, as plod would have been on the trail by now.

  10. meridian says:

    Johnboy says:
    23/10/2011 at 2:04 am
    Rab,
    She’s now back with her maw after being treated like dirt by the wee Scheidt and locked up in his decrepit auld castle in the Highlands.
    She will have a story to tell, that’s for sure.
    By the way, last night I heard a wee bit more about wee Craigie’s past financial dealings with a certain Glesga nightclub owner.
    Something about a secretary who later ended up in the pokey.
    Hmmmmm . . .
    —————————————————————————————————–

    Any chance of elaborating johnboy ???

  11. ashton says:
    23/10/2011 at 3:10 pm
    —————————————————-

    Let’s take a hypothetical example of a case of Smith v Jones in Glasgow Sheriff Court. Mr Smith asks the court at the start of the case for an interim interdict. Both parties lodge affidavits in support of their respective positions.

    Sheriff Bloggs finds that he is persuaded by Mr Smith’s case, relying on his sworn statement and grants the interim interdict.

    Some months pass as the case goes through its various procedural stages. Finally the case proceeds to proof, and Sheriff Brown hearing the evidence decides that she accepts Mr Jones’ case, and that she decides that Smith’s case is false, dating all the way back to his affidavit.

    Once the veracity of the affidavit is determined (which would be some time after the affidavit is sworn) it would be possible for the Sheriff, or Jones’ lawyers, to refer the matter for investigation for perjury.

    As was seen in the Tommy Sheridan case, perjury prosecutions are very rare, and their investigation can take a very long time.

    I’ve blogged a number of times about that case, but here is a link to my piece trying to explain what perjury is – http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/the-sheridan-trial-investigation-what-is-perjury-and-what-isnt/

    So, in the Smith v Jones case we are considering, it is, on balance, unlikely that Smith would be investigated at all (unless his perjury was designed to make him lots of money or if it was a gross abuse of the court), and even if he was, a long time would have passed.

    Just because a witness turns out to be incorrcet, this does not necessarily mean that perjury has been committed.

  12. TheBlackKnight says:

    Not sure you understand the legal system Ashton, why would Her Majestey’s finest be involved?

    Nothing has been suggested? It merely points to inconsistencies in The Whyte Knights often contrary statements.

    It will be part of any Counsel up against Rangers in Court to look into this contrary information, then for the Court to decide on the action.

    I wonder if The Whyte Knight still has his pad in Monaco? He may be paying it a visit soon 😉

  13. TheBlackKnight says:

    “Majesty’s”

  14. ashton says:

    The question is not about being incorrect it is about whyte allegedly deliberately misleading a court of record, by use of a sworn affidavit which as you well know is treated as oral evidence.
    I think the suggestion that he did this is totally ludicrous if not paranoid.

  15. TheBlackKnight says:

    That is a matter for the Court!

    It appears a matter of record that his statements in the DR re: the 6 year rule and the affidavit are contrary.

  16. TheBlackKnight says:

    If not disparate and ill-advised

  17. Hugh McEwan says:

    Is it not more likely that he was trying to mislead the fans through the papers that him lying in a sworn affidavit.

    Basically bravado in the papers to try to keep them onside. It also gives him a reason not to pay the bill, albeit a spurious one.

    I would suggest he is trying to buy time.

  18. JD says:

    Do we know if his wife has filed for divorce and under what grounds

  19. Paulie Walnuts says:

    I agree with Hugh. The 6 year thing is just spin and deflection for the less observant fans.

    My understanding of the position between Rangers, Wavetower and HMRC on the small tax bill is as follows. My source on this is impeccable and I am as certain as I can be of the accuracy of the information.

    Pre-takeover Rangers agreed, in writing, with HMRC the level of the tax liability and the interest. Penalties remained to be assessed and one of the material factors there was how quickly the principal sum was paid, the implication being that if it was paid promptly HMRC might go easy on the penalties. HMRC were told explicitly that payment would be made immediately after the takeover was settled, that is in the first half of May.

    There are very detailed enforceable obligations in the contract for the takeover deal. The short version is that Wavetower was obliged to have £2.8m available at completion for the wee tax bill. Evidence was produced that the money was there and held to Rangers’ order in a designated account in London. Wavetower was also obliged to procure that Rangers would draw the money down and apply it to the bill as soon as the bill fell due.

    I was very struck when watching the BBC documentary by the former director of the logistics company in Felixstowe who said the promised money did arrive eventually but much later than had been promised and at a time when the company was already mortally wounded. So it seems to be here. There is no explicable business reason not to have settled with HMRC unless insolvency was pre-planned from before the takeover.

    Now the obligations are enforceable by Rangers against Wavetower, and an administrator or receiver or liquidator will be bound to take some steps to enforce them. So what is the angle? Two possibilities suggest themselves. The first is that the assumption is that a deal can be struck with the administrator to pay pay half of the money promised in return for avoiding a court case. It is relatively common for companies dealing with distressed creditors to withhold payment in the knowledge that they’ll almost certainly get a softer deal from the administrator or liquidator because of the pressing requirement to get cash in quickly.

    The second possibility is that the money will be paid over to the administrator without a fight. One of the missing pieces in the jigsaw is how the show gets kept on the road during the period of administration. The administrator needs cash to keep the business trading and to retain the value of the players’ registrations. Cash coming in to him does not I think have to be passed back out to HMRC, even though that was the purpose for which it was set aside. So HMRC add £2.8m to the unsecured creditors and the administrator has £2.8m of ready cash to fund a month’s trading. Add the same again of cash in the bank which might fall to be released and there is a window to get the restructuring done.

    Looking at the modus operandi of Whyte and his like more generally, they don’t generally operate in the bright light. The idea is that the money moves through a convoluted and opaque trail so that it is unclear whether anything challengeable has happened and even if it has it is unclear where the money is. It is effectively the throwing of obstacles in the path of any challenge since any challenger might have to commit £50k of professional fees just to find out whether there was anything worth chasing. Those of you who have seen the film Pulp Fiction will recall the scene where John Travolta accidentally shoots the guy in the back of the car so that the whole car is sprayed with blood. Harvey Keitel comes in to sort the thing out. He tells them to get the blood cleaned up sufficiently so that the car will not attract attention at a passing glance from a distance, but recognises that the game will be up if it is inspected closely. This is what we are dealing with here.

  20. Hugh McEwan says:

    Am I right in saying that if administration does not happen within 60 days of the arrestment then the arrestment will hold and administration will not defeat it.

    If so I believe administration would have to come pretty soon or HMRC’s money will be safe, albeit they don;t have it yet.

    And is it the case that the money is automatically paid to the creditor after 14 weeks.

  21. Paulie Walnuts says:
    23/10/2011 at 4:40 pm (Edit)
    I agree with Hugh. The 6 year thing is just spin and deflection for the less observant fans.

    My understanding of the position between Rangers, Wavetower and HMRC on the small tax bill is as follows. My source on this is impeccable and I am as certain as I can be of the accuracy of the information.

    Pre-takeover Rangers agreed, in writing, with HMRC the level of the tax liability and the interest. Penalties remained to be assessed and one of the material factors there was how quickly the principal sum was paid, the implication being that if it was paid promptly HMRC might go easy on the penalties. HMRC were told explicitly that payment would be made immediately after the takeover was settled, that is in the first half of May.

    There are very detailed enforceable obligations in the contract for the takeover deal. The short version is that Wavetower was obliged to have £2.8m available at completion for the wee tax bill. Evidence was produced that the money was there and held to Rangers’ order in a designated account in London. Wavetower was also obliged to procure that Rangers would draw the money down and apply it to the bill as soon as the bill fell due.

    There is no explicable business reason not to have settled with HMRC unless insolvency was pre-planned from before the takeover.
    ….

    The second possibility is that the money will be paid over to the administrator without a fight. One of the missing pieces in the jigsaw is how the show gets kept on the road during the period of administration. The administrator needs cash to keep the business trading and to retain the value of the players’ registrations. Cash coming in to him does not I think have to be passed back out to HMRC, even though that was the purpose for which it was set aside. So HMRC add £2.8m to the unsecured creditors and the administrator has £2.8m of ready cash to fund a month’s trading. Add the same again of cash in the bank which might fall to be released and there is a window to get the restructuring done.
    ________________________________________________________

    This latter option sounds most likely to me. Simply that he will discharge the obligation in receivership or administration- with Wavetower as the primary beneficiary. It will mostly come back to himself (less administrator fees).

  22. ashton says:

    False oaths are the business of the police and the PF where they are known to have been used in court, it is perjury.
    The court will decide the penalty

    http://tinyurl.com/6hbd79g

  23. Lord Wobbly says:

    TheBlackKnight says:
    23/10/2011 at 3:56 pm
    That is a matter for the Court!
    It appears a matter of record that his statements in the DR re: the 6 year rule and the affidavit are contrary.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    One thing is for sure, he has been consistant in his inconsistancies

  24. Mark says:

    it appears Whyte was clearly THE BEST MAN to take over rangers and their problems, I would say the went after him hence the due dilligence.
    Murray and the bank or the bank knew exactly who and what they were after, the fate of rangers was not a concern merely the return of the monies due tot he bank, after that carve up the remainder Craig…..
    Murray is as far as he is concerend out of the picture, gone bye bye, rangers fans I suggest just have to wait and see what happens, for now they seem happy, good for them

  25. TheBlackKnight says:

    Paulie & RTC.

    Noting the second option as you state, the most likely, why would he go into admin on the wee bill.

    The big bill (should they lose) would sink them for sure?

  26. Hugh McEwan says:

    TheBlackKnight says:
    23/10/2011 at 5:31 pm

    Paulie & RTC.

    Noting the second option as you state, the most likely, why would he go into admin on the wee bill.

    The big bill (should they lose) would sink them for sure?
    ============================================

    If they go into administration just now the big bill will be part of it. HMRC will lodge a claim for the whole amount.

  27. TheBlackKnight says:

    Ashton, is it a false oath?

  28. TheBlackKnight says:

    Hugh, the amount is an assessment, it has been appealed and yet to be determined, yes?

    Are you suggesting HMRC can ask for the full amount? Are they in a position to sit it out and appeal any decision (let’s say to get a more favourable decision)?

  29. campsiejoe says:

    TBK @ 5.49

    I’m sure RTC said that an assessment was a bill
    Stand to be corrected though

  30. TheBlackKnight says:

    Cheers Campsiejoe, I understand that.

    I’ll reword. Why oh why oh why would HMRC put themselves in a position, going after a bill of £49M knowing the money may not be there and come away with very little.

    Surely it would be better to play the Whyte Knight at his own game. Wait for the tribunal decision (even if favourable, but on the assumption it’s not the full amount) appeal it and sit it out until funds (either by forced sale of assets or transfer window player sales) are available.

    I’m sure any share issue mooted would be quickly kicked into touch and the business would be nicely set up to die a prolonged death whilst repaying it’s dues?

  31. Paulie Walnuts says:

    TBK,

    I’m increasingly confident Whyte will pull the plug before the tax case result is known. In that situation the administrator or receiver or whatever just writes to all known creditors and invites them to submit claims for what they think they are owed. In HMRC’s case that must necessarily be the full bhoona.

    Whilst I see the logic of your argument it is not within the power of HMRC to keep Rangers out of insolvency just by staying their own hand.

  32. Hugh McEwan says:

    TheBlackKnight says:
    23/10/2011 at 5:49 pm

    Hugh, the amount is an assessment, it has been appealed and yet to be determined, yes?

    Are you suggesting HMRC can ask for the full amount? Are they in a position to sit it out and appeal any decision (let’s say to get a more favourable decision)?
    =======================================================

    They will lodge a claim for the full amount. The administrator may not accept it. If he doesn’t accept the full amount they can take the matter to Court. They have done so in the past.

  33. campsiejoe says:

    Why do they go after any company, when they know full well it is unlikely that any money will be there ?

    HMRC appear favour winding up orders as opposed to CVAs, as they are possibly trying to send a message to other companies

    It’s well known, that HMRC are sick to the back teeth of football clubs, and getting a favourable judgement at this FTT will send out a message to all football clubs

    Of course HMRC want their money, but at the same time , if they can’t get all of it, settle for a proportion, and put the offenders out of business, by liquidating them

  34. campsiejoe says:

    PW @6.19
    HME @6.21

    That is the way I see it too

    If the administrator rejects it, HMRC will go to court, and administration will in all probability, be a very long drawn out process

  35. Brenda says:

    please excuse my lack of knowledge but IF HMRC do go after the full amount could the administrator sell off assets such as the stadium etc to pay the bill? apologies if this has already been discussed 🙂

  36. duggie73 says:

    TBK
    fairly sure Paul McConville blogged that liquidation would be necessary prior to the wee tax bill money being transferred to HMRC in order for Whyte to keep his hands on the money arrested.
    (this won’t be 100% accurate, I’d advise re-reading, and would do so myself if I had the time)
    Think that’s the motivation for going early.

  37. TheBlackKnight says:

    So in a fanciful scenario where individuals conspire to buy a troubled company at a reduced value in return for paying off the bank debt, a network of companies are set up to inflate debts in the hope this blocks any route of a CVA in the attempt to release it’s burdens to creditors, the future (season ticket) sales could be sold off to the highest bidder and the business premises (ground) passed onto a ‘landlord’ for a lease agreement over an extended time period (100years)

    Did I miss anything in this wonderful plan?

    Paulie, thanks for the reply.

    “Whilst I see the logic of your argument it is not within the power of HMRC to keep Rangers out of insolvency just by staying their own hand.”

    Agree, but is there not statute that relates to ongoing appeals/court cases where a business falls into receivership (perhaps deliberately) during the process?

  38. AllWhyteOnTheNight says:

    TBK, as it stands HMRC are owed the full amount. When admin happens before the FTT it will the be up to the administrator to decide whether or not to continue with the FTT.

    The administrator will have to assess likelihood of success against costs of continuing with FTT and also has to decide if there is any point (there probably would be as a CVA will hinge on the level of this debt).

    My bet would be the administrator doesn’t continue with the FTT as it will cost and is a long shot.

    He will then accept the main part of the claim, £24m and reject the interest and penalties, it would then be up to HMRC to appeal this adjudication to the Court.

    Is there enough other debt, actual or contingent, to mean that the CVA is then possible, hard to tell at the moment but I have said since the 1st 5 year contract was handed out that there was only one reason to be so generous.

  39. OnandOnandOnand says:

    AWOTN @ 7.25

    If the administrator accepted an HMRC claim of £24m (ignoring the small tax case), that would mean that there would have to be £100m of debt, 75% of it voting for CW. I’m sure he’s good at ramping up debt, but not that good. CVA just can’t work on that basis.

  40. ashton says:

    Only unsecured creditors have a vote in a CVA situation, HMRC and other unsecured creditors.

  41. AllWhyteOnTheNight says:

    How many 5 year £20k per week contracts are there, 5 or 6, that’s £25m of contingent unsecured claims right away.

  42. TheBlackKnight says:

    If administration does go ahead (as planned), it certainly will be interesting to see the possible fall out and future implications;

    “The liquidator, administrative receiver, administrator or Official Receiver has a duty to send the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills, a report on the conduct of all directors who were in office in the last 3 years of the company’s trading. The Secretary of State has to decide whether it is in the public interest to seek a disqualification order against a director.

    Examples of the most commonly reported conduct are:

    continuing the company’s trading when the company was insolvent;
    failing to keep proper accounting records;
    failing to prepare and file accounts or make returns to Companies House; and
    failing to send in returns or pay to the Crown any tax that is due.”

  43. OnandOnandOnand says:

    TBK @ 8.08pm

    Are previous disqualifications taken into account when a court determines the length of disqualification? I ask that in the abstract, of course, I have no particular director in mind, and besides, I haven’t seen that documentary, honest

  44. droid says:

    If your strength is small, don’t carry heavy burdens.

    If your words are worthless, don’t give advice.

    Chinese Proverb

  45. ashton says:

    Footballers contracts aside are secured creditors under the football super creditors rule.

  46. TheBlackKnight says:

    OnandOn, I couldn’t possibly say 😉

  47. BillyBhoy68 says:

    Interesting domain name and admin contacts – anything of interest here to anyone ?

    http://whois.domaintools.com/fearandgreedreport.com

  48. ashton says:
    23/10/2011 at 8:27 pm (Edit)
    Footballers contracts aside are secured creditors under the football super creditors rule.
    ____________________________________________________________________

    The football creditor rule does not apply in Scotland. The “Rule” is actually just a suspension of membership of the FA until football creditors have been paid. It is basically a threat to other creditors that the club will be liquidated and presumably that the other creditors will receive less, unless football clubs and players are paid off in full first.

    If a club was going into liquidation, the football creditor’s rule would simply not exist as the threat would have lost its thunder.

    It has no bearing on Rangers’ situation as it does not apply in Scotland.

    Even in England, it has not been tested in court yet and could easily be argued to be a tax avoidance scheme in itself.

  49. TheBlackKnight says:

    As far as I can see the footballers creditors rule only applies in England and Wales as they (the clubs) are bound by the Football Association Rules.

    If a club enters administration (in England and Wales) they are bound by the football creditors rule where preferential creditors, including players and managers, are paid in full before the remaining assets are divided among the unsecured creditors.

    In the spirit of droids post, I’m not sure if this helps 😉

    http://bankruptcyandinsolvency.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-is-football-creditor-rule.html?m=1

  50. the Don Dionisio says:

    People keep droning on about Administration, when it will be Receivership, as advised by Onand(x3) and myself on many occasions now.

    Anyway, on a lighter note:-

    the Don: “…………..you think that would fool a Corleone?”
    CW: “No, Godfather, I’m innocent, I swear on the kids”
    the Don: “Sit down”
    CW: “Please don’t do this to me, Godfather, please don’t”
    the Don: “Barzini is dead. So is Phillip Tattaglia. Moe Greene. Stracci. Cuneo. Today I settled all
    all family business so don’t tell me that you’re innocent. Admit what you did.

    ………………………….only don’t tell me that you’re innocent, because it insults my
    intelligence…………”

%d bloggers like this: