Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.

[sbcmfc]

The thing I don't get, if you look at it as Craig Whyte effectively buying Rangers for £18,000,001.

£18 million to settle the lloyds debt and the £1 he paid for the club, that's a pretty good deal for Rangers.

I'm surprised nobody else was interested.

Perhaps the EBT tax case scared off everyone else?

As it turns out, you could've bought a debt free Rangers for Tore Andre Flo and Michael Ball and had change.

[Larky Masher]

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

RFC was not going out of business before the EBTs. It was badly run but it would have survived. You seemed a bit confused by the true debt level which is why I posted on it.

You then switched to a strange point about RFC being a PLC... it seemed like a deflection away from your error on the debt. It has little relevance.

What are you doing?

 

It's you that switching, you can't even assess the level of debt from an annual report. Back to shallow end sonny.

[Larky Masher]

52 minutes ago, thplinth said:

It is funny the Lloyds debt was used as the 'gun' held to Murray's head to make him sell to Whyte at the crucial point. 

In the last set of proper accounts in 2010 14m quid out of the 18m quid was not repayable until after 5 years... 3m was not repayable until between 2-5 years... leaving only 1m falling due in the next 1-2 years. 

I think this was well understood at the time that Lloyds were (willingly) used as the excuse. They had previously capitalized 100's of millions of bad debt in Murray's business empire. This was nothing to them. So I think it was used as an excuse to let Murray off the hook with the fans... probably at his request.

Quoting yourself now, that's sad.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Larky Masher

[thplinth]

2 minutes ago, Larky Masher said:

Quoting yourself now, that's sad.

Probably your defining post. 

[RenfrewBlue]

1 hour ago, Larky Masher said:

Quoting yourself now, that's sad.

You can't debate or discuss anything with Thplinth. He believes in his own infallibility therefore we are always wrong in his world. 

He won't even acknowledge his madder comments when pulled up on them. 

He's not to be taken seriously. 

[Parklife]

I can't help but think that Rangers wouldn't have destroyed Scotland if David Murray had been taxed less. 

[RenfrewBlue]

8 hours ago, Parklife said:

I can't help but think that Rangers wouldn't have destroyed Scotland if David Murray had been taxed less. 

You may be right Parky. I'm sure Thplinth will be able to tell you. 

[thplinth]

9 hours ago, Parklife said:

I can't help but think that Rangers wouldn't have destroyed Scotland if David Murray had been taxed less. 

Of course not. Only morons would take that literally. 

[thplinth]

10 hours ago, Parklife said:

I can't help but think that Rangers wouldn't have destroyed Scotland if David Murray had been taxed less. 

There was a serious point in the piss taking though. We all followed this as it was amazing and very very funny (non rangers fans here) but this has now become a very big and important tax case in its own right. HMRC can't lose this one. If the supreme court side with Rangers it will be a disaster for them (and ultimately us) leading to a collapse in tax revenue. It will have made up down and black whyte... That is why I cannot believe HMRC will lose. It now has wider implications than just RFC. But yeah probably won't lead to a complete collapse of society although there now is a theoretical path open... and it is rangers. ()

[Stu101]

43 minutes ago, thplinth said:

HMRC can't lose this one. If the supreme court side with Rangers it will be a disaster for them (and ultimately us) leading to a collapse in tax revenue.

The much bigger legal question is 'if the rules dont prohibit scheme [x] then why cant it be used'?

Remember at the time there was no general anti-avoidance procedures and HMRC would not tell you if something was legal or not.

 

[RenfrewBlue]

4 hours ago, thplinth said:

Of course not. Only morons would take that literally. 

Of course. The idiot child response of "I was only joking". 

Thanks for continuing to make me laugh. You have a real talent. 

[Guest BlueGaz]

5 hours ago, thplinth said:

But yeah 'probably' won't lead to a complete collapse of society although there now is a theoretical path open... and it is rangers. ()

What fvcking planet do you live on?

[thplinth]

The H-Team have nearly all their new applicants for the role of Greetin Face and no one else it seems. Lighten up lads before it kills you. Seems like having 'blue' anywhere in your username is enough to make you very very angry. I thought the bracketed smiley would do it but damn... no brackets next time.

[RenfrewBlue]

10 minutes ago, thplinth said:

The H-Team have nearly all their new applicants for the role of Greetin Face and no one else it seems. Lighten up lads before it kills you. Seems like having 'blue' anywhere in your username is enough to make you very very angry. I thought the bracketed smiley would do it but damn... no brackets next time.

And now you're psychic?

Im not angry, or even surprised. We got what we deserved today. 

Your posts though are utterly ridiculous, like Beermans challenge that gave away the penalty. 

You post utter drivel and when called out on it claim you were joking or that we're all raging. 

Sorry, but the truth is you made an utter bell end of yourself and we pointed it out. You simply can't accept it because of your imaginary intellectual superiority. 

Try being a man and owning up to mistakes occasionally. It will make people respect you a bit, maybe. 

[Guest BlueGaz]

46 minutes ago, thplinth said:

The H-Team have nearly all their new applicants for the role of Greetin Face and no one else it seems. Lighten up lads before it kills you. Seems like having 'blue' anywhere in your username is enough to make you very very angry. I thought the bracketed smiley would do it but damn... no brackets next time.

Who's angry?  Read what you are writing, and keep taking the pills.

[thplinth]

The blue one?

[Guest BlueGaz]

18 minutes ago, thplinth said:

The blue one?

Whichever ones you have been prescribed.  Judging my your consistent whacky posts you 'probably' have been prescribed something.

Edited April 29, 2017 by BlueGaz

[thplinth]

Wow. I was just referencing the movie the Matrix and having a laugh... the blue pill.... sigh.

You sound like a real scum bag trying to bring in all this mental health stuff.

[Guest BlueGaz]

2 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Wow. I was just referencing the movie the Matrix and having a laugh... the blue pill.... sigh.

You sound like a real scum bag trying to bring in all this mental health stuff.

I was only commenting on your idiotic post, you are the one keeps going on about blue, and how angry we are, etc etc.

[tartandon]

8 hours ago, Stu101 said:

The much bigger legal question is 'if the rules dont prohibit scheme [x] then why cant it be used'?

Remember at the time there was no general anti-avoidance procedures and HMRC would not tell you if something was legal or not.

 

But Rangers also reportedly failed to operate the scheme as per the guidelines set out by the porn king guy

[andymac]

On 29/04/2017 at 8:02 PM, tartandon said:

But Rangers also reportedly failed to operate the scheme as per the guidelines set out by the porn king guy

There is a porn king in charge of setting guidelines?

[Big Col]

4 minutes ago, andymac said:

There is a porn king in charge of setting guidelines?

The EBT guidelines yes, he was the author of the strategy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baxendale-Walker

Ola, jazz mag.

[thplinth]

Quote

 

Donald Findlay QC, defence lawyer for Craig Whyte, 46, produced the draft of 
a contract between Murray and the 
Murray Group, who were heavily indebted to Lloyds Banking Group.

It proposed the sale of Murray Metals 
to Murray, which would effectively be “spun out” from the financial restructuring of the whole Murray Group.

Under the deal, Murray would buy back Murray Metals for £1.

Findlay put it to witness Ian Shanks, 50, a former Lloyds executive: “That would seem to suggest that the spinning out 
was conditional on the selling of the shares in Rangers.

“It appears that there is going to be a benefit to Murray on the sale of Rangers if Murray Metals is spun out.”

Shanks said: “It was always our 
agreement that he would get Metals if Rangers was sold.”

Asked if the Takeover Panel, the 
regulatory body, would hear about it, Shanks replied: “I can’t comment on that.”

Findlay said: “They might see it as Murray getting something for the sale of Rangers, while the other shareholders are getting nothing.”

Shanks said: “If you put it that way, yes.”

Findlay said: “I just did put it that way. Is that not an incentive to sell Rangers, if you want your metals business back?”

Shanks said: “That’s correct.”

 

Hmmm... I wonder how much Murray Metals was really worth when he bought it for the pound. If is a fair amount then that would sure help explain the decision to sell it to Whyte for a pound. Pretty dodgy sounding though for the reason above. 

[aljay]

18 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Hmmm... I wonder how much Murray Metals was really worth when he bought it for the pound. If is a fair amount then that would sure help explain the decision to sell it to Whyte for a pound. Pretty dodgy sounding though for the reason above. 

This trial is undoubtedly costing a right few quid.  The trial is about acquiring Rangers by fraudulent means and the witnesses heard to date are witnesses for the prosecution.  That is, those statements so far shuold be helpful in demonstrating that Whyte is the rogue.

 

So far, we've heard that the bank was in charge and was desperate to offload to the first helpful idiot who would take it off their hands.  The Rangers' board were toothless and had considered appointing administrators some time before Whyte came along.  And that Murray had a £112M incentive to offload Rangers to the first helpful idiot who came along.

 

I'm surprised that the case hasn't been dropped.

 

 

(Murray Metals having been bought by the bank for £112M in 2005)

Edited May 4, 2017 by aljay

[thplinth]

16 minutes ago, aljay said:

This trial is undoubtedly costing a right few quid.  The trial is about acquiring Rangers by fraudulent means and the witnesses heard to date are witnesses for the prosecution.  That is, those statements so far shuold be helpful in demonstrating that Whyte is the rogue.

So far, we've heard that the bank was in charge and was desperate to offload to the first helpful idiot who would take it off their hands.  The Rangers' board were toothless and had considered appointing administrators some time before Whyte came along.  And that Murray had a £112M incentive to offload Rangers to the first helpful idiot who came along.

I'm surprised that the case hasn't been dropped.

(Murray Metals having been bought by the bank for £112M in 2005

I think the banks were running all his companies effectively given the debt he owed. 

It is just a bit weird this. They really did not have to force Murray to sell RFC I think this was a cover story if you like to get him off the hook with the fans somehow. He was in Lloyd's pocket but I think they concocted a lot of this as a way out for him. 112m... wow. I would love to have the banking relationships that David Murray has enjoyed. They just cannot stop giving him money. 

But it does seem like the other RFC shareholders got possibly shafted on the pound sale to Whyte and directly so he could tuck away a 100m plus pound sale on MM... (Who got the better deal Whyte or Murray ) But I am sure appearances are deceptive here and SDM will have done nothing illegal.

I agree Whyte to be acquitted they were tripping over themselves to sell to him. It was just smoke and mirrors to justify it. They knew exactly what Whyte was and what he would do IMHO.

Edited May 4, 2017 by thplinth