0
    0

    Comment on JPP: Perverting Justice? by Homunculus.

    upthehoops 

    14th October 2018 at 12:14 

    ======================================

    I think it goes back further than that. The EBTs came later because tax avoidance was the only place they had left to go.

    Rangers spent money that the club simply wasn't generating, ending up tens of millions in debt. Was it not about £80m at one time (back when £80m was a lot of money).

    They then had a failed share issue, which Murray had under-written so he had to come up with about £50m, which he did via MIM allied to smoke and mirrors.

    Rangers' downfall was due to a hubristic need (not want actual need) to dominate Scottish football. They had to win and didn't care what it cost or how it was paid.

    The new club has run at a loss in every season of its existence and is relying on loans and dilution of the shares just to keep going.

    Homunculus Also Commented

    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    upthehoops 

    14th October 2018 at 19:09  

    Allyjambo 14th October 2018 at 17:10  

    I think what UTH is alluding to is, if they'd managed a CVA or found a buyer, they would have, at a later date, had to face the EBT tax bill which didn't 'crystalize' until after the Supreme Court ruling.

    ====================

    That is what I meant, or if they had managed to get to the CL group stages they might have struggled on. However the tax bill would have hit at some point. 

    ==================================================

    Surely at a CVA the debt owed to a creditor is the debt at that time.

    They put a claim in and the administrator accepts or rejects it. If the CVA is agreed and the appropriate payments are made by the administrator then that is a clean slate. That is the whole point of trying to save the company and getting it back operating again. That was certainly the intent of the Enterprise Act as I understand it. To save companies and jobs.

    The idea that someone could come back in and claim a huge debt, relating to the pre CVA period seems counter intuitive to the intent of Parliament.

    I am more than happy to be told I am wrong on this, it is really not my area. Every day is a school day for those willing to learn.


    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    upthehoops 

    14th October 2018 at 16:14  

    =================================

    I don't think that's right.

    Once the club was in administration it had to get out of it. Administration cannot last forever it is a temporary measure to try to assist survival. It gives a company a bit of breathing space to try to survive.

    The options are 1, Pay your debts, which is possible if a benefactor comes in 2, Get a CVA agreed, then pay an agreed portion of your debts 3, Liquidation, which is what is happening.

    For Rangers to have survived then 1, or 2, would have to have happened. If either did then they would no longer have the tax bill. Debt to HMRC is no different to any other unsecured creditor. 


    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    Big Pink 

    14th October 2018 at 15:23  

    =================================

    I can explain why no-one got credit for the rescue.

    It didn't happen.

    White tried, they got knocked out of Europe, he stole tax money to pay inflated wages, that led to administration and now liquidation.

    Deep down they know it, not that deep down actually. 


    Recent Comments by Homunculus

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Cluster One 4th April 2019 at 19:24

    ===========================================

    Rangers still exists, liquidation is a process and that process is ongoing.

    "There are no rules in scottish football to demote a liquidated club." because it is a nonsense, why would there be rules to cover it. 

    To go over old ground there was no demotion. A club applied to join the SPL (as was) and that application was rejected. The club then applied to join the SFL (as was) and that league accepted them into the lowest division.

    That is not demotion, relegation or anything else like that. It is applying to join in the first place. 


    Accountability via Transparency.
    Image may contain: one or more people, people playing sport and outdoor

    Making gestures towards opposing support.

    How is that different to someone showing 8 fingers. Other than he was doing it to tens of thousands and Brown was doing it to under 1,000.


    Accountability via Transparency.
    Speaking as a Celtic supporter and a big fan of Scott Brown, he was totally wrong in what he didafte the match towards the Rangers supporters. I have also seen a video of it and after he makes the 8 sign he walks away a bit, then turns and makes another gesture towards the Rangers support.

    He is in the wrong.

    The problem we now have is that people who make a "Shhh" sign, or cup their ears, or indicate a scoreline etc towards the opposition support will also be in the wrong and will have to be treated in the same way. Presumably for every division in the SPFL as the same rules must apply across the board.

    Bottom line, from now on no matter what abuse a player takes from the opposition support he must never react to it in any way. It could be argued that should always have been the case but it clearly wasn't. It has to be now.


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    John Clark 26th March 2019 at 20:28

    ========================================

    That makes sense, the Police have to investigate crime, they have to arrest people, interview them etc.

    So long as there are checks and balances, rules for them to adhere to, oversight of their actions then that's fair enough.

    In a civilized  democratic society we need a Police force capable of investigating crime, however they must also be subject to independent oversight. 


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    John Clark 26th March 2019 at 19:30

    ======================================

    Indeed, if the Police can demonstrate that they had reasonable grounds to suspect and were acting in good faith. Would it then be wrongful.