craigizzard wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that.
I was taking "non-compliance by a company with its tax liabilities" to mean plain-and-simple inability to pay at the time of and just before administration/liquidation,
but the words were "strong evidence of non-compliance". Whatever that means (and to me it is crystal clear; irresponsible/reckless shenanigans, to use the vernacular) one thing it does NOT mean is the above. Why not? Because your interpretation just needs a simple yes or no, and is a black or white issue ("was there a plain-and-simple inability to pay"). "Evidence" doesn't come into it, and all the more so, what would "strong" add?
craigizzard wrote:
and the HMRC using the opportunity to look at what can be clawed back for the exchequer. They got nothing back from Portsmouth under CVA and would be hoping to get more from Rangers and their directors under CVL.
Disagree entirely. The most cash would be to accept the deal, and usually, HMRC votes against. Indeed in many cases HMRC precipitates the liquidation, even if pre-admin offers are made which would over time have (if kept to) led to a 100% recovery for HMRC.
craigizzard wrote:
I raised it as a genuine enquiry because from scanning this board, it appears a lot of Bradford fans take administration as a given, even desirable, outcome and part of the grand Caisley plan. Adeybull says different, and if that's the case then there's obviously no parallel with Rangers except in hypotheticals.
I wasn't suggesting you didn't. I'd add that sadly, most fans know aklmost zero about insolvency, administration etc and just view it as some legal mumbo jumbo which they expect means you write your debts off and carry on as before. As indeed - especially in the case of some soccer clubs, and the "prefer football creditors" scam which the Courts have just ruled perfectly legal) - they are encouraged by brief reports to think.
