Rangers FC – Ready For A Fall?

You may also like...

14 Responses

  1. William says:

    “The story of a £2.8m tax liability (over)due for payment by Rangers Football Club ought to be a straightforward one. Either the club owes the money or it doesn’t. And it says it does. However, if Rangers FC does owe the money, and publicly admits as much, yet still does not pay it, there must be a problem with their ability to do so. And if Rangers FC are struggling, at a time of year when football clubs are at their cash-richest, to pay it, there must be a general – and serious – financial problem at the club. Either that, or there is a complex conspiracy between the Scottish media, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), the Glasgow and Strathkelvin Sheriffs’ Office, Glasgow-based law firm Levy & McCrae, the Court of Session in Edinburgh and Celtic-supporting financial bloggers – possibly with the backing of disaffected former Rangers directors – to discredit the football club and, in particular, its owner of four months, Motherwell-born venture capitalist Craig Whyte. Or, maybe, just maybe, the story is a mixture of ‘all of the above,’ as real life so often is.”

    I’d just like to sort this part out for you.

    The £2.8million tax bill for payments made 2001-2003 is not in dispute, CW is willing to pay. The dispute lies with the £1.4million charge that has been added to it. I’m not sure how if he is using the old “that bill is not in my name, therefore, I owe you nothing” route or just the plain old “half the bill in charges, are you mental?” one.

    This information is widely accessible & for this reason, I have to say your article appears ill-thought & not worth the read.

  2. Elliott says:

    I always love the selection and placement of adverbs before the phrase “appeal.” Because we all know that the strength of the appeal ultimately depends upon that adverb. Weak appeals will be summarily rejected.

  3. Ian says:

    What I don’t quite follow is why, regardless of the dispute over the £1.4m fine from HMRC (and I don’t think any of us are qualified to say whether they owe this or not, such are the complexities of tax law), he doesn’t then pay the £2.8m that the club doesn’t dispute owing.

  4. Mark Murphy says:

    William,

    Just to set your mind at rest, the phrase “Rangers FC owes the money and publicly admits as much” actually MEANS the £2.8m is not in dispute. And I added: “Rangers either owes the money, or it doesn’t…and it says it does,” in the last para.
    Indeed, the focus of my thinking is on the £2.8m that Rangers don’t dispute owing but are taking so much time to pay.
    Apologies to you if my writing didn’t make that clear.

  5. Andrew Boyd says:

    Its not a case of giving the 2.8 million and disputing the 1.4 the Bill is for 4.2 million, if you have ever dealt with the tax office or customs there is no breaking up of the bill you either challenge it or you pay it. Rangers are challenging it.. Its pretty Simple, I am just out of school and I know how it works.

  6. Matt says:

    The point is though that the article doesn’t mention the £1.4m at all, and that’s the part being disputed!

    Its pretty standard not to pay the £2.8m because they are using that holdout as leverage in the discussion over the £1.4m.

    I.e. said ‘we have the £2.8m for you but you won’t get it until you waive the £1.4m penalty fees’. HMRC said ‘no, and see you in court’ so they are going to hold on to the £2.8m until the court decides whether they also owe £1.4m on top or not.

    Me personally, I’d offer the HMRC £3m in cash in full settlement as a final offer – they’d probably accept it, the only question is whether it would be easier or harder to settle after the big court case over the £50m. Imagine if HMRC lost that one, they’d probably be overjoyed to just receive the £2.8m!

  7. Matt says:

    editing fail, 3rd para should be ‘they said…’

  8. john says:

    maybe mr whyte is a clever man, buy an ailing club, sell some of the assets to pay a massive tax bill, sell whats left i.e. murray park e.t.c. and walk away with a pretty penny! or am i crazy?

  9. Ian says:

    John: Craig Whyte is a venture capitalist, and that is what they do. They buy companies, fix them up and sell them on at a profit. If it requires asset-stripping to do so, then that would *normally* be a part of that process.

  10. Ross says:

    I’m glad William’s first reply made the point I was going to. It’s not a case of them paying the £2.8m bill and then quibbling over the “added charges”. It’s an all or nothing thing at the moment and while disputing the fines, it’s “nothing” as far as Whyte sees it. If the opening paragraph of the article fails to address that, I take less interest in what the rest of it says.
    Until the (big) case is settled, all of this is speculation and conjecture.

  11. Sean says:

    Ian,

    The bill they’ll have been presented with will be for £4.2m, not two seperate ones. From HMRC’s perspective that’s what is owed, not a lower amount, so they would have to reject any lesser amount – it’s not right, plus accepting it could be seen as legitimising Rangers’ stance.

  12. Ian says:

    Obviously, I haven’t seen the citation – presuming that this is the stage that it is up to – but ordinarily in cases of this type, they can either defend in full or in part. If they are defending in full, why have effectively admitted to a part of of it and if they are part-admitting, then why has the remainder not been paid?

    I find this notion that HMRC is artbitrarily adding an amount of money to the amount that the club owns somewhat odd. Is it not common knowledge that they can add fines and interest on unpaid tax bills, and that these amounts can be swingeing?

  13. Neil says:

    Mark,
    You point out that the 2 websites concerned have Celtic leanings, however, as a regular reader of rangerstaxcase.com (and the lengthy comment threads), RTC has pointed out on numerous occasions that the purpose of the site is ask the questions that the Scottish Media haven’t. That could also be a load of fluff but the fact remains that until Martin Bain had his £480k ring-fenced, the main stream media hasn’t wanted to know. In the absense of any tough questions, investigative journalism or any actual facts regarding Rangers or Whytes financial situation, we’re left with an open forum for Joe Public to speculate on the scraps of information available.

    And it is speculation with the possibility of it being 99% rubbish. However, there have been contributions from people with much of knowledge in company and insolvency laws that have highlighted ‘possible’ scenarios and outcomes should Rangers lose the Big Tax Case. But if you try and ask Jim Traynor, (Rangers newsletter) The Daily Record sports editor and BBC Scotland’s Your Call host, and the afore mentioned Tom English if there’s anything going on, you’ll be shot down in flames for even questioning Rangers or Whytes finances. What’s wrong with asking and discussing?

    I’m no Rangers fan but it would be a bitter blow for Scottish football if they do go to the wall.

  14. hattersfan says:

    William says ‘ have to say your article appears ill-thought & not worth the read’. I have to say I found it illuminating, interesting and well wort the read.
    William (as in ‘Billy Boy’?) is doing an ostrich impression if he thinks all is well up in Govan and having seen my club go through three periods f administration in little more than a decade I can read the signs. If there is no doubt that Rangers owe the £2.8m then they’s be well advised to pay tout suite as every day they don’t divvy up the fines and interest continue to mount up; chances are that by the end of the month the penalties owed on the principal will be £1.5m.
    The Whyte Knight seems to be anything but and with the additional drip drip of factual information in the public domain about the growing drama – soon to be a crisis? – about Rangers’ debts William should be very very worried and his head in the sand act won’t prevent his club heading for the financial abyss that a win on Sunday against won’t even paper a small crack in the growing Ibrox fissure.
    Wake up William and realise what is going on; until you and the many other blue ostriches catch on and do something positive then it’s all going to go very wrong fro you and a ten point deduction will be the least of your problems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>