Tax Officials Blamed For Rangers Downfall – HMRC Mistake Wipes Millions From Ibrox Bill (The Times)

[Valley Bluenose]

I have a bit of further info on this whole subject, that may or may not be already known, or may indeed deserve its own thread. I don't know. I have known about this for about a year, but I thought all this shit was done and dusted.

I have a mate who was running a couple of companies using EBT's to limit his tax liabilities in the 2000's. He was waiting on the outcome of the big tax case, as it may have meant that the tax man was coming after him for enough to put him personally under. He is an incredibly savvy, rich and well connected guy in the North London Jewish community.

Given the stakes for him and his personal wealth he hired what he described as the best (and most expensive) tax expert barrister in the country. It turns out that BDO were using the same guy during the course of these tribunals. He described this guy as an absolute genius, who he met and discussed this with on a few occasions. This guy was telling him how HMRC's case was weak but the Rangers case was important as they were making an 'example of them'. The barrister was convinced that he would smash it. He was clearly right; on two occasions when representing BDO he was successful. Before the final Supreme Court appeal HMRC did all they could to get rid of him, including getting the hearing changed at short notice to when they knew he would be in the Caribbean. In the end they managed to get the final Supreme Court hearing moved to Edinburgh. They argued that it was out with this guys English jurisdiction and he was unable to present the case under what was now Scots Law. An absolute stitch up because they knew they would lose. Whoever else picked up this very complex case did it at short notice and didn't do a great job and as we know the result was the HMRC 'won' the final appeal.

I have no way of proving this is accurate, but I do know I believe what my man said and he told me all of this simply because I mentioned I was a Rangers fan. He had no agenda other than concerns about his own wealth and he's not much of a football fan. It may or may not be relevant in the grand scheme of things but if true it's yet another factor which shows the lengths the HMRC went to, and the money they spent, to try and crucify us.

I’m afraid your story doesn’t stack up. I remember watching the live stream of the Supreme Court case. It was in London. The first time the Supreme Court ever sat outside London was when they came to Scotland in June 2017, some 3 months after the tax case was heard.

Andrew Thornhill was the QC who fought the case through the Courts and he, and others, presented the case at the Supreme Court in London. Maybe your friend refers to the earlier appeal at the Court of Session in Scotland?

Supreme Court to sit in Scotland - The Supreme Court

02/2017 | News release

www.supremecourt.uk

I can’t comment on the other aspects.

 

[The Shadow]

That’s the way you’d have thought the figure was calculated but I believe HMRC is trying to argue that the £47m represents the sum the club would have paid to players after tax had been deducted.

That means the overall figure due in tax would be much greater.

I don’t agree with the logic at all.

I never thought of that

And unfortunately the taxman is allowed to work on assumption.

Police and other authorities have to work on hard evidence and prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Taxman? Catches you selling dodgy fags from Spain and then can simply say ‘you have been going to Spain for 30 years, so we reckon you have been doing it for this length of time and you owe us this amount’!

 

[The Shadow]

If the final bill becomes simply the income tax and NI that should have been forked out on £47m, a series of questions arises.

Surely at some point round about 2008/09 it would have become apparent to the board that agreeing to settle with HMRC was the most sensible option. Murray would have known how much HMRC accepted from Arsenal. Did he decide to chance his arm?

Of course, by this stage Lloyds had a huge amount of control over Murray. Yet someone must have sat down and weighed the potential selling price of a viable Rangers against an £18m debt and the potential tax bill. It is at this stage the 'grossing up' of the tax bill becomes crucial because this determined everything that followed.

Was the board kept fully informed? It looks like Dave King (and other minority shareholders and debenture holders) have a strong case against Murray.

Owing the bank $18m with a fixed tax bill of $20m would have meant nothing.

The bank probably wouldn’t have forced things through to get their money back and even if they did another bank would have stepped in and continued credit.

$38m worth of debt to a club like Rangers at that time, while significant, would have been coped with easily enough.

Sell 1-2 players for $10m, sell more tickets to a company like Ticketus for say $10m and have another share offering.

While we would definitely been weakened, we would have bounced back after 2-3 years of tightening the belt.

 

[therealmackay]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1195404342905450497

Looks like the only type of economics practiced by HMRC is the type relating to the truth.

 

[Vote For Pedro]

Looks like the only type of economics practiced by HMRC is the type relating to the truth.

Look at the Tims on that thread. Refusing to see, calling the reporter to resign for his good work. We better not let this sit, for the chief exec to be writing public statements on it can only mean they’re shitting it!

 

[deedle]

He doesn't know David Murray originally agreed to sell Rangers for 6m. When the magnitude of HMRC's bill became known he had to sell us for £1.
If the tax bill does become massively reduced then David Murray has an opening to sue HMRC for 6m.
What a turn of events it would be if he ends up profiting out of HMRC's mistakes.

A viable Rangers would be worth a lot more than £6m.

Murray was desperate to ditch the club and we shouldn’t forget that he was responsible for Rangers’ downfall.

 

[Todd The Prod]

If the final bill becomes simply the income tax and NI that should have been forked out on £47m, a series of questions arises.

Surely at some point round about 2008/09 it would have become apparent to the board that agreeing to settle with HMRC was the most sensible option. Murray would have known how much HMRC accepted from Arsenal. Did he decide to chance his arm?

Of course, by this stage Lloyds had a huge amount of control over Murray. Yet someone must have sat down and weighed the potential selling price of a viable Rangers against an £18m debt and the potential tax bill. It is at this stage the 'grossing up' of the tax bill becomes crucial because this determined everything that followed.

Was the board kept fully informed? It looks like Dave King (and other minority shareholders and debenture holders) have a strong case against Murray.

Murray offered to settle to the tune of £14million.

HMRC refused.

Arsenal, Chelsea et al, owed far more than us, even with the incorrect figures, and they offered to settle for £8million.

HMRC accepted.

This whole thing has been nothing more than a stitch up. From day fucking one.

 

[deedle]

Murray offered to settle to the tune of £14million.

HMRC refused.

Arsenal, Chelsea et al, owed far more than us, even with the incorrect figures, and they offered to settle for £8million.

HMRC accepted.

This whole thing has been nothing more than a stitch up. From day fucking one.

Where did you get these figures from? I have never seen any data published concerning the sums football clubs paid HMRC to settle EBT bills.

Arsenal used EBTs for a much shorter period than Rangers. They came to an agreement with HMRC in 2005 (Arsenal were also using another tax avoidance scheme). It is likely David Murray knows the terms of this agreement due to his friendship with David Dein.

The sum Rangers - or should that be the Murray group ostensibly acting on Rangers’ behalf? - offered HMRC before the FTTT began in January 2011 has been put at £10-11m. However, it has never been quoted officially (as far as I am aware).


It looks like HMRC were looking for a ‘scalp’ rather than recouping as much tax revenue as possible.

However, Murray should have agreed to settle with HMRC in 2008 when it began clamping down on EBTs in earnest. The money involved would surely have been very much less than the sums HMRC were demanding three years later.

 

[Calvinist]

Further back than that mate, BDO first disclosed the HMRC concession of £26m in their Report to Creditors last December.

I’m perplexed at The Times running the story now.

there’s anotherreport due next month , perhaps the times have got some early information ?

 

[Mabearette]

The consequences of HMRCs errors and behaviour have been massive for us. There has to be some process to be compensated.

 

[Mbear]

So are hmrc saying the final bill is still the same and nothing has changed.

I thot the ebt players had been given letters saying they were no longer being chased for dough £

 

[Turrabear]

So are hmrc saying the final bill is still the same and nothing has changed.

I thot the ebt players had been given letters saying they were no longer being chased for dough £

Thought players were not being chased for the penalties. But still were due tax.but may well be wrong with that.

 

[Div1872]

Where did you get these figures from? I have never seen any data published concerning the sums football clubs paid HMRC to settle EBT bills.

Arsenal used EBTs for a much shorter period than Rangers. They came to an agreement with HMRC in 2005 (Arsenal were also using another tax avoidance scheme). It is likely David Murray knows the terms of this agreement due to his friendship with David Dein.

The sum Rangers - or should that be the Murray group ostensibly acting on Rangers’ behalf? - offered HMRC before the FTTT began in January 2011 has been put at £10-11m. However, it has never been quoted officially (as far as I am aware).


It looks like HMRC were looking for a ‘scalp’ rather than recouping as much tax revenue as possible.

However, Murray should have agreed to settle with HMRC in 2008 when it began clamping down on EBTs in earnest. The money involved would surely have been very much less than the sums HMRC were demanding three years later.

David Edgar mentioned the figures on H&H daily update the other day said Murray offered HMRC £14m to settle which was rejected

He did say HMRC accepted a negotiated settlement with Arsenal and Chelsea which was I think £6-£8m each

Rangers were hand picked as a “test case” and after finally at the 3rd appeal HMRC were granted a decision but to my knowledge they have not gone after any other football club who were using EBT’s

The questions are who selected Rangers should be selected and why ?

Surely the bigger fish in London were paying players much more wages in the EPL etc

HMRC have been a disgrace all through this process and senior people should be pursued for their negligence and face criminal charges for the multiple leaks to BTC blogger who was a mentally challenged being fed confidential information from HMRC

IF the final figure that HMRC are owed is circa £20m then BDO or Murray should be claiming damages as HMRC’s actions and malicious errors have contributed to the biggest financial phuck up within sport in the UK

 

[Greebo]

David Edgar mentioned the figures on H&H daily update the other day said Murray offered HMRC £14m to settle which was rejected

He did say HMRC accepted a negotiated settlement with Arsenal and Chelsea which was I think £6-£8m each

Rangers were hand picked as a “test case” and after finally at the 3rd appeal HMRC were granted a decision but to my knowledge they have not gone after any other football club who were using EBT’s

The questions are who selected Rangers should be selected and why ?

Surely the bigger fish in London were paying players much more wages in the EPL etc

HMRC have been a disgrace all through this process and senior people should be pursued for their negligence and face criminal charges for the multiple leaks to BTC blogger who was a mentally challenged being fed confidential information from HMRC

IF the final figure that HMRC are owed is circa £20m then BDO or Murray should be claiming damages as HMRC’s actions and malicious errors have contributed to the biggest financial phuck up within sport in the UK

Please bear in mind it is the claim HMRC are making as a creditor which is changing, not the tax etc they think they are due.

Everyone will know what that figure is (the claim) once the next BDO report is published.

It is worth waiting until that comes out before anyone gets too aggravated about this. Though it would appear people have fallen into the newspapers' trap already and went through the roof with their reaction.

 

[Valley Bluenose]

Please bear in mind it is the claim HMRC are making as a creditor which is changing, not the tax etc they think they are due.

Everyone will know what that figure is (the claim) once the next BDO report is published.

It is worth waiting until that comes out before anyone gets too aggravated about this. Though it would appear people have fallen into the newspapers' trap already and went through the roof with their reaction.

We already know - and have known for almost a year - that HMRC have reduced their claim by £26m. That’s a fact. Confirmed in BDO Report to Creditors last December.

In terms of the tax due BDO say they are still disputing that figure, again as per their reports in December last year and June this year. In the aftermath of this weeks furore they have come out and said those discussions are ongoing and are unlikely to be resolved until next year. This weeks report isn’t likely to be helpful to those discussions to be honest. The BDO report next month, therefore, isn’t likely to be substantially different to what they have said in the last two reports.

 

[Marty101]

He was being paid by neither party and his views were nothing to do with loyalty though.

He is one of the land’s foremost experts in tax law and litigation. I think it’s fair to say his views are not just dhim-appeasing rubbish or ill-informed.

Nobody has provided any basis for saying Rangers even COULD sue HMRC, let alone that they actually would.

Hadn’t picked up until today that he was also the guy involved in the challenges to prorogation etc over the last few months.

 

[Deleted member 3807]

A viable Rangers would be worth a lot more than £6m.

Murray was desperate to ditch the club and we shouldn’t forget that he was responsible for Rangers’ downfall.

It would be. However, Rangers did have a tax liability hanging over them, and the figure being quoted in reports for DM's sale to CW was 6m. Murray could probably produce compelling evidence that he would have received 6m had the tax liability been calculated correctly to the court.
Murray was responsible. What an unjust world this is if he ends up successfully suing HMRC for millions.

 

[Greebo]

We already know - and have known for almost a year - that HMRC have reduced their claim by £26m. That’s a fact. Confirmed in BDO Report to Creditors last December.

In terms of the tax due BDO say they are still disputing that figure, again as per their reports in December last year and June this year. In the aftermath of this weeks furore they have come out and said those discussions are ongoing and are unlikely to be resolved until next year. This weeks report isn’t likely to be helpful to those discussions to be honest. The BDO report next month, therefore, isn’t likely to be substantially different to what they have said in the last two reports.

I take your point, all I was really meaning was that when their report comes out everyone will have an up to date position, in the public domain. There may have been changes since their last report that people are as yet not aware of.

For example BDO and HMRC have come to an agreement with regards the size of the claim. I'm not saying that will have happened, just that once the report is out people will be in a better position than what is currently largely speculation, based on reports from months ago.

 

[Drumchapel-Bear]

A viable Rangers would be worth a lot more than £6m.

Murray was desperate to ditch the club and we shouldn’t forget that he was responsible for Rangers’ downfall.

Can't agree with you here Deedle. If the liability gets reduced to 20m ish then I'd even go as far to say Murray has been vindicated. It would have been a witch hunt from the start.

The 08 financial collapse and Murray tying Rangers in with his other companies was maybe a mistake but its easy to say that now in hindsight.

 

[Greebo]

It would be. However, Rangers did have a tax liability hanging over them, and the figure being quoted in reports for DM's sale to CW was 6m. Murray could probably produce compelling evidence that he would have received 6m had the tax liability been calculated correctly to the court.
Murray was responsible. What an unjust world this is if he ends up successfully suing HMRC for millions.

David Murray had already agreed to sell Rangers, for his own benefit.

Craig Whyte Trial: David Murray 'benefited' from Rangers sale

A court hears the deal enabled the former club owner to retain ownership of his metals business.

www.bbc.co.uk

During cross-examination with Craig Whyte's defence QC, Donald Findlay, Mr Shanks said the bank had told David Murray that he could split Murray Metals from his wider company interests and retain ownership of the business on the condition that he sold Rangers and repaid its debts.

The court heard claims that the metals business was important to Sir David as it was where the tycoon made his fortune.

In an email dated from April 2010, Mr Shanks wrote: "When we did the Murray Group restructuring last year, we agreed that the metals business could be 'spun out' to David once he sold his shares in Rangers."

The court was told that the bank gave Sir David a year to sell the Ibrox side and pay off its debts, which included an £18m overdraft.

Donald Findlay put it to Mr Shanks that: "That's an incentive, surely, to get the deal done."

Mr Shanks replied: "I agree."

 

[Deleted member 3807]

David Murray had already agreed to sell Rangers, for his own benefit.

Craig Whyte Trial: David Murray 'benefited' from Rangers sale

A court hears the deal enabled the former club owner to retain ownership of his metals business.

www.bbc.co.uk

During cross-examination with Craig Whyte's defence QC, Donald Findlay, Mr Shanks said the bank had told David Murray that he could split Murray Metals from his wider company interests and retain ownership of the business on the condition that he sold Rangers and repaid its debts.

The court heard claims that the metals business was important to Sir David as it was where the tycoon made his fortune.

In an email dated from April 2010, Mr Shanks wrote: "When we did the Murray Group restructuring last year, we agreed that the metals business could be 'spun out' to David once he sold his shares in Rangers."

The court was told that the bank gave Sir David a year to sell the Ibrox side and pay off its debts, which included an £18m overdraft.

Donald Findlay put it to Mr Shanks that: "That's an incentive, surely, to get the deal done."

Mr Shanks replied: "I agree."

Do you think there is no grounds for DM to sue HMRC?

 

[BWO]

Bheasts are all over this

https://twitter.com/x/status/1195681299614310405

 

[deedle]

David Edgar mentioned the figures on H&H daily update the other day said Murray offered HMRC £14m to settle which was rejected

He did say HMRC accepted a negotiated settlement with Arsenal and Chelsea which was I think £6-£8m each

Rangers were hand picked as a “test case” and after finally at the 3rd appeal HMRC were granted a decision but to my knowledge they have not gone after any other football club who were using EBT’s

The questions are who selected Rangers should be selected and why ?

Surely the bigger fish in London were paying players much more wages in the EPL etc

HMRC have been a disgrace all through this process and senior people should be pursued for their negligence and face criminal charges for the multiple leaks to BTC blogger who was a mentally challenged being fed confidential information from HMRC

IF the final figure that HMRC are owed is circa £20m then BDO or Murray should be claiming damages as HMRC’s actions and malicious errors have contributed to the biggest financial phuck up within sport in the UK

The figures quoted cannot be used in any argument unless verified.

We’d obviously need to know how much English clubs had paid out in EBTs before making any comparisons.

We’d also have to know when English clubs settled with HMRC.

Murray is likely to have had access to information about how the English clubs were being dealt with but didn’t leak it to the press. It’s not much use now.


The factor that messes things up totally is Craig Whyte. He was flagged up as a potential buyer before the FTTT began. HMRC would have known all about him.

 

[Todd The Prod]

Where did you get these figures from? I have never seen any data published concerning the sums football clubs paid HMRC to settle EBT bills.

Arsenal used EBTs for a much shorter period than Rangers. They came to an agreement with HMRC in 2005 (Arsenal were also using another tax avoidance scheme). It is likely David Murray knows the terms of this agreement due to his friendship with David Dein.

The sum Rangers - or should that be the Murray group ostensibly acting on Rangers’ behalf? - offered HMRC before the FTTT began in January 2011 has been put at £10-11m. However, it has never been quoted officially (as far as I am aware).


It looks like HMRC were looking for a ‘scalp’ rather than recouping as much tax revenue as possible.

However, Murray should have agreed to settle with HMRC in 2008 when it began clamping down on EBTs in earnest. The money involved would surely have been very much less than the sums HMRC were demanding three years later.

It was on H&H

 

[deedle]

Can't agree with you here Deedle. If the liability gets reduced to 20m ish then I'd even go as far to say Murray has been vindicated. It would have been a witch hunt from the start.

The 08 financial collapse and Murray tying Rangers in with his other companies was maybe a mistake but its easy to say that now in hindsight.

Why didn’t Murray stop the EBT scheme in 2008 and settle with HMRC then?

There is a strong possibility the sum involved would have been less than £20m.

That’s not hindsight - it’s plain common sense.

 

[RenfrewBear72]

The Times really digging their heels in on twitter, fair play to them for not backing down to some of the shite that is being thrown their way.

 

[Theportyunionjack]

If the final bill becomes simply the income tax and NI that should have been forked out on £47m, a series of questions arises.

Surely at some point round about 2008/09 it would have become apparent to the board that agreeing to settle with HMRC was the most sensible option. Murray would have known how much HMRC accepted from Arsenal. Did he decide to chance his arm?

Of course, by this stage Lloyds had a huge amount of control over Murray. Yet someone must have sat down and weighed the potential selling price of a viable Rangers against an £18m debt and the potential tax bill. It is at this stage the 'grossing up' of the tax bill becomes crucial because this determined everything that followed.

Was the board kept fully informed? It looks like Dave King (and other minority shareholders and debenture holders) have a strong case against Murray.

The figures quoted cannot be used in any argument unless verified.

We’d obviously need to know how much English clubs had paid out in EBTs before making any comparisons.

We’d also have to know when English clubs settled with HMRC.

Murray is likely to have had access to information about how the English clubs were being dealt with but didn’t leak it to the press. It’s not much use now.


The factor that messes things up totally is Craig Whyte. He was flagged up as a potential buyer before the FTTT began. HMRC would have known all about him.

How do you think Murray benefited from not challenging this?

 

[Theportyunionjack]

The Times really digging their heels in on twitter, fair play to them for not backing down to some of the shite that is being thrown their way.

I'm eagerly awaiting spiers' take on this.

 

[SDF91]

The Times really digging their heels in on twitter, fair play to them for not backing down to some of the shite that is being thrown their way.

I suspect they’ll have more information about it than they’ve revealed .

HMRC‘s comments yesterday were pretty staggering for a national tax authority and indicative of them being rattled. They were obviously going to defend themselves because the implications of this story are potentially huge.

An independent investigation is required into HMRC’s handling of the case, the actions of the people involved, the leaks from HMRC and whether the necessary controls were in place to make sure that people with a conflict of interest couldn’t involve themselves in the case.

If HMRC are confident that they handled the case appropriately, that shouldn’t be a problem...

 

[Greebo]

Do you think there is no grounds for DM to sue HMRC?

I don't see how, what would he argue his loss was, and how was it their fault.

Just an opinion, I think he would be happy for the whole thing just to go away.

 

[Greebo]

The figures quoted cannot be used in any argument unless verified.

We’d obviously need to know how much English clubs had paid out in EBTs before making any comparisons.

We’d also have to know when English clubs settled with HMRC.

Murray is likely to have had access to information about how the English clubs were being dealt with but didn’t leak it to the press. It’s not much use now.


The factor that messes things up totally is Craig Whyte. He was flagged up as a potential buyer before the FTTT began. HMRC would have known all about him.

That and he had been investigated by HMCE years previously.

Daily Mail, February 17, 1999

But Mr Whyte now owes some £3.5million to one creditor and is officially 'insolvent'. He is believed to have created a complicated network of companies extending far beyond Scotland and was responsible for transferring large quantities of money to interests in the tax haven of the Bahamas. Companies with which Mr Whyte was connected have folded, staff and suppliers are unpaid and massive VAT and income tax bills are outstanding. Liquidators have already passed a report to the Department of Trade and Industry and it is believed that the department of Customs and Excise has launched an investigation. But Mr Whyte remains holed up at a secret location in Monte Carlo and is stubbornly vowing to clear his name. His former security company, Vital UK, based in Dennistoun, Glasgow, collapsed with debts of around £750,000 in 1996. Disgruntled employees of another connected firm, Vital Holdings, are lodging an action at the High Court in London in an attempt to win back unpaid wages.

 

[Brother Crockett]

Why didn’t Murray stop the EBT scheme in 2008 and settle with HMRC then?

There is a strong possibility the sum involved would have been less than £20m.

That’s not hindsight - it’s plain common sense.

As late as 2010, Alistair Johnstone announced to NARSA that they believed they had no concerns over what they believed was a perfectly acceptable tax plan.

 

[Jelle1880]

The way HMRC are acting about this when they normally never respond to individual cases is weird.

They are also deliberately misinterpreting the claim from the initial article that HMRC put us into admin. That was never said but they seem to be very interested in twisting words.

 

[Brother Crockett]

I don't see how, what would he argue his loss was, and how was it their fault.

Just an opinion, I think he would be happy for the whole thing just to go away.

His ego.
The chance to make a quick buck
Maybe, it’s not SDM. I believe his boys were pretty staunch. Maybe they could be trying to undo some of their father’s wrong doings.

 

[deedle]

How do you think Murray benefited from not challenging this?

Not challenging what?

 

[Deleted member 3807]

I don't see how, what would he argue his loss was, and how was it their fault.

Just an opinion, I think he would be happy for the whole thing just to go away.

His argument could be he lost 6m selling Rangers thanks to HMRC's incorrect tax liability.
However, I do hope you are correct mate.

 

[Greebo]

His argument could be he lost 6m selling Rangers thanks to HMRC's incorrect tax liability.
However, I do hope you are correct mate.

HMRC would just re-iterate their current argument. There was nothing wrong with the tax bill, what has happened is that they have withdrawn the penalties as a claim in the liquidation as it was pointless spending more money to argue the point.

They would invite Murray to prove that the bill was wrong, then to prove that he could have sold the club for that amount even if the bill was less.

That with the background of him wanting to get his main company secured, so needing to find someone willing to pay him £6m, clear the £18m debt and take on the £20m re-calculated tax bill.

I just don't see him even trying that.

 

[Deleted member 3807]

HMRC would just re-iterate their current argument. There was nothing wrong with the tax bill, what has happened is that they have withdrawn the penalties as a claim in the liquidation as it was pointless spending more money to argue the point.

They would invite Murray to prove that the bill was wrong, then to prove that he could have sold the club for that amount even if the bill was less.

That with the background of him wanting to get his main company secured, so needing to find someone willing to pay him £6m, clear the £18m debt and take on the £20m re-calculated tax bill.

I just don't see him even trying that.

It will depend on what actually happened. HMRC have their version of events, Murray will have his. Ex Rangers chairman John McClelland has said:

"At the time of the sale of the club in 2011, had the tax claim been at the level now reported then, in my opinion, the outcome would have been very different.
"I believe there would certainly have been a much higher level of interest in acquiring it and therefore more potential buyers."

Personally I hope Murray gets nothing. However, a silver lining, if he does sue successfully, will be the possibility of an inquiry. Should Murray, Green, and the administrators all end up winning millions out of the public purse then maybe somebody somewhere with influence will want to know WTF went on here. After all these years there are still more loose ends cropping up in the present that leave too many of us guessing.

 

[Blueranger45]

The court was told that the bank gave Sir David a year to sell the Ibrox side and pay off its debts, which included an £18m overdraft.

why were Lloyds Bank so eager to get the money when you see plenty of teams nowadays going massively into debt and getting away with it?

not the same country obviously but Real Madrid/Barcelona are probably in hundreds of millions of debt and their banks don't seem to be arsed about it. Wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Premier League teams are in debt and get away with it with the same bank (Lloyds). £18m surely is managable compared to the millions that PL teams have probably racked up

somebody there not like us or part of the plan?

 

[therealmackay]

No desire to sound like Fox Mulder but... the truth is out there. Somewhere. Whether it comes out in court through BDO or in later litigation, HMRC have a lot of questions to answer and those most affected must not rest until they get answers. Taxpayers money was needlessly wasted by them pursuing us relentlessly all the way to the Supreme Court after they lost two tax tribunals, and we deserve to know why this was allowed to happen.

 

[govwalker]

Can't agree with you here Deedle. If the liability gets reduced to 20m ish then I'd even go as far to say Murray has been vindicated. It would have been a witch hunt from the start.

The 08 financial collapse and Murray tying Rangers in with his other companies was maybe a mistake but its easy to say that now in hindsight.

Exactly.

If it comes to pass as we are found of being Totally fcked over by HMRC etc then I'll take back every single bad word I've said about Murray up till now.

Could be Huge amounts of humble pie being eaten.

 

[Haining84]

Exactly.

If it comes to pass as we are found of being Totally fcked over by HMRC etc then I'll take back every single bad word I've said about Murray up till now.

Could be Huge amounts of humble pie being eaten.

It still wouldn’t take away the fact Murray knew what Whyte was and lied to us all about being duped!

 

[govwalker]

It still wouldn’t take away the fact Murray knew what Whyte was and lied to us all about being duped!

Think Lloyds are the cheating b@stards involved in that part of the clusterfuck.

 

[Mark Walters]

Can't agree with you here Deedle. If the liability gets reduced to 20m ish then I'd even go as far to say Murray has been vindicated. It would have been a witch hunt from the start.

The 08 financial collapse and Murray tying Rangers in with his other companies was maybe a mistake but its easy to say that now in hindsight.

That lady's front bottom will never be vindicated. He's the 3rd worse thing that has ever happened to our club behind two disasters.

 

[Haining84]

Think Lloyds are the cheating b@stards involved in that part of the clusterfuck.

Murray knew what Whyte was an lied to the whole support,I’d even goes as so far to say he lied under oath at the Whyte trial.

 

[Greebo]

Exactly.

If it comes to pass as we are found of being Totally fcked over by HMRC etc then I'll take back every single bad word I've said about Murray up till now.

Could be Huge amounts of humble pie being eaten.

You must be joking.

He agreed a deal with Lloyds to sacrifice Rangers so he could save his other business, then sold to Whyte, knowing that he was a fraudster.

 

[SouthernGer]

why were Lloyds Bank so eager to get the money when you see plenty of teams nowadays going massively into debt and getting away with it?

not the same country obviously but Real Madrid/Barcelona are probably in hundreds of millions of debt and their banks don't seem to be arsed about it. Wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Premier League teams are in debt and get away with it with the same bank (Lloyds). £18m surely is managable compared to the millions that PL teams have probably racked up

somebody there not like us or part of the plan?

There was the banking crisis at the time and banks were desperate to get their money back. And the Spanish clubs are a different case.....corrupt.

 

[Theportyunionjack]

Not challenging what?

You seem to be hinting that Murray kniew other clubs had paid less and that he hadn't taken the necessary steps to settle with HMRC. Let me know of not. If it is, what would he have had to gain from not doing so?

 

[Drumchapel-Bear]

Murray didn't sell to Craig Whyte - Lloyds Bank did! Walter was on record as stating ''The Bank'' were running the club. Murray had no control in the end. And why did Lloyds take control? Because there was a mythical potential 75m plus liability on Rangers' books which we are now being told doesn't exist.

20m tax bill = Lloyd's not even getting involved which = no Craig Whyte and none of the horrendous last 8 years we've been subjected to.

 

[Haining84]

Murray didn't sell to Craig Whyte - Lloyds Bank did! Walter was on record as stating ''The Bank'' were running the club. Murray had no control in the end. And why did Lloyds take control? Because there was a mythical potential 75m plus liability on Rangers' books which we are now being told doesn't exist.

20m tax bill = Lloyd's not even getting involved which = no Craig Whyte and none of the horrendous last 8 years we've been subjected to.

He lied about Whyte being a good deal and he lied about being “duped” mate.He also lied about so much more as whytes trial revealed.