Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin


With regards the VAT on the supplies made, bearing in …

Comment on Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin by Homunculus.

With regards the VAT on the supplies made, bearing in mind these are only rumours. It really depends who is making the taxable supply. The output tax is due from the person making that supply. 

Rangers selling season tickets will be them making the taxable supply, the VAT will be due in the quarter in which the tickets is sold (not when the payment is received as they will be too big to be cash accounting).

Sales of matchday tickets will be the same. As will standard rated sales on those matchdays. Sales of merchandising will probably be by Rangers Retail with the VAT due from them.

I have no idea how semi final ticket sales work. If the clubs selling to their fans is the supply, or if it is the SPFL is making the supply (bearing in mind the two semi-finals have the money split four ways). My money would be on the SPFL making the supply for VAT purposes but that really is a guess. 

Bottom line, it is entirely possible that Rangers have been collecting VAT they have charged customers and not passed that money onto HMRC and were using it to fund the business. Craig Whyte certainly did that. However I have yet to see anything to substantiate the rumour. 

Homunculus Also Commented

Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin
OCTOBER 12, 2016 at 23:53


No worries, mate. Just glad you could confirm what I thought to be the case.

I think I speak for everyone here when I express my gratitude for the effort you put in.


Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin
SCOTTCOCTOBER 12, 2016 at 18:37


If they did not submit the VAT returns on time then they will have received an assessment. The return has to go in within a specific time period. One month after the return ends, the return must be submitted within a week of that date. If it is not submitted then an assessment is automatically issued.

If they put the return in, even if it is not paid, then an assessment is not raised. HMRC do not have to raise an assessment if the return is in, they can simply move to enforcing that debt, as it is a legal declaration of VAT due.

If however HMRC decide that the return is incorrect they can issue an additional assessment, then enforce the total debt.

Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin
It’s interesting to see that Jim Traynor is as much of a rude, bullying troglodyte in person as he was to people stupid enough to phone his radio programme.

It’s not surprising that lying and spinning comes so naturally to him.

Traynor and Young several years ago

Recent Comments by Homunculus

Moving On Time?
John Clark 21st December 2020 at 23:22

I think the point is that the business has to record the difference between the purchase price of the assets, and their value, in the next set of accounts.

So what they are basically saying (normally) is that we bought that bakery business (for example) for £100 pounds, buy the tangible assets, the ovens etc, are only worth £80 so we paid other £20 for the existing customer base, the reputation etc, and that is just referred to in it's totality as the "goodwill".

As with  lot of accountancy stuff it all just looks like smoke and mirror to lay people like me. 

In Rangers case the tangible assets were, in their opinion worth a whole lot more than what they paid, but they still have to record that figure and like I have been saying, that is the dead giveaway and admission that they underpaid.

I suspect it will be part of BDO's case against the administrator.

As ever this is very much my layman's understanding with apologies to those who actually understand these things.

Moving On Time?
John Clark 18th December 2020 at 18:41

If I remember correctly there was a whole load of discussion wih regards the quality of some of the items and it turned out some was made in China, some was made in India and I think some was made in Europe, I have no idea which manufacturer actually made the stuff but I suspect it was just factories who were able to produce what was required so long as they were given the materials and the patterns.

I don't think that's too unusual but I have no experience in the field. 

Moving On Time?
Timtim 16th December 2020 at 19:54

Clearly the King is dead for Keith.

He has changed sides to the one on which his bread is now buttered.

To be fair on the current board, King's move was a bit off, even for him. He is trying to milk the fans for all he can, the board are not happy about that because that was an integral part of their plan.

They are never going to raise the full amount, certainly not quickly, but I believe he has said they can buy his shares in tranches so he could be getting regular payments from them for quite some time. 

Moving On Time?
John Clark 14th December 2020 at 17:13

I think BDO's £29m civil action against the administrator is more likely to bring out more of the truth than a botched criminal action by Crown Office as reported to them by Police Scotland.

BDO have taken their time, presumably investigated the matter properly and think they have enough to take the matter to the civil Courts. I would be surprised if they don't instruct top civil lawyers to carry out the action on their behalf. 

Bearing in mind BDO have probably already spent a lot of the money they have brought in, another £29m would be a nice wee addition to the pot.

Moving On Time?
John Clark 13th December 2020 at 14:02


One thing that still puzzles me is why, it seems, none of the other bidders to purchase the club to keep it going as a 'going concern' did not squeal at the time about the arbitrary selection of Green as the 'preferred' one who could pick up the assets cheap, while the club went into liquidation?

Why Green? why did the Administrators think that would best for them, for the creditors? A short bidding war for the assets would surely have raised at least a few tens of thousands more for the creditors.


Absolutely none of that was a factor in the administrator's decision making from what I can see. The creditors were irrelevant. 

They were working towards a pre-determined outcome involving Whyte and Green, There may have been a bit of improvisation when the CVA was rejected and Whyte was no longer required but other than that I firmly believe it was a pre-determined outcome. Let's wait and see what is determined by the ongoing proceedings. 

Remember the sale did not go ahead with the preferred bidder / chosen one. The assets were sold to another company with a very similar name, Sevco Scotland Ltd. No-one seems to ever have answered the question, when was that agreed. I believe novation requires all parties to agree to it. 

The aim was a CVA, a debt free Rangers, still the same club, still in the top division of the league etc.

When that was rejected and liquidation (ongoing) started there was a wee bit of the truth, then the re-writing of history, then where we are now. 


About the author