Rage Online

All very interesting but the biggest intrigue for me is ... what's your issue with Mick Brown?

&quotHog&quot wrote:All very interesting but the biggest intrigue for me is ... what's your issue with Mick Brown?

Which one? The crap manager or the founder of the London Road Travel Club with his silly moustache?

&quotOxford Bhoy&quot wrote: Rangers ARE going bust. Scottish football WILL continue in their absence, for better or worse. I look forward to it.

I doubt very much if Scottish football will continue in tbheir absence.

I would suspect that Rangers will be liquidated only for a new one to begin (ala Aldershot)

A Rangers supporter I spoke to months ago sugeggested that discussions were already taking place as to whether they would be able to go straight back into the SPL.

If not then they presumably would start in the bottom Scottish League and within 3-4 years would be in the Top 2 in Scotland again.

Whether this is right is an argument, but I would be very surprised if Rangers don't reform and get back to where they are now but without the debts.

&quotPaul Cooper&quot wrote:

&quotOxford Bhoy&quot wrote: Rangers ARE going bust. Scottish football WILL continue in their absence, for better or worse. I look forward to it.

I doubt very much if Scottish football will continue in tbheir absence.

But it will - what's the alternative? Everybody stops playing football or going to games just because the mighty Rangers are no more?

I would suspect that Rangers will be liquidated only for a new one to begin (ala Aldershot)

Of course this will happen, Ibrox has no value other than as a football ground so somebody will form a new club playing from there. It will be a brand new club, however, without the history and honours from 1873-2012.

A Rangers supporter I spoke to months ago sugeggested that discussions were already taking place as to whether they would be able to go straight back into the SPL.

I have no doubt that this will have been the case but there is a lot of opposition to this from many quarters in Scotland, including the boards and directors of quite a few SPL clubs. So by no means a foregone conclusion. Further, the waters have become considerably more muddy recently with Rangers being investigated from many quarters now. If, for example it is found that previous honours were &quottainted&quot because of financial chicanery or even illegality, then there is no way the SPL could justify letting them off in this way, no matter how much they might want to.

If not then they presumably would start in the bottom Scottish League and within 3-4 years would be in the Top 2 in Scotland again.

I think this is the most likely outcome although the club will have to survive on very little income for the first few years, whilst in all likelihood paying Whyte/White or Ticketus rent for Ibrox. In the meantime, many of their &quotloyal&quot supporters are likely to do walking away - just a few weeks ago (before administration and while they still had a shot at winning the SPL), only 17,000 turned up to watch them play at home in the cup against Dundee United. I'm sure they will climb the leagues again but not as quickly as you may think - Rangers, or whatever the new club decides to call itself will take at least a decade, in my opinion, to get back to competing for the major honours in Scotland. By then, the Scottish game may well look very different.

Whether this is right is an argument, but I would be very surprised if Rangers don't reform and get back to where they are now but without the debts.

This is dodgy ground and is something that HMRC have been very keen to deal with - especially with regards football clubs. Let's say that Rangers die and a new club - &quotThe Gers 2012&quot, for example - if they play in blue, at Ibrox then HMRC may well think &quotif it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck&quot and attempt to recover the money owed from the &quotnew&quot company. My understanding is that various legal loopholes have been closed recently to stop people doing this in order to avoid their liabilities.

Interesting times.

&quotOxford Bhoy&quot wrote:This is dodgy ground and is something that HMRC have been very keen to deal with - especially with regards football clubs. Let's say that Rangers die and a new club - &quotThe Gers 2012&quot, for example - if they play in blue, at Ibrox then HMRC may well think &quotif it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck&quot and attempt to recover the money owed from the &quotnew&quot company. My understanding is that various legal loopholes have been closed recently to stop people doing this in order to avoid their liabilities.

I don't think so.

Every company has a separate legal identity (and separate from the identity of any of the directors or shareholders also), so a new company say RangersNew set up to operate as a football club, with different directors, different shareholders, could not be held responsible for the failings of Rangers. That the SFA might allow RangersNew to begin life in the SPL is none of HMRC's business. That RangersNew were able to come up with a deal to play at Ibrox is none of HMRC's business. That players who had contracts with Rangers had their contracts terminated by mutual consent and new contracts signed with RangersNew is none of HMRCs business.

Only if RangersNew controlling interest was the same as the controlling interest of Rangers would HMRC have any opportunity to chase RangersNew, and even then it would be very difficult.

Far more likely is HMRC chasing the administrators for as much of the money owed as they can get, then chasing the individual employees and players for the rest.

My understanding is that HMRC has been instrumental in pushing through new legislation dealing with &quotphoenix&quot companies of this sort and that this legislation becomes law in early April. Unfortunately, I don't know the details.

Another point, though, is that at this moment in time, the only people being mentioned in connection with taking Rangers (oldco or newco, whichever) forward after administration/liquidation are former directors or the current owner. Two of these (White/Whyte and Dave King) are more than likely to fail any fit and proper person test and others are tainted by their involvement with Murray and Rangers in the past.

I honestly don't know how I think it will all pan out but I'm confident that the current incarnation of Rangers will cease to exist before the football season ends and that the SPL will be unable to allow them back in, no matter how much they'd like to.

&quotOxford Bhoy&quot wrote:My understanding is that HMRC has been instrumental in pushing through new legislation dealing with &quotphoenix&quot companies of this sort and that this legislation becomes law in early April. Unfortunately, I don't know the details.

Another point, though, is that at this moment in time, the only people being mentioned in connection with taking Rangers (oldco or newco, whichever) forward after administration/liquidation are former directors or the current owner. Two of these (White/Whyte and Dave King) are more than likely to fail any fit and proper person test and others are tainted by their involvement with Murray and Rangers in the past.

I honestly don't know how I think it will all pan out but I'm confident that the current incarnation of Rangers will cease to exist before the football season ends and that the SPL will be unable to allow them back in, no matter how much they'd like to.

As I said, it is not possible under any legislation to compel one company to take responsibility for the actions of another, where there is no linked controlling interest. Phoenix or not.

Rangers FC represents the fans that suport the club. If there is the same manager, the same employees, the same fans, the same league and the same ground, in practice, little has changed, but the legal position can have changed easily sufficiently to prevent an HMRC attack.

What you are referring to in HMRC going after a phoenix company, is where there is the same controlling interest in both the folded and risen companies. As I said that is easily avoided in football by the phoenix club having different parties in control.

&quotHog&quot wrote:All very interesting but the biggest intrigue for me is ... what's your issue with Mick Brown?

Mick Brown is not an uncommon name - http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/531614730

However, I'd still like to know who made final decision to put the frost netting over hundreds of seats that we could have sold last Saturday.

Apparently it took the stewards over three hours to put it up there but only three minutes for our hoolis to move it from what I could observe. Take a look at MotD and the gaps between opposing fans at any sell out Prem game - it's just two lines of hard looking stewards and it works.

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:

&quotOxford Bhoy&quot wrote:My understanding is that HMRC has been instrumental in pushing through new legislation dealing with &quotphoenix&quot companies of this sort and that this legislation becomes law in early April. Unfortunately, I don't know the details.

Another point, though, is that at this moment in time, the only people being mentioned in connection with taking Rangers (oldco or newco, whichever) forward after administration/liquidation are former directors or the current owner. Two of these (White/Whyte and Dave King) are more than likely to fail any fit and proper person test and others are tainted by their involvement with Murray and Rangers in the past.

I honestly don't know how I think it will all pan out but I'm confident that the current incarnation of Rangers will cease to exist before the football season ends and that the SPL will be unable to allow them back in, no matter how much they'd like to.

As I said, it is not possible under any legislation to compel one company to take responsibility for the actions of another, where there is no linked controlling interest. Phoenix or not.

Rangers FC represents the fans that suport the club. If there is the same manager, the same employees, the same fans, the same league and the same ground, in practice, little has changed, but the legal position can have changed easily sufficiently to prevent an HMRC attack.

What you are referring to in HMRC going after a phoenix company, is where there is the same controlling interest in both the folded and risen companies. As I said that is easily avoided in football by the phoenix club having different parties in control.

They 'don't go after' a phoenix company. They can't. What HMRC , (or any other creditor come to that), via the liquidator can do is possibly lift the corporate veil and go after the perpetrators of the insolvency. Personally.

Re any co which rises out of the ashes where there is common control between old and new and where HMRC is dicked?

They can ask that new co pays a healthy returnable VAT deposit upfront as a condition of VAT registration. I've seen six months worth of VAT being imposed in such circumstances. Which is only returned if newco are complaint with tax affairs going forward.

I repeat Rangers will survive, sorry Mr Bhoy.

&quotOxford Bhoy&quot wrote:

&quotHog&quot wrote:All very interesting but the biggest intrigue for me is ... what's your issue with Mick Brown?

Which one? The crap manager or the founder of the London Road Travel Club with his silly moustache?

How are we supposed to know? You're the one saying 'Mick Brown Out' several times a day.

This Rangers talk is all very interesting, but one thing intrigues me - why does someone who claims to be a U's fan for over 40 years register on an Oxford United forum solely to comment on the affairs of a team he/she doesn't even support at all?

&quotpottersrightboot&quot wrote:

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:

&quotOxford Bhoy&quot wrote:My understanding is that HMRC has been instrumental in pushing through new legislation dealing with &quotphoenix&quot companies of this sort and that this legislation becomes law in early April. Unfortunately, I don't know the details.

Another point, though, is that at this moment in time, the only people being mentioned in connection with taking Rangers (oldco or newco, whichever) forward after administration/liquidation are former directors or the current owner. Two of these (White/Whyte and Dave King) are more than likely to fail any fit and proper person test and others are tainted by their involvement with Murray and Rangers in the past.

I honestly don't know how I think it will all pan out but I'm confident that the current incarnation of Rangers will cease to exist before the football season ends and that the SPL will be unable to allow them back in, no matter how much they'd like to.

As I said, it is not possible under any legislation to compel one company to take responsibility for the actions of another, where there is no linked controlling interest. Phoenix or not.

Rangers FC represents the fans that suport the club. If there is the same manager, the same employees, the same fans, the same league and the same ground, in practice, little has changed, but the legal position can have changed easily sufficiently to prevent an HMRC attack.

What you are referring to in HMRC going after a phoenix company, is where there is the same controlling interest in both the folded and risen companies. As I said that is easily avoided in football by the phoenix club having different parties in control.

They 'don't go after' a phoenix company. They can't. What HMRC , (or any other creditor come to that), via the liquidator can do is possibly lift the corporate veil and go after the perpetrators of the insolvency. Personally.

Re any co which rises out of the ashes where there is common control between old and new and where HMRC is dicked?

They can ask that new co pays a healthy returnable VAT deposit upfront as a condition of VAT registration. I've seen six months worth of VAT being imposed in such circumstances. Which is only returned if newco are complaint with tax affairs going forward.

I repeat Rangers will survive, sorry Mr Bhoy.

Err that is completely wrong. HMRC do go after Phoenix companies.

In PAYE cases for example it is the employer (the phoenix company) who pays the security deposit to prevent evasion.

It works slightly differently for VAT, because in VAT legislation, VAT registration is linked to individuals and not just the companies.

I repeat in such cases HMRC would effectively go after the individual perpetrators.

Back to Rangers HMRC will vote for a CVA giving them so many pence in the pound so long as Whyte/White or whatever he's calling himself this week is not involved going forward with the ownership or running of the football club.

And that is exactly the right way to proceed. Did you additionally know that Whyte still owed £9 million of the original purchase price?

What a stinking, unholy mess.

Despite a lot of 'in the know' wise guys that post half truths and innuendos about our owners and our finances,(especially on the other forum), compared to Rangers, Lenagan et al are perfection personified.

&quotKernow Yellow&quot wrote:

&quotOxford Bhoy&quot wrote:

&quotHog&quot wrote:All very interesting but the biggest intrigue for me is ... what's your issue with Mick Brown?

Which one? The crap manager or the founder of the London Road Travel Club with his silly moustache?

How are we supposed to know? You're the one saying 'Mick Brown Out' several times a day.

This Rangers talk is all very interesting, but one thing intrigues me - why does someone who claims to be a U's fan for over 40 years register on an Oxford United forum solely to comment on the affairs of a team he/she doesn't even support at all?

Fair point mate. It wasn't my intention to start banging on about Rangers on this forum but I saw the thread and couldn't resist. I've been keeping abreast of this issue via a Celtic forum I'm a member of. For the record, I've been a Celtic supporter since about the age of four but went to my first ever game at the Manor in 1970 and was a regular home &amp away from about 1975 to 1998 when I left the UK completely.

Joined this forum simply to try to keep up to date with the news from home - I'm not in any position to comment on the side as I very rarely get to see them here in Spain and the last time I saw them live was in the play-off final at Wembley two years ago.

Keeping up with Celtic is much easier because they're always on telly or a dodgy stream, hence my ability to comment on the situation in Scotland.

&quotOxford Bhoy&quot wrote:I'm not in any position to comment on the side as I very rarely get to see them here in Spain

You are Ed Horton and I claim my £5.

&quotA-Ro&quot wrote:

&quotOxford Bhoy&quot wrote:I'm not in any position to comment on the side as I very rarely get to see them here in Spain

You are Ed Horton and I claim my £5.

Try again.