Rangers Liquidation

[User6179]

So when Rangers went bust because they had spent more than they earned, whose idea was it to say:

'Tell you what, let's form a new club called 'Rangers2' or something, and our buisiness model from day 1 will be that we will spend more than we earn. That'll be grand, won't it?'

Why haven't Rangers2 spent the last few years growing their own players, who by now would have several years experience as professional footballers?

If/when it all goes belly up again, why would the SFA allow them back into the league again?

First up , if it goes to administration again then a CVA then they stay in the league with a points deduction , was only liquidated the first time because Craig Whyte wilfully withheld tax from HMRC , the tax man do not allow companies who withhold tax to enter a CVA if they are the biggest creditor .

It was not Rangers spending that made them go bust , It was the use of EBTs which resulted in the Big Tax case ( BTC) , with the threat of a £50 million plus tax bill the bank wanted their loan paid back before the outcome of the BTC , step forward Craig Whyte and the rest is history .

You would think young players would of been the way to go !

 

[KneesUp]

First up , if it goes to administration again then a CVA then they stay in the league with a points deduction , was only liquidated the first time because Craig Whyte wilfully withheld tax from HMRC , the tax man do not allow companies who withhold tax to enter a CVA if they are the biggest creditor .

It was not Rangers spending that made them go bust , It was the use of EBTs which resulted in the Big Tax case ( BTC) , with the threat of a £50 million plus tax bill the bank wanted their loan paid back before the outcome of the BTC , step forward Craig Whyte and the rest is history .

You would think young players would of been the way to go !

I know the bill for the tax was what did for them - but the reason they had a big tax bill was because they had spend more than they earned. It was tax they should have paid at the time, they just didn't.

 

[User6179]

We did this a few pages ago and the only real answer is that ra peepul have an unbelievable sense of entitlement, as well as a mis-guided opinion that they are in some way vital to Scottish football.

A dangerous combination, which has seen money spunked away with little care or consideration.

I don't think you can hold Rangers supporters accountable for what is going on financially at the club , they are saying the exact same thing about the spending as you are .

The Club is being milked like a big fat cash cow , if it was operated correctly then 6/7 million on players wages would be easily affordable although why you would want to spend that type of money in the bottom divisions is beyond me .

 

[AndyRM]

I don't think you can hold Rangers supporters accountable for what is going on financially at the club , they are saying the exact same thing about the spending as you are .

The Club is being milked like a big fat cash cow , if it was operated correctly then 6/7 million on players wages would be easily affordable although why you would want to spend that type of money in the bottom divisions is beyond me .

Well, yes and no (I was using ra peepul as a blanket term for the club and fans, should have been clearer).

On the one hand I have some sympathy as it must be awful watching your club getting ripped apart by those at the top, milked as you say.

On the other, I feel they could have done more in the way of protests and boycotts, but until relatively recently seemed happy enough to fund the club, both on match days and by purchasing shares.

 

[User6179]

I know the bill for the tax was what did for them - but the reason they had a big tax bill was because they had spend more than they earned. It was tax they should have paid at the time, they just didn't.

I think the use of EBTs are wrong myself but has already been ruled on that they were legal ( they didn't legally have to pay the tax) , your simplifying it though , not as straight forward as spending too much , the debt when Craig Whyte bought the company was manageable but the company had no credit line because of the threat of EBTs , so really it was the combination of the threat of a big tax bill which never materialised and the bank getting paid back and no further credit line that did them .
IMO Craig Whyte was brought in to liquidate Rangers .

 

[User6179]

Well, yes and no (I was using ra peepul as a blanket term for the club and fans, should have been clearer).

On the one hand I have some sympathy as it must be awful watching your club getting ripped apart by those at the top, milked as you say.

On the other, I feel they could have done more in the way of protests and boycotts, but until relatively recently seemed happy enough to fund the club, both on match days and by purchasing shares.

I said from the get go that Green and Co were up to no good and I could not believe how other fans saw him , I think until you show the fans real evidence they believe what they want to believe , Bloggers with a Rangers connection spouting propaganda does not help also .

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Are you saying religion is not a choice ?

Not for many people who are born into a religion that is synonymous with their culture, some even to the extent that they can be legally murdered for trying to leave.

 

[User6179]

Not for many people who are born into a religion that is synonymous with their culture, some even to the extent that they can be legally murdered for trying to leave.

My point was that UK hate laws cover things other than what you say they cover.

 

[tug benson]

I know the bill for the tax was what did for them - but the reason they had a big tax bill was because they had spend more than they earned. It was tax they should have paid at the time, they just didn't.

Lies

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Lies

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

 

[KneesUp]

Lies

You accused me of lying earlier, before this post. I note you have neither apologised nor defended your statement that I was lying previously.

You seem to have an issue distinguishing between 'disagrees with me on a matter of opinion', 'doesn't know as much about it as I do' and 'lies' Perhaps if you contributed more information and considered your posts more carefully, you might find it easier to tell the three distinct positions apart?

As for the tax bill - as I understand it the football club that once existed and was called Glasgow Rangers used tax schemes to avoid having to pay tax on players wages. However, I have discovered in the last 5 minutes that apparently there was a legal ruling that the amounts paid to players were loans. I didn't learn this with any help from you, as you appear to be rather rude and aggressive, and interested in confrontation rather than discussion.

Personally I am surprised that some of the best footballers in the world wanted to play in an uncompetitive league with little chance of European success in return for 'loans' but there you go - the law, as we know, is always correct.

 

[snorri]

Rangers in the news again this evening!
Rangers and Mike Ashley have been accused of breaching several Scottish FA rules relating to the Newcastle United owner's stake in the Ibrox club.

 

[User6179]

Rangers in the news again this evening!
Rangers and Mike Ashley have been accused of breaching several Scottish FA rules relating to the Newcastle United owner's stake in the Ibrox club.

Hopefully the SFA will enforce these rules and Ashley will move aside .

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

No Surrender to the SFA!

 

[User6179]

You accused me of lying earlier, before this post. I note you have neither apologised nor defended your statement that I was lying previously.

You seem to have an issue distinguishing between 'disagrees with me on a matter of opinion', 'doesn't know as much about it as I do' and 'lies' Perhaps if you contributed more information and considered your posts more carefully, you might find it easier to tell the three distinct positions apart?

As for the tax bill - as I understand it the football club that once existed and was called Glasgow Rangers used tax schemes to avoid having to pay tax on players wages. However, I have discovered in the last 5 minutes that apparently there was a legal ruling that the amounts paid to players were loans. I didn't learn this with any help from you, as you appear to be rather rude and aggressive, and interested in confrontation rather than discussion.

Personally I am surprised that some of the best footballers in the world wanted to play in an uncompetitive league with little chance of European success in return for 'loans' but there you go - the law, as we know, is always correct.

Been 2 legal rulings , both sided with Rangers but HMRC are still pursuing it , hence why Rangers went into liquidation I think , this case could run for 20 years leaving Rangers if they had not went into liquidation without a credit line for that time plus mounting legal bills , HMRC refused to settle the case years ago !