Motherwell fought tenaciously for most of the game at Celtic Park this afternoon but a momentary lapse was all that Georgios Samaras and Gary Hooper needed to settle the contest. Celtic moved an astonishing 23 points clear at the top of the table and are odds on favourite to become champions before the next return to Celtic Park.
Samaras was first to show after 9 minutes when he latched onto a Matthews flick but Darren Randolph was quick off his line to block. Player of the Year elect, Charlie Mulgrew, then jinked past a defender before slipping the ball to Samaras. The Greek’s shot was block and Mulgrew blasted the rebound wide. Randolph then saved well after Samaras shot from inside the D.
While Celtic always looked dangerous, Motherwell were in no mood to concede, so the goal was surprising in its simplicity. Adam Matthews fired a throw-in to Samaras, who chested the ball into the path of unmarked Gary Hooper. Hooper put his laces through the ball from a narrow angle to give Randolph no chance.
Samaras, Hooper and Forrest all had chances to finish the game off but the second goal never arrived.
Good defences are a lot harder to quantify than poor defences. Today Celtic strolled through the game at the back. No one was stretched and Fraser Forster didn’t have a save to make until the 77th minute.
Issue six of CQN Magazine, the Fit and Proper edition, is set to become a landmark collectors item. You can browse the magazine online here but you can buy your own hard copy by clicking on the link below. Read with 20-20 vision…..
733 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- »
Hillsborough – The Documentary 4/6
Paul 67
Thanks.
We’ll walk a million miles
for one of your goals
oh Celtic.
.
Thanks for the Bunnet Takeover Vids..
I was Abroad when it Happened so Missed most of it..
I will bookmark them when I get Home.. Great to See Brian Dempseys Part on it to.. As I’ve seen some Unfavourable comments to Him on CQN..
Hail Hail..
001
Divitbhoy says:
25 February, 2012 at 19:49
totally agree, Norsk Rogne was uttterly immense.. My MOTM
.
Above Post was to Kit..
Hillsborough – The Documentary 1/6
Hillsborough – The Documentary 2/6
Hillsborough – The Documentary 3/6
Hillsborough – The Documentary 4/6
Hillsborough – The Documentary 5/6
Hillsborough – The Documentary 6/6
Another hard earned 3 points for the green and white.
Onwards we go.
I just can’t get enough
of the fabulous Glasgow Celtic.
Can we extend the season.
It’s been so good i don’t want it to end.
In the words of Judith Durham
‘The Carnival is Over’.
Kit Thanks also for the videos
Still emotional watching them
Could not get to the liverpool game at Celtic park
Was watching Everton at wembley at the same time
ST
.
Help Info Req..
The Last game Pre-split in 7th April.. Are all the Games after that a Sat.. So League finishes 5 weeks Later..12th May.. Early because we Started Early..
So Scottish Cup Final 19th May Early because of Euro 2012..
Thanks in Advance..
Summa
.
Gordon64..
Can we extend the season.
It’s been so good i don’t want it to end.
..
Ha Ha.. Classic..
Unfortunately the Season will Finish Early because of a Unpresendented Winning Run and a Unpresedented 40 Point Victory..
The Unpresedented Sales of Jelly & Ice Cream is Just a Bonus..
Jello Jello
We Are the Bhoys in Green
Jello Jello
You’ll Know us by Our Ice Cream
We’re up to Our Knees in Shivers Jelly
Eat in While they Cry
Summa WhosHadTooMuchSugarCSC
With all the ice cream do we need to finish with a points score of a 99
wantaflakecsc
Full Game
Ajax 1 v 3 Celtic – Champions League Qualifier 08/08/2001
As much as I love the original TownTown tune;it would be great to hear the support sing “The Fields” (minus the add-ons)once again.
2:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGkT09eWii0&feature=related
Let’s hear yer voices!(as Gary Og once said).There has never been a breed of people more put upon..but sure they went to war with our club and our people,they tried every trick in the book,but alas,to no avail…and look at them now,the bankrupts…trying to emulate the achievements of our mighty club…trying to defeat us…yet always ignorant to the lesson that even their English pay-masters learned,a long time ago.YNBTI.
May heaven keep the Glasgow Irish – The Kings of the diaspora.
Kit
Was at the game.
Did this ever get completely resolved?
Rob McLean – Biased and Unfair
SydneyTim,
I drove up from London for that game, I was up the Rangers end with the bulk of the Liverpool supporters, though if I remember rightly, there was no enforced segregation.
Gordon64,
I was there when they humped us 3 – 0.
Their arrogance and ignorance has no bounds.
Keep the big hoose open !
Just for laughs.
Kit
Struggling to remember that game ?
Ajax v Celtic 1970/1 European Cup
We won the second leg at Hampden 1 – 0.
Does anybody else think that David Murray might just be hiding behind the hedge peeking over when nobody is looking?
McCoist defends Murray’s role
RANGERS manager Ally McCoist has defended Sir David Murray against accusations that he is to blame for the desperate financial situation at the club.
The Herald
Despite leading the Ibrox club to nine Premier League titles in a row, and to the brink of a Champions League final in 1992-93, the club’s former chairman left it with a bank debt of £18 million and a potential £49m tax bill when he sold his shareholding to Craig Whyte for £1 in May.
Murray was questioned yesterday by administrators trying to resolve the club’s financial crisis. Duff & Phelps representatives held talks at Murray’s offices in Edinburgh.
“David Murray will admit he made mistakes and, of course, he made mistakes,” said McCoist. ”But I am of the opinion that when he was in charge of the club he always did his best for the club.
”One thing that’s guaranteed with being involved with this club, no matter at what level, is that you’re going to get stick somewhere along the line, whether as a player, manager, coach or on the board. People will have their own views on the whole situation. Mine? I’ll always remember David Murray for being good for the club and for doing his best for the club. Like any ownership, it’s peaks and troughs but as the person I am I always like to look at the peaks.”
McCoist revealed he has not spoken with Whyte since the Motherwell-born venture capitalist called in administrators last Tuesday over an unpaid tax bill of £9m accrued since his takeover. “I would like to have a conversation with him in the fullness of time,” McCoist said. “Hopefully that day will come.”
Numerous aspects of the deal remain subject to investigation, The Scottish Football Association has appointed Lord William Nimmo Smith to chair its inquiry into recent activities at the club, while the administrators have given Strathclyde Police a dossier about Whyte’s takeover.
McCoist said last night it would be “unacceptable” to him if it was proved that the £18m debt owed to Lloyds Banking Group was paid off via a £24m mortgage on future ticket sales from investment firm, Ticketus. After first denying that was the case, Whyte virtually admitted such a version of events in a statement on Tuesday evening.
Murray has claimed he didn’t know £24m raised from mortgaging season tickets was used to fund Whyte’s takeover.
His spokesman said: “We are at a loss to understand how Whyte could procure funding from Ticketus on such a basis.”
Gordon Smith, the club’s director of football, and Ali Russell, the club’s chief operating officer, agreed on Friday to leave the club at the end of the month in a cost-cutting exercise. Further cuts among the club’s 177 staff and players will almost certainly follow next week, although no timetable as yet has been issued, and players and management have indicated they may be prepared to reduce their wages in an attempt to save jobs. “Until we’re faced with something, you can’t react to it,” McCoist said.
The club must file satisfactory accounts by the end of March in order to secure a licence to participate in European football next season, but just getting the club through to the summer promises to be challenging enough for administrators.
Strathclyde Police indicated on Friday that they had been given sufficient guarantees to allow home matches at Ibrox to proceed until the end of the campaign, but the club have extensive football debts to other SPL clubs to pay and failure to maintain their second place in the Clydesdale Bank Premier League table would mean £900,000 more lost.
.
Kit..
You still Planning being Home for the End of the Season..
My Plans are Leave here around 20th April maybe a Detour to Bali or Phuket for 10days..
EnyWhoo.. I’ll catch if Your Home..
001
Whyte mischief
DISGRACED Craig Whyte is hiding from Rangers’ incensed fans in Monaco just days after he vowed not to walk away, the Sunday Herald can reveal.
Investigation by Paul Hutcheon and Tom Gordon
But as Whyte suns himself in the land of tax avoidance, this newspaper has uncovered more details of his chequered business past and murky takeover of Rangers.
We can reveal:
Whyte signed UK company documents when he was banned from any management role in British firms
A source close to the administrators said Whyte may have used money from a “third party” as proof of funds before he eventually used season ticket money to buy the club.
A past corporate offer involving Whyte was criticised by the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers over fears money was not in place.
Whyte was behind a number of bizarre foreign online enterprises while disqualified as a director in the UK, many of them registered at a PO box in Miami, Florida.
Whyte’s reign as Rangers owner is in meltdown after the club was put into administration earlier this month.
The unpaid HMRC tax bill that prompted the move is now thought to be in the region of £14 million, while the “big tax case” could add another £49m to Rangers’ debt.
Whyte’s stewardship appears to have been fatally undermined by the revelation that he financed the takeover by selling off around £24m of expected season ticket revenue.
The chairman was derided as a liar after he denied and then admitted selling the future income stream to London-based Ticketus.
On the controversial Ticketus deal, a source close to the administrators doubted whether the London-based firm had been Whyte’s first port of call for the buyout money.
The source said Whyte may have first turned to a friend in order to reassure Sir David Murray and the bank that he had the finance available for the Rangers takeover.
He added that the friend may have provided Whyte with an “initial advance”.
The takeover is now being looked at by Strathclyde Police, while the Scottish Football Association (SFA) has launched its own investigation into the crisis club.
Aspects of Whyte’s chequered business history continue to dog the Motherwell-born tycoon.
A BBC documentary revealed Whyte was barred from being a director and was blocked from taking part in the “promotion, formation or management of a company” for seven years from June 2007.
However, the Sunday Herald can reveal that Whyte’s clever reading of the law allowed him to play a key role in a UK firm while banned.
In 2002, British Virgin Isles-based Custom International Ltd, registered at the same BVI address as another Whyte firm, became a director of UK firm Tixway Ltd.
On the same date, Pelham Holdings, incorporated in the Bahamas, also became a Tixway director. Whyte’s father Thomas was announced as another director of Tixway.
Companies House requires a senior member of a firm to sign the forms for any new director coming in. The filing that announced the father’s directorship was signed by Craig Whyte “for Custom International Ltd” in June 2004.
Similarly, Tixway’s dormant account in 2004 was signed by Whyte “for Pelham Holdings”.
In the same year, it was Whyte again whose signature appeared on forms approving the termination of two existing Tixway directors.
This time, he signed the forms on behalf of the BVI firms.
Whyte appears to have exploited a legal loophole that allows an individual banned from acting as a director in the UK to control a British firm through a foreign entity.
A spokesman for Companies House explained: “There is nothing obvious which prohibits the person referred to acting in the way described.
“The upshot is that he is signing on behalf of a foreign company over which we have no jurisdiction, and [was] not a director in his own right on said UK company.”
The foreign online enterprises that Whyte was behind while disqualified as a director in the UK were registered though a company called HTX holdings at the PO Box in Miami.
In March 2002, Whyte registered the website Libertycapital.biz at the Miami address.
His personal email at the website, ctw@libertycapital.biz, then began cropping up as the contact for a number of other websites.
Also in March 2002, Whyte registered the company London International Marketing, Inc in Nevada, using his liberty email address.
Records at the office of the Nevada Secretary of State list him as London International Marketing’s president, secretary and treasurer, and give his personal address at the time as Sarasota, Florida.
In 2004, Whyte used London International Marketing Inc to register the website Leavebritain.com at the Miami PO Box.
London International later failed to file its list of company officers in Nevada, and its status is now listed as “permanently revoked”.
Through an outfit called “Asset Reserve”, also based at the Miami PO Box, Whyte registered the website bellavistacr.com which offered people the chance to rent a luxury ocean-front home in Punta Leona, Costa Rica.
The property could be used if a customer supplied a “non-refundable” booking fee of $200.
It also has emerged that a past corporate offer involving Whyte had been criticised by the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers over concerns the money for the deal was not in place.
In 1998, Corporate Resolve PLC announced a cash offer for the shares in a company called Focus Dynamics.
The money for the deal was to be arranged by Swiss firm First Capital, whose head of corporate finance was Whyte.
However, the Takeover Panel’s report in 2001 expressed doubts that the funding was in place.
The report stated: “Mr Whyte was not, however, able to establish to the satisfaction of the Executive either that the funds were available to First Capital or that all conditions set out – had been satisfied.”
It continued: “The Executive, therefore, concluded that further assurance was required as to the availability of the cash to satisfy the cash offer in full if the cash offer was to proceed.”
One of the advisers behind the offer was businessman Aidan Earley, who continues to be of the Whyte’s associates.
Stephen Smith, the former chairman of the Rangers Supporters’ Trust, said: “Some of the former directors had legitimate concerns about Craig Whyte, and history has proven them to be correct.
“However, we’ve always said the primary responsibility lies with David Murray, who handed over the club to Whyte.
“It was not very diligent.”
He added: “UK company law is good for owners, but useless in protecting workers or shareholders.”
Whyte was unavailable for comment.
.
Craig Whyte: the Motice to Duff and Felps could it be invalid..
And other Questions.
Since 13th February, when Rangers lodged with the Court of Session their notice of intention to appoint an administrator, there has been a flurry of activity, often too much for a humble blogger to keep up with!
One thing I initially missed was the publication of the Notice of Appointment of the Administrators.
It can be found here.
The Administrators, Messrs Whitehouse and Clark from Duff and Phelps (and who I will refer to as “D&P” from now on) have now a part on the front page of the Rangers website linking to a page where formal notices, like this, can be found.
We know that Mr Whyte has an unfortunate history with official paperwork, as highlighted by his various different addresses, names and dates of birth in Companies House, for example.
There could be various pitfalls, some of which are as follows.
Have the statutory requirements in Schedule B1 been fulfilled?
Was the floating charge holder notified in time?
Did the floating charge holder consent?
Who is the floating charge holder?
Have there been valid board meetings to appoint the administrators?
How does the declaration of being unable to pay debts tie in with issues of “wrongful trading”?
What if D&P are not validly appointed?
Has Mr Whyte has his name and address correctly recorded?
What happens if the information given to D&P pre-appointment was wrong?
However, I am sure that all will be in order with this one – shall we look and see?
The Notice of Appointment by the Directors
What we are looking at is pages 2 and 3, being the “application form”. The relevant sections of the application are as noted below.
Paragraph 1 indicates that the appointment is by the “directors of the company” rather than by “the company”. Either the directors or the company can appoint an administrator under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Messrs Whitehouse and Clark of D&P are named as administrators.
Paragraph 5 states that the appointment is in accordance with the rules of Schedule B1.
Paragraph 9 states that the appointor has given “at least five business days’ written notice of the intention to appoint…and that a copy of that notice was lodged in the Court of Session on 13 February 2012”.
Paragraph 10 states “I(e)Craig Thomas Whyte of 4 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4DF director, for and on behalf of the directors of the Company do solemnly and sincerely declare that – (i) the information provided in this notice; and (ii) the statement made and information given in the notice of intention to appoint, are, and remain, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true.”
The whole notice is stated to be made “conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.”
Finally the declaration is made by Mr Whyte on 14th February, and was lodged at the court at 14.45 that day.
Where Might There Be Problems?
I have detailed the full requirements at the bottom of the article regarding Schedule B1 but, read short, they are as follows.
Schedule B1 Requirements
A company or the directors can appoint an administrator if there is no winding up or administration petition pending; there is no administrative receiver in place; and at least five business days’ written notice has been given to any floating charge holder.
In addition, a notice of intention to appoint and administrator needs to be lodged with the court along with a sworn declaration that the company cannot pay its debts, or is unlikely to be able to do so.
The appointment cannot be granted unless the five business day’s notice is given, or the floating charge holder has consented in writing.
The “appointor” must lodge with a court a sworn declaration that the facts as in the earlier notice remain the same as at time of application.
Notice to the Floating Charge Holder
Therefore, to be valid, Rangers must have given written notice to the floating charge holder of the intention to appoint an administrator by Monday 6th February at the latest, or else the floating charge holder was prevailed upon to provide consent to the appointment within the five day period.
As there seems to be some public mystery about who holds the benefit of the floating charge, it should be simple to ascertain this.
The administrators must know on whom notice was served, and if within the five days, who consented to the appointment. Was it Rangers FC Group Ltd? Was it Ticketus? Was it Liberty Capital Ltd?
Maybe someone could ask D&P for confirmation.
Presumably the floating charge holder is not a body independent of Mr Whyte, as it is likely that, in those circumstances, it would seek to appoint its own administrator, or else, due to this being a pre-2003 floating charge, its own receiver.
As one of the duties of an administrator is, in the absence of a rescue as a going concern or settlement of all the debts, is to satisfy the security holder, then there would be much less to lose should the floating charge holder be linked to Mr Whyte.
“Unable To Pay Debts” and Wrongful Trading
Mr Whyte (as one assumes it was him) made the sworn declaration that Rangers could not pay its debts or was about to be unable to do so.
It would be interesting to see (a) when he received advice on this (b) when that declaration was made by him and (c) what transactions were entered into by Rangers in the intervening period.
Potential issues of wrongful trading arise. There is rarely a point when clearly trading becomes wrongful, but as the former Board took advice on this prior to the takeover, then it would appear that it was a potential live issue from Mr Whyte’s earliest days at the club. Indeed his recent public statements have made it clear his view of the solvency of the Club from when he took it over.
If I was a creditor who had entered into a contract with Rangers, or supplied it on credit, since he took over, I would be very concerned to draw such dealings to thane administrators’ attention.
If, as it appears, Mr Whyte kept Rangers running by non-payment of around £9-15 million of tax, then this raises very serious questions about wrongful trading. I suspect that phrase will be heard a good few times before this issue is finalised.
How Did the Directors Make The Decision to Appoint Administrators?
As indicated above, the appointment of D&P was made by “the directors” of Rangers.
The population of the Ibrox boardroom has been like a West End production if Agatha Christie’s “Ten Little Indians”! One by one, or two by tow, the board members have resigned or been removed.
According to the Rangers’ website today the Board consists of Mr Whyte, Mr Russell, Mr Smith and Mr King. However, both Messrs Russell and Smith are about to leave the Club, and they were never directors anyway.
Companies House records that the Directors are Mr Whyte, Mr Ellis and Mr King. Mr King was, of course, allegedly removed as a Director at the end of the week prior to D&P being appointed.
Even though Mr Whyte is, through his companies, the majority owner of the company, it is in his role as director that he has applied for administrators to be appointed.
Was Mr King removed for failing to agree to the Notice of Intention to Appoint an Administrator being sent out? Did Mr Ellis agree to that, and thereafter to the Appointment of D&P?
My reading of the Companies Act, and I am happy to be corrected on this, is that, unless there is only one Director (which is not the case here) there requires to be, at the very least, a quorum of two to conduct such a Directors’ meeting. Directors’ meetings can be informal, and indeed, if validly called, the Directors need not be in the same location.
I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that there was no Board meeting, but I am sure that the relevant authorities would want to make sure that the meetings at which the relevant decision were made have been fully and properly minuted. If not, then there exists the prospect of legal challenge, perhaps even to the appointment of D&P at all.
It would appear therefore that there ought to be at least 2 meetings and therefore two minutes. The first would have been for the directors to decide to intimate an intention to appoint an administrator.
This was intended to give Rangers breathing space and it was made clear that the 10 day moratorium would have been used to explore ways of avoiding administration.
However, by late on 13th or early on 14th February, the directors of Rangers would have been aware that HMRC was seeking to get their own administrator in, and to force the issue.
That suggests that, at some point prior to Mr Whyte signing the Notice of Appointment in Glasgow on Valentine’s Day, a board Meeting took place. By that stage, the only directors left would have been Messrs Ellis and Whyte. Did they meet then or was it a telecon?
If there was no board meeting, then it would appear that D&P have not been properly appointed. (If that is the case then I am sure it arises due to inadvertence on the part of Mr Whyte or his administrative team, rather than from any other cause.)
If there are relevant board minutes, especially of prepared by the Company Secretary, Mr Withey, I am sure they would have avoided the pitfalls referred to in the disqualification proceedings regarding Mark Goldberg and James McAvoy relating to Crystal Palace Football Club. Mr Withey was Company Secretary there.
I wrote about that situation here.
Scroll down to the section about the Padovano Minute. Here it was alleged that a board meeting, recorded by Mr Withey, did not in fact take place. This was despite Mr McAvoy alleging that Mr Withey told him he had spoken to the two directors who later stated that the minute was of a non-existent meeting.
As Lewison J, the Judge in those proceedings said:-
“But he (Mr McAvoy) said that he was told by Mr Withey, who prepared the minute, that he (Mr Withey) had spoken both to Mr Alexander and Mr Barnes, that they had approved the agreement and that they would be signing a minute. Although Mr Withey was interviewed, he was not asked about the circumstances in which this minute came to be produced. Nor was he called to give evidence…. I record here that Mr McAvoy was given permission to serve evidence from Mr Withey, but chose not to do so.”
“I find that the contents of the minute were probably prepared by Mr Withey or at his dictation. The minute was signed by Mr McAvoy. However, no meeting took place, either by the physical presence of the purported participants, or by telephone. I find that Mr McAvoy knew that no such meeting had taken place. He also knew that Mr Withey had not telephoned the other named directors. I am, however, prepared to accept that Mr McAvoy was told by Mr Withey that the other named directors would be signing the minute. But even if that had happened, the resolution would still not have been valid under article 29, because, as Mr McAvoy knew, not all directors had been given notice of the meeting… Mr McAvoy signed a minute that purported to record a board meeting that he knew had not taken place. However, I find that he did so without any intention of misleading the board of Crystal Palace. He signed the minute because Mr Padovano’s lawyers wanted a minute, and one had to be produced in a hurry. Nevertheless, this allegation is made out against Mr McAvoy.” (Emphases added)
For the avoidance of doubt, as mentioned above, Mr Withey was not called to give evidence so did not have the chance in court to contradict Mr McAvoy’s allegations.
I am sure that, having been involved in such a mess before, any relevant minutes in Rangers’ case will have been prepared fully and correctly.
Indeed Mr Withey may have had nothing to do with the Minutes being prepared. After all, it is perfectly proper for minutes to be prepared by a participant in the meeting, whether Mt Whyte or Mr Ellis.
As I have said, I do not believe that Mr Whyte could validly appoint D&P on his own. The form is stated as being signed by him for and on behalf of the Directors.
Mr Whyte’s Address
I know it might seem like flogging a dead horse, but Mr Whyte appears on this declaration at yet another address!
This time he is designated at the address of Collyer Bristow in London. Collyer Bristow is Mr Withey’s firm. I assume Mr Whyte has not taken up lodgings there!
According to this article in theLayer.com, Biggart Baillie is acting for the administrators. The signature on the form is not clear but Ronald W Brown is one of the partners there.
“His practice covers a wide spectrum of corporate tax including VAT and Stamp Duty Land Tax. He specialises in tax efficient structuring of corporate finance transactions (including mergers and acquisitions and venture capital investments) and commercial property sales and acquisitions. He also advises clients upon tax efficient forms of share inventive schemes for officers and employees.”
Perhaps Rangers could have sought his advice many years ago, thus preventing the EBT debacle?
One wonders why Mr Whyte has recorded his address as at his London solicitors’ offices.
False Declarations
It is a criminal offence to make a declaration which is false and where the person making it does not reasonably believe it to be true. Therefore a person can make a mistake, but cannot do so deliberately.
I am sure that all the matters addressed by Mr Whyte in his declarations would be accurate, to the best of his knowledge and belief.
In connection with the subject of declarations which turn out to be incorrect, I recall the decision of Lord Hodge regarding the Bain v Rangers arrestment. As His Lordship recorded at paragraph 11 :-
“In relation to the HMRC claim for £2.8 million and penalties, Mr Whyte’s affidavit suggests that HMRC have been able to arrest £2.3 million in Rangers’ bank account. Discussions are continuing between HMRC and Rangers in relation to the level of penalties imposed. In any event, the purchaser of Rangers has undertaken to pay the debt to HMRC.”
Quite how Mr Whyte was able to make the sworn statement referred to above, when in December, as confirmed earlier his week, the whole of this tax bill was appealed, I do not know. No one should suggest that Mr Whyte was making a false declaration.
I am sure that Sheriff Ross’ finding in the Tixway UK case that Mr Whyte’s evidence was “wholly unreliable” is the one time that his standards have, through inadvertence, slipped.
What If D&P have not been Appointed Validly?
This is an interesting one. Should it turn out, for example, that there was no valid appointment, then D&P would not be administrators. I assume then that either Rangers would seek to appoint another administrator, although this could be a problem as over 10 days have passed since they indicated an intention to do so, or HMRC would seek either to put their own administrator in place, or indeed seek to wind Rangers up.
Schedule B1 provides that, if the appointment is invalid, the administrators are indemnified by the person responsible for the invalid appointment.
Therefore, should it turn out that D&P were not appointed correctly, Mr Whyte could find himself personally liable for D&P’s costs and for liabilities incurred by them.
Whilst that would not be pleasant, I am sure that the sums involved would make little more than a small dent in Mr Whyte’s fortune.
The Administrators’ Declaration
D&P will have lodged a declaration themselves that the purposes of the administration appear likely to be achieved. As this is said pre-appointment, they are entitled to rely on what the Directors tell them, even if that turns out to be wrong.
As the first two weeks of administration have seen the outstanding tax bill stated to be far higher than first thought, and as the administrators can’t find trace of money they thought was in the company, it may well be true to say that the information has not turned out to be very accurate!
That does not invalidate the appointment, but perhaps makes it more likely that an early liquidation happened.
Appendix
The Rules for Appointment under Schedule B1
Under paragraph 25 of the Schedule an administrator cannot be appointed by the directors if (a) a winding up petition has been presented and not yet disposed of; (b) an administration application has been made and is not yet disposed of; or (c) an administrative receiver is in office.
Under paragraph 26 of the Schedule the directors must give at least five business days’ written notice to (a)any person who is or may be entitled to appoint an administrative receiver of the company, and (b)any person who is or may be entitled to appoint an administrator of the company under paragraph 14. (Paragraph 14 allows the holder of a qualifying floating charge to appoint an administrator.)
Under paragraph 27 of the Schedule the person giving notice of intention to appoint an administrator under paragraph 26 must file with the court as soon as is reasonably practicable a copy of (a)the notice, and(b)any document accompanying it. The copy notice filed must be accompanied by a statutory declaration made by or on behalf of the person who proposes to make the appointment that the company is or is likely to become unable to pay its debts, that the company is not in liquidation, and that the appointment is not prevented by paragraphs 23 to 25. A person commits an offence if in a statutory declaration under sub-paragraph (2) he makes a statement—(a) which is false, and (b) which he does not reasonably believe to be true.
Under paragraph 28 an appointment may not be made under paragraph 22 unless the five business days’ period of notice specified in paragraph 26(1) has expired, or each person to whom notice has been given under paragraph 26(1) has consented in writing to the making of the appointment.
Under paragraph 29 a person who appoints an administrator of a company under paragraph 22 shall file with the court a notice of appointment which must include a statutory declaration by or on behalf of the person who makes the appointment that the person is entitled to make an appointment under paragraph 22, that the appointment is in accordance with the Schedule, and that, so far as the person making the statement is able to ascertain, the statements made and information given in the statutory declaration filed with the notice of intention to appoint remain accurate.
The notice of appointment must identify the administrator and must be accompanied by a statement by the administrator that he consents to the appointment, and that in his opinion the purpose of administration is reasonably likely to be achieved. For the purpose of that statement an administrator may rely on information supplied by directors of the company (unless he has reason to doubt its accuracy).
A person commits an offence if in a statutory declaration under sub-paragraph (2) he makes a statement—(a) which is false, and (b)which he does not reasonably believe to be true.
Under paragraph 34 where a person purports to appoint an administrator under paragraph 22, and the appointment is discovered to be invalid, the court may order the person who purported to make the appointment to indemnify the person appointed against liability which arises solely by reason of the appointment’s invalidity.
Summa
TT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR9YDQzOOUQ
.
Courtesy RTC..
Rangers Tax Case
“What they are saying is 99 percent crap” Craig Whyte
Home
About
Well done!
2 Votes
On first reading of The Sun on Sunday’s article today about Rangers’ player contracts, I wanted to take my customary swipe at the traditional media. On reflection, congratulations are in order.
I am no fan of the Murdoch press, but let us acknowledge a job well done. This story is a quantum leap forward from what passes as “traditional” reporting in Scotland. While the Daily Record still seems content to rely upon agenda driven scraps from the table of the Rangers old-guard- the same people who got the club in this mess- The Sun appears to have put in an honest day’s work.
This would have required some genuine investigation and they confirmed their interpretation by consulting with no less than three experts. While sports reporters have vacillated between claiming that tax issues are too complicated to discuss and then coming out with some comically inaccurate nonsense, The Sun has found a solution that might yet start a revolution: they asked for comments from people who understand the subject! Rather incredibly, I even agree with the general interpretation of the article. (You could have read much the same here in March of last year, but The Sun has published evidence). It was the absence of reports like this one, about the most important story in Scottish football history, that inspired this blog. So ‘better late than never’ and a sincere chapeau!
The timing of this story is also good. Much of the discussion recently has focused on the issue of whether Rangers’ players had letters saying that loans from the EBT did not need to be repaid. While interesting, and sure to become an interesting topic for discussion once the First Tier Tribunal returns with its findings, it is a bit of a red herring.
The central issue in this case is whether the money received by Rangers’ employees from the EBT were “emoluments”. Cutting through the legalese, this basically means that the key question to be determined at the FTT is: did Rangers’ employees receive wages through the EBT that were not properly taxed? Obviously, evidence that the loans were not real loans would blow any pretence that EBT use was legitimate out of the water. If there was also direct evidence that Rangers’ staff were receiving payments that were promised in an employment contract, then it would be very difficult to make an argument that these payments are not emoluments.
Yet, make an argument that they are not wages is what Andrew Thornhill QC has been very well remunerated to do. In some uncharacteristically well informed posts on the Follow Follow messageboard, I noticed the appearance of the “substance over form” argument as a way of trying to explain away any damaging documentation. Without getting steeped in a comprehensive legal and accounting discussion, “substance over form” is a concept that tries to look through complicated legal contrivances in financial transactions and look at only at the meat of the issue: where were we are the start and at the end. It seeks to just “look-through” any special purpose entities or legal trickery designed to complicate matters. How is this relevant? The poster on Follow Follow, is trying to make the point: it does not matter if Rangers have created this blizzard of paperwork all but admitting that they have perpetrated a scam, the “reality” is that the players currently still owe the trust. Therefore, the withdrawals from the EBTs are not emoluments.
This argument has a certain superficial charm. However, the issue with “substance over form” is that it is not for Mr Thornhill QC (or Rangers) to determine what the start and end points of the transaction are. Such a line of reasoning would be effectively asking the tribunal to start and stop at mid-points in the process and to ignore the real substance- that Rangers’ employees received payments from their employer that were not taxed.
So I would agree with the Follow Follow poster. The substance of how they were paid (through a trust) should be ignored, especially if there is a mountain of documentary evidence supporting the notion that the form is a contrivance to avoid paying tax on wages. (If there is a lot more evidence like that presented by The Sun, then Rangers’ case would look to be very weak indeed). Of course, if I was a skilled lawyer and one of my instructions was to slow down proceedings to delay an outcome, I would need to find an argument of some sort. An argument that allows me to ask the tribunal to go through the all of the evidence meticulously would be very useful indeed.
Looking to the future, Rangers’ fans need to take a realistic and dry-eyed look at the sort of people who will be running their club in whatever form it takes. The signs are not good that the lessons of the past have been learned.
Summa
He plays left-back…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBKfGJQBHOk
GBTGB.
Celtic 1-0 Motherwell: 20 games unbeaten as Lennon’s men edge out ‘Well
Published on Saturday 25 February 2012 17:33
THEY might not see it that way, but it is a shame for Celtic that Rangers are suffering such administration strife. For the Ibrox club’s finances going up in smoke has clouded the torching of previous best records that Neil Lennon’s side are turning into a wildfire.
It is ludicrous to talk of Rangers’ self-inflicted ills making for a tainted title, which will soon be Celtic’s officially, given that they now have a 23-point lead. It will, instead, be a tinsel title such has been their sparkling form, which was albeit glimpsed only briefly yesterday in a victory over the Fir Park men that owed as much to steel as style.
Yesterday, Celtic racked up their 20th consecutive domestic win. Or if you want to put it another way, they extended the longest domestic winning run in the club’s history, and the longest by any Scottish club in the modern era.
With their 14th straight win in all competitions – Europe included – Lennon has achieved a victorious run that outstrips the best of recent times, Martin O’Neill posting a 13 total in 2004. And, just for good measure, Lennon can bask in his most concerted run of back-to-back league wins. The figure is now 17. His tenure as Celtic manager, the second anniversary of which comes round in five weeks, began with a tally of 16, split between two seasons.
(Nobody can ever take that away from Neil Lennon, nor can they – without prejudice – ever belittle its import)
The number crunching might all get a bit dazzling but it intrigues more than the points-tallying in a title race that has become academic.
There was a flatness to the ambiance at Celtic Park yesterday, and the home side’s performance, described by their manager as at times “leggy”, perhaps reflected the fact the champions-elect only have the posting of fabulous figures to continue to give them a real impetus.
“It is huge motivation because it is something very special,” Lennon said. “It is fantastic consistency at any level of football. I have said to the players that runs like this come along once in a career, so we want to keep it going as long as we can. We certainly didn’t want to lose it at home and though we weren’t at our brilliant best, you have to give Motherwell credit for being well organised.”
The Celtic manager wasn’t interested in entering the debate about whether circumstances elsewhere have denied his players the credit their efforts warrant. “I’m not going to go down there; we are not interested in what other people think. It is there in black and white.”
The bald facts about a game that will not live long in the memory is that it was settled by a smartly-worked strike in the 56th minute. A “wonderful goal” to Lennon’s eyes, a “disappointing” concession in an otherwise compact and concentrated display as far as his counterpart Stuart McCall was concerned. A long throw-in from the right by Adam Matthews was gently cushioned by the chest of Georgios Samaras into the path of Gary Hooper, who in turned lashed in a low effort from the junction of the six-yard box.
McCall, who expressed pride in the competitiveness of his players, admitted that Tim Clancy had accepted the responsibility for switching off at the dead ball.
Switching off was what Celtic never did at the back in denying their visitors even the glimmer of a chance, and the early breakthrough in the second period switched on their play. Darren Randolph made a couple of blocks as Samaras, Hooper and James Forrest became engaged, and the stadium, later than has been the case in recent times, started to glorying in the woes of their rivals. Their focus returned to on-field events towards the end when Henrik Ojamaa, who could not escape the clutches of Thomas Rogne and Kelvin Wilson, was guilty of the most ridiculous penalty-box dive that earned him a booking. “It was a dive,” McCall said. “I don’t know what he was thinking. Perhaps it was one of those when he anticipated contact [from Wilson].”
Lennon said he will be like a “concerned parent” as he waits to hear news of his internationalists and the potential loss of 12 players to games for their country – something of a problem given that Celtic are up in Aberdeen for a 12 noon kick-off next Saturday.
One player who probably won’t be away is captain Scott Brown, who was left out with a slight groin strain, and now must be a major doubt for Scotland’s friendly in Slovenia. “It isn’t anything major but the injury hasn’t been getting any better. I wouldn’t presume anything with Scotland until he is assessed and we see what they think, but we don’t leave Scott Brown out without a reason.
“Scotland have been very good with us, and we have been good with Scotland and we will send him there to be assessed.”
Lennon, meanwhile, believes his stand-in captain yesterday, Charlie Mulgrew, can stand up to any test that international football might give him, with the defender in line for a first cap. “He is in a good place and I am sure he will cope with international football because he has played well for us in Europe. I think he is one of the most consistent players in the country right now.”
In the most consistent team imaginable.
kitalba
God Bless
Hail! Hail!
.
Strange But True..
Who would have thought at 3-0 Down at Kilmarnock.. The Celtic Defence and Fraser Foster would Only Concede 5 Goals in the Next 4 Months.. And what 20 Matches..
Summa
Last one,for our leader;The Boss,Neil Francis Lennon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4O4C-aTHLI
GIRFUY HATEley!
HeeeHaaaww.
Gonna play it again for the poor wee huns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4O4C-aTHLI
sKINTOMcSkinto’sFromTHEsKINTo’s
Last time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4O4C-aTHLI
Paul67 – Can ye put this wee choon up on the blog squire?
Blastin’ it from here on in,they are livid,livid a tell ye..!
Over and out.
Summa of Sammi…. says:
26 February, 2012 at 05:40
Shit,Summa.
My fun is starting to look like homework.
I thoroughly enjoyed the game yesterday.
Not a classic by any stretch of the imagination but it was absorbing enough. We kept possession well, were patient throughout, and created some decent opportunities, taking one with aplomb.
Motherwell did what Motherwell always seem to do against us. Relentless energy, closing down quickly, robust challenges (with a fair few on the overly meaty side). But we defended excellently for the most part.
A satisfying win.
.
MacJay..
Ha Ha.. I never Even tried to Read it.. Never mind Decipher it.. Got sent it on Twitter..
Thought Paul67 et al would Like a Squint..
Summa