Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Sergio sledge]

See, that's my big worry.

If HMRC agree to a CVA on the £15m, it means that a buyer can take the club over, through his/her company, with a much-reduced debt. That leaves the BTC in RFC(the old company). Even if that went against RFC, there would be nothing in that company to pay it with.

No liking this idea one bit.

How would this work? Surely if they agree to a CVA for the current debt as it stands with Rangers FC, a new owner takes over Rangers FC paying the CVA, Rangers FC are then hit with the liability from the BTC and HMRC have a chance to recover that money. I don't understand how it would be a different company that wouldn't be liable just because they have come out of administration with a new owner.

If they are liquidated now, HMRC will only get a proportion of the £15m they are owed and have no chance of getting the BTC monies, but if they agree to a CVA now, they may get less immediately, but give themselves a chance of getting some of the BTC money.

[CropleyWasGod]

Sorry guys, cynicism got the better of me. I must repeat to myself "Rangers are stuffed, Rangers are stuffed, Rangers are stuffed ......... There, I've almost convinced myself.:greengrin. I promise I won't do anything silly while we wait for the axe to fall.

Ach you're okay. In times like this, it's easy to jump on headlines or misguided quotes from journalists who, although doing their bit, don't always understand the issues.

And then of course, there's the internet..... :hnet:

[ScottB]

This is what worries me.

I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but.............,


:spider:


Rangers are still heading for liquidation because no one will buy a club with the level of debt they have and although The Sun is claiming HMRC might do a deal over the "big tax case", there is nothing to confirm this.

But in the end, they have to, and we (the taxpayers) kind of need them to as well.

Scenario A: HMRC rock up, demand their £50million + which Rangers obviously don't have. Club is liquidated, pays back squat and returns in rude health.

Scenario B: HMRC do the apparently dreaded deal, Rangers repay their debt over a number of years, no liquidation, but a financially weakened Rangers for up to a decade or more.


Now, while some may be getting all in a lather about Rangers being destroyed, in actual fact they'd simply reform having ducked all their debts and screwed the lot of us. HMRC want their cash, doing a deal is the way to get it, while happily ensuring Rangers go through many years of penance to pay for their crimes.

[CropleyWasGod]

How would this work? Surely if they agree to a CVA for the current debt as it stands with Rangers FC, a new owner takes over Rangers FC paying the CVA, Rangers FC are then hit with the liability from the BTC and HMRC have a chance to recover that money. I don't understand how it would be a different company that wouldn't be liable just because they have come out of administration with a new owner.

If they are liquidated now, HMRC will only get a proportion of the £15m they are owed and have no chance of getting the BTC monies, but if they agree to a CVA now, they may get less immediately, but give themselves a chance of getting some of the BTC money.

It's all about separate entities.

1. RFC, as they are just now, agree a CVA. Let's say £20m has to be paid.

2. RFC2, the new company, say... we will buy your assets for £20m. Those assets are the properties, the players, perhaps the SPL membership, and the "brand".

(I know the figures are arguable, but hear me out on the theory)

3. RFC take the £20m, and pay off their debts. They are now clear, and can dissolve themselves. (I say "can", but HMRC would have the right to object to that.)

4. RFC2 have the assets mentioned above, and no debt.

5. the BTC verdict is announced, and HMRC win it. They are owed £49m.

6. HMRC go along to RFC and ask for the £49m. There's nothing there, so they're stiffed.



Now, I know Cav is going to come along and say that some of RFC's debt might have to be transferred to RFC2. We're both a bit unclear on that. The other sticking point is that HMRC might apply to the Courts for any transfer of the assets to be prevented (interdicted?) until such times as the BTC is settled, on the grounds that their position is prejudiced by that transfer.

[Spike Mandela]

Interesting that the Administrators seem to think that there is a good chance that the Club can get out of the Ticketus situation. Could this be because CW signed the contract before he owned Rangers and is not therefore legally binding ?

But it was used to pay Rangers Lloyd's debt? Surely they either owe it to CW or to Ticketus? Surely if Ticketus can follow the paper trail to Lloyds they can get their money back.

[CropleyWasGod]

But in the end, they have to, and we (the taxpayers) kind of need them to as well.

Scenario A: HMRC rock up, demand their £50million + which Rangers obviously don't have. Club is liquidated, pays back squat and returns in rude health.
Scenario B: HMRC do the apparently dreaded deal, Rangers repay their debt over a number of years, no liquidation, but a financially weakened Rangers for up to a decade or more.


Now, while some may be getting all in a lather about Rangers being destroyed, in actual fact they'd simply reform having ducked all their debts and screwed the lot of us. HMRC want their cash, doing a deal is the way to get it, while happily ensuring Rangers go through many years of penance to pay for their crimes.

It won't "pay back squat". It will have to sell its properties, and there will a fair chunk in there for hmrc.

[CropleyWasGod]

But it was used to pay Rangers Lloyd's debt? Surely they either owe it to CW or to Ticketus? Surely if Ticketus can follow the paper trail to Lloyds they can get their money back.

They definitely don't owe it to CW. Paul Clark said as much earlier today.



(edit... nipping down to ER for my Ayr tickets... back soon)

[Smidge]

It's all about separate entities.

1. RFC, as they are just now, agree a CVA. Let's say £20m has to be paid.

2. RFC2, the new company, say... we will buy your assets for £20m. Those assets are the properties, the players, perhaps the SPL membership, and the "brand".

(I know the figures are arguable, but hear me out on the theory)

3. RFC take the £20m, and pay off their debts. They are now clear, and can dissolve themselves. (I say "can", but HMRC would have the right to object to that.)

4. RFC2 have the assets mentioned above, and no debt.

5. the BTC verdict is announced, and HMRC win it. They are owed £49m.

6. HMRC go along to RFC and ask for the £49m. There's nothing there, so they're stiffed.



Now, I know Cav is going to come along and say that some of RFC's debt might have to be transferred to RFC2. We're both a bit unclear on that. The other sticking point is that HMRC might apply to the Courts for any transfer of the assets to be prevented (interdicted?) until such times as the BTC is settled, on the grounds that their position is prejudiced by that transfer.


I think the point where such a scheme falls down is that the CVA would have to identify where the cash to pay off the creditors is coming from. If that says "from a sale of all our assets to a newco", then I think HMRC would object as it doesn't get them a second bite at the cherry.

[Part/Time Supporter]

They definitely don't owe it to CW. Paul Clark said as much earlier today.

That's his opinion.

[CropleyWasGod]

That's his opinion.

...and the opinion of every accountant and Insolvency Practitioner I've heard talking about it. I can't see how it could be any other way.


Now beat it... I've got tickets to pick up :greengrin

[CentreLine]

It's all about separate entities.

1. RFC, as they are just now, agree a CVA. Let's say £20m has to be paid.

2. RFC2, the new company, say... we will buy your assets for £20m. Those assets are the properties, the players, perhaps the SPL membership, and the "brand".

(I know the figures are arguable, but hear me out on the theory)

3. RFC take the £20m, and pay off their debts. They are now clear, and can dissolve themselves. (I say "can", but HMRC would have the right to object to that.)

4. RFC2 have the assets mentioned above, and no debt.

5. the BTC verdict is announced, and HMRC win it. They are owed £49m.

6. HMRC go along to RFC and ask for the £49m. There's nothing there, so they're stiffed.



Now, I know Cav is going to come along and say that some of RFC's debt might have to be transferred to RFC2. We're both a bit unclear on that. The other sticking point is that HMRC might apply to the Courts for any transfer of the assets to be prevented (interdicted?) until such times as the BTC is settled, on the grounds that their position is prejudiced by that transfer.

This looks a little too much like the piece of fiction we talked about yesterday. The only ones getting burned here are CW, the tax man (you and me) and scottish Football (you and me).

I'm with many others here. I will be looking very closely at what SPL/SFA do and if they fold to this shower. If they do I will keep tabs on what the Hibees are doing but Scottish football generally will have died on the alter of OF bias and will have lost all credibility. As they say in the den, with regret, "I'm out"

[CropleyWasGod]

I think the point where such a scheme falls down is that the CVA would have to identify where the cash to pay off the creditors is coming from. If that says "from a sale of all our assets to a newco", then I think HMRC would object as it doesn't get them a second bite at the cherry.

Ah, is that right? Didn't know that.

If that's the case, then yeah, you're probably right.

[banchoryhibs]

Correct. It was The Sun wot said it. Ignore it. :greengrin

Taking the "test case" scenario a bit further, I did read that the RFC judgement, when it comes, is not necessarily to be relied on for future cases involving football clubs. That is because it is a "First Tier" Tribunal, and apparently that doesn't have any clout in setting precedents. However, if it goes further up the chain, perhaps through appeal, those Courts higher up will be setting precedent.

That said, the verdict in RFC's case will certainly help to shape HMRC's approach in those other cases.

The use of an EBT as a tax avoidance device was widespread, it was not just used by football clubs. Given that this device may have been used by very large, as well as medium to small, businesses I would be astonished if HMRC will concede principal and do any public deal. I'd guess that any tax lost by Rangers going into liquidation would be dwarfed by the loss of tax within the wider business community if such a deal was done.

I also doubt any first tier decision in the Rangers case could set a precedent as it would appear that Rangers may not have followed the EBT "rules", i.e. if contractual payments were found to have been made via the EBT this is enough for HMRC to win. Normally you would not expect to find such a blatant abuse of the rules. The Rangers case would then stand apart from others.

[Smidge]

Ah, is that right? Didn't know that.

If that's the case, then yeah, you're probably right.


I don't know for sure, but I can't believe it's not the case. Otherwise, why would ANY creditor agree to a CVA?

[Sergio sledge]

It's all about separate entities.

1. RFC, as they are just now, agree a CVA. Let's say £20m has to be paid.

2. RFC2, the new company, say... we will buy your assets for £20m. Those assets are the properties, the players, perhaps the SPL membership, and the "brand".

(I know the figures are arguable, but hear me out on the theory)

3. RFC take the £20m, and pay off their debts. They are now clear, and can dissolve themselves. (I say "can", but HMRC would have the right to object to that.)

4. RFC2 have the assets mentioned above, and no debt.

5. the BTC verdict is announced, and HMRC win it. They are owed £49m.

6. HMRC go along to RFC and ask for the £49m. There's nothing there, so they're stiffed.



Now, I know Cav is going to come along and say that some of RFC's debt might have to be transferred to RFC2. We're both a bit unclear on that. The other sticking point is that HMRC might apply to the Courts for any transfer of the assets to be prevented (interdicted?) until such times as the BTC is settled, on the grounds that their position is prejudiced by that transfer.

I see, so you are talking about a new company buying all of the original companies assets, rather than a new owner of the original company. Surely there is legislation in place to stop a company selling off all its assets to avoid having to pay known potential liabilities?

[JeMeSouviens]

5. the BTC verdict is announced, and HMRC win it. They are owed £49m.


HMRC have already issue Rangers an assessment for the £49M. Although they have not attempted to collect on it pending the outcome of the appeal, I believe the debt is owed already.

[GreenPJ]

I see, so you are talking about a new company buying all of the original companies assets, rather than a new owner of the original company. Surely there is legislation in place to stop a company selling off all its assets to avoid having to pay known potential liabilities?

Also would newco not also require the sanctioning of the SPL as they would be the company/club looking to participate in the SPL?

[Bighoose]

Was Donald Rumsfeld (ex USA Defense Secretary) talking about the Gers situation when he was quoted saying -

“The message is that there are no “knowns.” There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know. “

[JeMeSouviens]

I see, so you are talking about a new company buying all of the original companies assets, rather than a new owner of the original company. Surely there is legislation in place to stop a company selling off all its assets to avoid having to pay known potential liabilities?

Nope, this is what's known as a pre-pack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_%28law%29#Pre-pack_administration

The government were supposed to be introducing legislation but seem to have backtracked:

http://business-finance-restructuring.weil.com/cross-border-update/uk-pre-pack-proposals-given-the-thumbs-down/#axzz1ocYRgjtU

[Spike Mandela]

This looks a little too much like the piece of fiction we talked about yesterday. The only ones getting burned here are CW, the tax man (you and me) and scottish Football (you and me).

I'm with many others here. I will be looking very closely at what SPL/SFA do and if they fold to this shower. If they do I will keep tabs on what the Hibees are doing but Scottish football generally will have died on the alter of OF bias and will have lost all credibility. As they say in the den, with regret, "I'm out"

:agree: I'm out also. Disillusioned doesn't even come close to how I feel.

[JeMeSouviens]

Also would newco not also require the sanctioning of the SPL as they would be the company/club looking to participate in the SPL?

Whatever spin D&P are putting out, if the current Hun entity is liquidated, there will be no legal connection between OldHuns and NewHuns. They will have to register with the SFA as a new club (so no europe for 3 years) and attempt to railroad the SPL into giving them OldHuns' place in the SPL. If the SPL do the right thing they will have to apply to the SFL.

[greenginger]

If Craig Whyte is deemed not to have a charge over Rangers assets (Ibrox and Murray Park) because he did'nt put any of his own money in, whats to stop him invoicing the club now for his time and expenses pre and post take-over.

I know some smart accountants :wink: who could dream up millions of pounds in consultancy fees, advice fees, Whyte's own time etc etc.

If the administrators say the fees are excessive , he can point out he is charging the same rates as Duff and Phelps. :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

:agree: I'm out also. Disillusioned doesn't even come close to how I feel.

100% agree on being out should this come to pass but ... now is not the time for disillusionment, now is the time to lobby Hibs to do the right thing. A newco Huns is still by far the likeliest option. Petrie has to realise that we will not stand for a corrupt Hun re-entry.

[CentreLine]

Whatever spin D&P are putting out, if the current Hun entity is liquidated, there will be no legal connection between OldHuns and NewHuns. They will have to register with the SFA as a new club (so no europe for 3 years) and attempt to railroad the SPL into giving them OldHuns' place in the SPL. If the SPL do the right thing they will have to apply to the SFL.

The SPL and SFA had better think long and hard how they handle this because if they make the wrong choices then they will stripped Scottish football of a large slice of its fanbase. It really is that serious. We have all known for years that football here is run for the benefit of only two teams but it has never been quite so publicly true as it will be if they cave in this time. Newco Rangers can only start in Div3. If it is any different then we may as well all pack up and go

[Peevemor]

It's all about separate entities.

1. RFC, as they are just now, agree a CVA. Let's say £20m has to be paid.

2. RFC2, the new company, say... we will buy your assets for £20m. Those assets are the properties, the players, perhaps the SPL membership, and the "brand".

(I know the figures are arguable, but hear me out on the theory)

3. RFC take the £20m, and pay off their debts. They are now clear, and can dissolve themselves. (I say "can", but HMRC would have the right to object to that.)

4. RFC2 have the assets mentioned above, and no debt.

5. the BTC verdict is announced, and HMRC win it. They are owed £49m.

6. HMRC go along to RFC and ask for the £49m. There's nothing there, so they're stiffed.



Now, I know Cav is going to come along and say that some of RFC's debt might have to be transferred to RFC2. We're both a bit unclear on that. The other sticking point is that HMRC might apply to the Courts for any transfer of the assets to be prevented (interdicted?) until such times as the BTC is settled, on the grounds that their position is prejudiced by that transfer.

Could HMRC/the creditors not stipulate a buy-out of RFC in installments? For example RFC2 buy the assets for say £20m immediately + £2.5m per year over 10 years. RFC2 would be paying nearer the true worth for a debt free Rangers and the creditors would get more money over a longer period.

[s.a.m]

100% agree on being out should this come to pass but ... now is not the time for disillusionment, now is the time to lobby Hibs to do the right thing. A newco Huns is still by far the likeliest option. Petrie has to realise that we will not stand for a corrupt Hun re-entry.

That's quite catchy! If you're careful with the syllables, it works to come and have a go. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I see, so you are talking about a new company buying all of the original companies assets, rather than a new owner of the original company. Surely there is legislation in place to stop a company selling off all its assets to avoid having to pay known potential liabilities?

There is legislation that covers so-called "phoenix companies", where the owners and officers of the new company are essentially the same as those of the old.

However, I am not sure that it covers situations like this, where the owners are different. Cav thinks there are such provisions. I would hope he's right.

[CropleyWasGod]

HMRC have already issue Rangers an assessment for the £49M. Although they have not attempted to collect on it pending the outcome of the appeal, I believe the debt is owed already.

You're right, of course, that the assessment has been issued.

That might be another Court case to decide whether it's a valid debt yet.:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

If Craig Whyte is deemed not to have a charge over Rangers assets (Ibrox and Murray Park) because he did'nt put any of his own money in, whats to stop him invoicing the club now for his time and expenses pre and post take-over.

I know some smart accountants :wink: who could dream up millions of pounds in consultancy fees, advice fees, Whyte's own time etc etc.

If the administrators say the fees are excessive , he can point out he is charging the same rates as Duff and Phelps. :greengrin

I was thinking about the CW debt thing on my way to ER just now (see, i don't spend ALL day on here!).

If CW sticks to his line that he has a valid security (even though I reckon he doesn't), he does of course have the option of applying to the Courts to have his claim upheld. Whether or not he wins that argument, the main effect of that would be to further delay any CVA or sale.

Now, we wouldn't want that , would we? :cb

[CropleyWasGod]

Could HMRC/the creditors not stipulate a buy-out of RFC in installments? For example RFC2 buy the assets for say £20m immediately + £2.5m per year over 10 years. RFC2 would be paying nearer the true worth for a debt free Rangers and the creditors would get more money over a longer period.

The theory of that works for me. I have to get my head around the practice, though. On the face of it, RFC2 are getting a good deal... paying the cost of the business up.

Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that the only way HMRC were going to get all of their money, including the BTC, would be to take it over a long period of time. I have never known anyone to get 10 years, for example, to pay off Revenue debt; that said, I have never dealt with such large numbers. If they did do a deal like that, again, it could set a precedent.

[johnrebus]

The theory of that works for me. I have to get my head around the practice, though. On the face of it, RFC2 are getting a good deal... paying the cost of the business up.

Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that the only way HMRC were going to get all of their money, including the BTC, would be to take it over a long period of time. I have never known anyone to get 10 years, for example, to pay off Revenue debt; that said, I have never dealt with such large numbers. If they did do a deal like that, again, it could set a precedent.


Wish I had known this before 31st January. Would have done my own deal with Hector.......,


:worms:

[CropleyWasGod]

Wish I had known this before 31st January. Would have done my own deal with Hector.......,


:worms:

You and millions of others, John.

I still have trouble believing that HMRC haven't thought this all through.

[Caversham Green]

But it was used to pay Rangers Lloyd's debt? Surely they either owe it to CW or to Ticketus? Surely if Ticketus can follow the paper trail to Lloyds they can get their money back.


They definitely don't owe it to CW. Paul Clark said as much earlier today.



(edit... nipping down to ER for my Ayr tickets... back soon)


That's his opinion.


...and the opinion of every accountant and Insolvency Practitioner I've heard talking about it. I can't see how it could be any other way.


Now beat it... I've got tickets to pick up :greengrin

On the face of it, neither Rangers nor CW owe Ticketus any money. Rangers have sold something to Ticketus (and incurred a VAT liability) and received the money for it. The commodity they've sold is not due for delivery yet and there is still some prospect that it will be delivered, so right now there wouldn't appear to be a monetary claim that Ticketus can make. The Huns' balance sheet would not show Ticketus as a creditor, it would show the amount received (net of VAT) as deferred income.

It has been established that CW took the money from Rangers (it sounds more like theft than borrowing to me, but that's just my opinion) so he presumably owes them, and he used some of it to settle Rangers' debt to LBG, so they presumably owe that bit back to him, but on the basis that RFC continue in their current incarnation no-one owes Ticketus anything except the right to future ST sales. They said themselves that they do not lend money.

[Spike Mandela]

On the face of it, neither Rangers nor CW owe Ticketus any money. Rangers have sold something to Ticketus (and incurred a VAT liability) and received the money for it. The commodity they've sold is not due for delivery yet and there is still some prospect that it will be delivered, so right now there wouldn't appear to be a monetary claim that Ticketus can make. The Huns' balance sheet would not show Ticketus as a creditor, it would show the amount received (net of VAT) as deferred income.

It has been established that CW took the money from Rangers (it sounds more like theft than borrowing to me, but that's just my opinion) so he presumably owes them, and he used some of it to settle Rangers' debt to LBG, so they presumably owe that bit back to him, but on the basis that RFC continue in their current incarnation no-one owes Ticketus anything except the right to future ST sales. They said themselves that they do not lend money.

So who has paid Rangers debt to Lloyds?

[ballengeich]

Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that the only way HMRC were going to get all of their money, including the BTC, would be to take it over a long period of time. I have never known anyone to get 10 years, for example, to pay off Revenue debt; that said, I have never dealt with such large numbers. If they did do a deal like that, again, it could set a precedent.

While neither an accountant nor a tax expert I'd reached the same conclusion myself. In practice Rangers could pay some millions of back tax a year to HMRC while maintaining easily the second largest playing budget in the SPL.

Given the likelihood that the foul institution would re-emerge in some equally rancid form if the current company was wound up a staged clearing of tax debt might be the best available all-round solution. I'd like them to disappear totally, but I can't see it happening so we should ensure that as good Christians they follow the precepts of Mathew 22:21:greengrin

[Caversham Green]

There is legislation that covers so-called "phoenix companies", where the owners and officers of the new company are essentially the same as those of the old.

However, I am not sure that it covers situations like this, where the owners are different. Cav thinks there are such provisions. I would hope he's right.

I'm only aware that legislation exists, I have no idea whether it would cover this situation or not. Others seem to believe it wouldn't and I would be prepared to take their word for that until I hear otherwise.

[CropleyWasGod]

On the face of it, neither Rangers nor CW owe Ticketus any money. Rangers have sold something to Ticketus (and incurred a VAT liability) and received the money for it. The commodity they've sold is not due for delivery yet and there is still some prospect that it will be delivered, so right now there wouldn't appear to be a monetary claim that Ticketus can make. The Huns' balance sheet would not show Ticketus as a creditor, it would show the amount received (net of VAT) as deferred income.

It has been established that CW took the money from Rangers (it sounds more like theft than borrowing to me, but that's just my opinion) so he presumably owes them, and he used some of it to settle Rangers' debt to LBG, so they presumably owe that bit back to him, but on the basis that RFC continue in their current incarnation no-one owes Ticketus anything except the right to future ST sales. They said themselves that they do not lend money.

Agreeing with just about all of that. The only minor disagreement I might have is that, apparently, £6m was due to be paid over to Ticketus earlier this season. Of course, it wasn't paid. I'm sure a poster on here said that the deal was renegotiated as a result, and that the 3 years became 4 years. Not sure if that means that the £6m is a "current" liability or whether it gets put in with the rest as deferred income.

So.... if the current company gets a CVA and comes out of administration, the Ticketus arrangement still stands, yes? There is still the problem of the £24m hole in the next 4 years. In fact, it's a good deal more than that, I think it's the £24 investment, plus their profit margin, no?

If, somehow, RFC get out of the Ticketus deal.... that would mean Ticketus going after CW for the guarantee he says he made to underwrite the investment (apparently that was through Liberty Capital, who I think are RFCG's parent company). In turn, CW would then try to enforce the security that RFCG have over RFC's assets..... if they were still there by then, of course .

I need a lie down.

[Caversham Green]

So who has paid Rangers debt to Lloyds?

Mr Whyte did with the money he took from Rangers, so they owe him for that (£18m), but he owes them for the Ticketus money that he 'diverted' to another account (£24.4m). My point is that that money was from sales rather than borrowings.

[CropleyWasGod]

So who has paid Rangers debt to Lloyds?

Presumably it was through the famous Collyer Bristow Client Account, which is where the Ticketus cash apparently went.

[Andy74]

On the face of it, neither Rangers nor CW owe Ticketus any money. Rangers have sold something to Ticketus (and incurred a VAT liability) and received the money for it. The commodity they've sold is not due for delivery yet and there is still some prospect that it will be delivered, so right now there wouldn't appear to be a monetary claim that Ticketus can make. The Huns' balance sheet would not show Ticketus as a creditor, it would show the amount received (net of VAT) as deferred income.

It has been established that CW took the money from Rangers (it sounds more like theft than borrowing to me, but that's just my opinion) so he presumably owes them, and he used some of it to settle Rangers' debt to LBG, so they presumably owe that bit back to him, but on the basis that RFC continue in their current incarnation no-one owes Ticketus anything except the right to future ST sales. They said themselves that they do not lend money.

Isn't there another option?

Ticketus have been daft enough to issue CW as an individual £24m in return for what they think will be Rangers ST's in future.

That then becomes CW's money if that was how thet were daft enough to deal with him.

CW uses that money to pay off Lloyds and looks like the good guy in terms of clearing that. That isn't a loan or anyhting, it's just someone taking it upon themselves to pay Lloyds that money.

So CW has used his personal cash, though he got that given to him by Ticketus who presumed they would get Rangers ST's out of it.

It gets a bit messy now in terms of what was in the contract about where Ticketus expected to get the STs from. Rangers might argue that it was CWs deal and nothing to do with them. CW might have been able to arrange a contract that saw him get the cash but Rangers have the obligation to provide futre STs.

[Spike Mandela]

Mr Whyte did with the money he took from Rangers, so they owe him for that (£18m), but he owes them for the Ticketus money that he 'diverted' to another account (£24.4m). My point is that that money was from sales rather than borrowings.

D & P seem confident of getting out of Ticketus deal but they still have their Lloyds debt paid off. Rangers don't think they are liable to anyone for the £18m This is like someone breaking in to your house and paying all your bills.:confused:

[Caversham Green]

Agreeing with just about all of that. The only minor disagreement I might have is that, apparently, £6m was due to be paid over to Ticketus earlier this season. Of course, it wasn't paid. I'm sure a poster on here said that the deal was renegotiated as a result, and that the 3 years became 4 years. Not sure if that means that the £6m is a "current" liability or whether it gets put in with the rest as deferred income.

So.... if the current company gets a CVA and comes out of administration, the Ticketus arrangement still stands, yes? There is still the problem of the £24m hole in the next 4 years. In fact, it's a good deal more than that, I think it's the £24 investment, plus their profit margin, no?

If, somehow, RFC get out of the Ticketus deal.... that would mean Ticketus going after CW for the guarantee he says he made to underwrite the investment (apparently that was through Liberty Capital, who I think are RFCG's parent company). In turn, CW would then try to enforce the security that RFCG have over RFC's assets..... if they were still there by then, of course .

I need a lie down.

I'd forgotten about that £6m bit - if true, it must be the ST sales for this current season and that would imply that the deal was done pre-takeover. If so, RFC just kept money that rightfully belonged to Ticketus in the same way they did with VAT and PAYE. More fool Ticketus for doing more business with RFC.

I agree with the rest of what you say, but your last paragraph would suggest that there is some validity to CW's security in those circumstances. It is just a floating security over the whole of the company's assets though, so it's unlikely that he would end up owning Ibrox on the back of enforcing it.

[CropleyWasGod]

Isn't there another option?

Ticketus have been daft enough to issue CW as an individual £24m in return for what they think will be Rangers ST's in future.

That then becomes CW's money if that was how thet were daft enough to deal with him.

CW uses that money to pay off Lloyds and looks like the good guy in terms of clearing that. That isn't a loan or anyhting, it's just someone taking it upon themselves to pay Lloyds that money.

So CW has used his personal cash, though he got that given to him by Ticketus who presumed they would get Rangers ST's out of it.

It gets a bit messy now in terms of what was in the contract about where Ticketus expected to get the STs from. Rangers might argue that it was CWs deal and nothing to do with them. CW might have been able to arrange a contract that saw him get the cash but Rangers have the obligation to provide futre STs.

That means that RFC are due CW that £18m, which would bring his security right back into play. We don't want that:na na:

[CropleyWasGod]

I'd forgotten about that £6m bit - if true, it must be the ST sales for this current season and that would imply that the deal was done pre-takeover. If so, RFC just kept money that rightfully belonged to Ticketus in the same way they did with VAT and PAYE. More fool Ticketus for doing more business with RFC.

I agree with the rest of what you say, but your last paragraph would suggest that there is some validity to CW's security in those circumstances. It is just a floating security over the whole of the company's assets though, so it's unlikely that he would end up owning Ibrox on the back of enforcing it.

Not getting this bit. What is the significance of the fact that it's floating, rather than fixed? Does he get the first £18m of the company's assets, rather than the property itself?

[Andy74]

D & P seem confident of getting out of Ticketus deal but they still have their Lloyds debt paid off. Rangers don't think they are liable to anyone for the £18m This is like someone breaking in to your house and paying all your bills.:confused:

As I suggested above. CW used his own cash to pay Lloyds off. Not sure how anyone now thinks that he is due that, it's paid, as a gift to Lloyds surely?

CW seems to have got free cash out of Ticketus. Or has he? If Rangers think they have no obligation either CW is personally up for supplying Rangers STs to them or a guarantee of the cash, which I doubt, or Ticketus have got themselves into a crazy deal where someone has sold them something they don't own and no-one is now responsible for delivering to them.

[Andy74]

That means that RFC are due CW that £18m, which would bring his security right back into play. We don't want that:na na:

Why? If I turned at Hibs with £6m cash as a gift to pay off the mortgage Hibs wouldn't owe me that in future, it's done and I've paid it out the goodness of my heart.

[Spike Mandela]

Why? If I turned at Hibs with £6m cash as a gift to pay off the mortgage Hibs wouldn't owe me that in future, it's done and I've paid it out the goodness of my heart.

But what if you obtained that cash fraudulently?

[JeMeSouviens]

CW uses that money to pay off Lloyds and looks like the good guy in terms of clearing that. That isn't a loan or anyhting, it's just someone taking it upon themselves to pay Lloyds that money.



Don't think so. The charge over Hun assets was definitely reassigned from the Bank to CW's company so surely the Huns must've owed RFC Group formerly Wavetower at that point?

[CropleyWasGod]

Why? If I turned at Hibs with £6m cash as a gift to pay off the mortgage Hibs wouldn't owe me that in future, it's done and I've paid it out the goodness of my heart.

You're assuming it's a gift. That's very unlikely.

If it were a gift, CW/RFCG wouldn't have registered a floating charge in their name over RFC's assets for "all sums due to them".

[BarneyK]

Why? If I turned at Hibs with £6m cash as a gift to pay off the mortgage Hibs wouldn't owe me that in future, it's done and I've paid it out the goodness of my heart.

Aren't the administrators fighting to get the remainder of the £24million? What claim do they have if it's nothing to do with them? Or is this different money?

[greenginger]

Was the Ticketus money not paid into Whyte's Lawyers client account (the original £18 million ) to show SDM he had the funds to pay off Lloyds Bank. Only after that was the £1 sale of Rangers made and then the deal for the sale of future season tickets crystallized.It was some days after the take over that Lloyds were paid.

The second sale of future season tickets took place weeks after Whyte moved in and must be Rangers F C 's liability.

[Newry Hibs]

It's all about separate entities.

1. RFC, as they are just now, agree a CVA. Let's say £20m has to be paid.

2. RFC2, the new company, say... we will buy your assets for £20m. Those assets are the properties, the players, perhaps the SPL membership, and the "brand".

.

This thread is moving too fast to keep up!! Going back a few pages, if RFC wanted to sell on assets on the fly, have they not missed the boat as they are in administation? It would be the admins who would sell the assets, and presumably that isn't acting in the best interests of the creditors. Also can HMRC challenge any move to come out of admin?

[Andy74]

But what if you obtained that cash fraudulently?

Don't tell anyone. It's Hibs it's going to. :greengrin

[BarneyK]

BBC Sport Chris McLaughlin
"Negotiations continue at Murray Park over wording of wage cut agreement. 3 month deal but ripped up if #Rangers come out of administration."


They are either operating at a £1million loss per month or they're not. Why would they go back to full wage once out of Administration, wouldn't they just go back to losing fortunes every month? Getting too confusing for me now, this business. :rolleyes:

[Caversham Green]

Not getting this bit. What is the significance of the fact that it's floating, rather than fixed? Does he get the first £18m of the company's assets, rather than the property itself?

That's right - a security fixed on the asset would means he could either prevent RFC from selling it or ultimately enforce its sale. The floating security means RFC are free to trade any assets as long as they don't let their value fall below the amount secured. It only really comes into force in an insolvency event when he's entitled to preferred status from the sale of any and all assets, but not to specific ones.

[Andy74]

Aren't the administrators fighting to get the remainder of the £24million? What claim do they have if it's nothing to do with them? Or is this different money?

Fair point. If they are suggesting the £24 was their then that also would be them admitting that they are due to pay ticketus out in STs for the next 4 years.

They surely couldn't have a claim on that cash and deny Rangers had any part in the Ticketus arrangement?

[JeMeSouviens]

Ticketus says "that'll be ****** right!":

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/300201-rangers-administrators-and-ticketus-heading-for-battle-over-24m-season-ticket-deal/

[CropleyWasGod]

This thread is moving too fast to keep up!! Going back a few pages, if RFC wanted to sell on assets on the fly, have they not missed the boat as they are in administation? It would be the admins who would sell the assets, and presumably that isn't acting in the best interests of the creditors. Also can HMRC challenge any move to come out of admin?

<rewinding a bit>

If the admins thought that, by selling the assets, they were maximising the return to the creditors, they would be doing their job properly. In normal situations, though, the company as a whole is normally worth more than the underlying assets. I did say "normal"!!

HMRC can object to the CVA .... in effect that is stopping the company coming out of admin. The prevailing winds, albeit non-specialist journos, are telling us that HMRC won't be objecting.

[BEEJ]

Was Donald Rumsfeld (ex USA Defense Secretary) talking about the Gers situation when he was quoted saying -

“The message is that there are no “knowns.” There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know. “
:greengrin

A very apt - and suitably confusing - narrative to explain the current situation.

I confess to dipping into this thread occasionally seeking enlightenment on the ongoing Ibrox fiasco; only to emerge after 20 mins or so with a bit of a headache and a strong desire to find something more interesting to do - like hoovering!

:dizzy:

[CropleyWasGod]

Fair point. If they are suggesting the £24 was their then that also would be them admitting that they are due to pay ticketus out in STs for the next 4 years.

They surely couldn't have a claim on that cash and deny Rangers had any part in the Ticketus arrangement?

Jeezo, Andy, you had me going there for a bit. You had Craigie painted as some sort of philanthropist who would just chuck £18m at his fitba team for no return.

TFIF :na na:

[Andy74]

Ticketus says "that'll be ****** right!":

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/300201-rangers-administrators-and-ticketus-heading-for-battle-over-24m-season-ticket-deal/

Can't administrators just cancel Season Tickets though so they are in the same position as supporters and its tough? If its not laon its a straight purchase of something that can't be honourded in administration.

[BarneyK]

Fair point. If they are suggesting the £24 was their then that also would be them admitting that they are due to pay ticketus out in STs for the next 4 years.

They surely couldn't have a claim on that cash and deny Rangers had any part in the Ticketus arrangement?

Of course it may prove not to be the Ticketus cash, merely some other random sum these thieving tinks feel entitled to.

[Spike Mandela]

Ticketus says "that'll be ****** right!":

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/300201-rangers-administrators-and-ticketus-heading-for-battle-over-24m-season-ticket-deal/

I am officially a Ticketus supporter!:flag:

[CropleyWasGod]

Ticketus says "that'll be ****** right!":

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/300201-rangers-administrators-and-ticketus-heading-for-battle-over-24m-season-ticket-deal/

Brilliant :agree:

I like this bit:-

The firm, which has long experience in deals with football clubs in severe financial difficulty, believes that the arrangement would stand regardless of whether Rangers’ assets are sold to a new company and the old one liquidated.

Whether or not that bit is true, it's put a smile on my face.

Whatever way it goes, the fact that legal arguments are in train only serves to delay matters even longer. Which will put off the Knights. Which will hasten boom-time.

[CropleyWasGod]

Can't administrators just cancel Season Tickets though so they are in the same position as supporters and its tough? If its not laon its a straight purchase of something that can't be honourded in administration.

These are season tickets for future seasons, which aren't "live" yet. The administration better not last that long... I have a business to run.

[johnrebus]

Ticketus says "that'll be ****** right!":

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/300201-rangers-administrators-and-ticketus-heading-for-battle-over-24m-season-ticket-deal/



Don't see that Ticketus have a leg to stand on.

If, as previously reported, they gave the dosh to Craig Whyte (or his company Wavetower) BEFORE Whytey actually bought Rangers, then how can the deal be with Rangers?

:confused:

[Caversham Green]

Was the Ticketus money not paid into Whyte's Lawyers client account (the original £18 million ) to show SDM he had the funds to pay off Lloyds Bank. Only after that was the £1 sale of Rangers made and then the deal for the sale of future season tickets crystallized.It was some days after the take over that Lloyds were paid.

The second sale of future season tickets took place weeks after Whyte moved in and must be Rangers F C 's liability.

That's where I am with it all. I think D&P are relying on the argument that CW wasn't competent to sign off future ticket sales, but the deals were ultimately done by the holding company that owned RFC by the time it was finalised so that argument doesn't appear valid. Ticketus' problem arises if and when RFC finally slide over the P-trap.

[CropleyWasGod]

Don't see that Ticketus have a leg to stand on.

If, as previously reported, they gave the dosh to Craig Whyte (or his company Wavetower) BEFORE Whytey actually bought Rangers, then how can the deal be with Rangers?

:confused:

One would assume that Ticketus had their lawyers examine the contract.

Or else, .....re-read the first line of your post there, and think who else might be in that same predicament. :wink:

[BarneyK]

Don't see that Ticketus have a leg to stand on.

If, as previously reported, they gave the dosh to Craig Whyte (or his company Wavetower) BEFORE Whytey actually bought Rangers, then how can the deal be with Rangers?

:confused:

Sure I read somewhere that the deal was arranged pre-takeover but the money was held in an account, not to be released to Whyte until after the takeover had been concluded. Don't know if this would make a difference...

[Newry Hibs]

<rewinding a bit>

If the admins thought that, by selling the assets, they were maximising the return to the creditors, they would be doing their job properly. In normal situations, though, the company as a whole is normally worth more than the underlying assets. I did say "normal"!!

HMRC can object to the CVA .... in effect that is stopping the company coming out of admin. The prevailing winds, albeit non-specialist journos, are telling us that HMRC won't be objecting.

OK - thanks for that. So if there just happened to be some people in Glasgow who had some cash and wanted to set up a brand new football club (that was called, say, RFC2 and played in blue and white) then they might be interested in buying the assets of a struggling SPL team. So the HMRC (and others) get their money (not including the BTC?) and everyone is happy.

This new RFC2 club then has a stadium and players and no debt (andhopefully money to pay future wages and tax) - just needing somewhere to play. Now if only there was a vacany in a top flight league ....

[johnrebus]

Brilliant :agree:

I like this bit:-

The firm, which has long experience in deals with football clubs in severe financial difficulty, believes that the arrangement would stand regardless of whether Rangers’ assets are sold to a new company and the old one liquidated.

Whether or not that bit is true, it's put a smile on my face.

Whatever way it goes, the fact that legal arguments are in train only serves to delay matters even longer. Which will put off the Knights. Which will hasten boom-time.


And what sort of fee will Duff & Whelks be picking up every day for their services?

But, I'm sure, as professional people, this thought will be farthest from their minds.


:rolleyes:

[johnrebus]

One would assume that Ticketus had their lawyers examine the contract.

Or else, .....re-read the first line of your post there, and think who else might be in that same predicament. :wink:


You Sir, are a bad man.......,


:wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

OK - thanks for that. So if there just happened to be some people in Glasgow who had some cash and wanted to set up a brand new football club (that was called, say, RFC2 and played in blue and white) then they might be interested in buying the assets of a struggling SPL team. So the HMRC (and others) get their money (not including the BTC?) and everyone is happy.

This new RFC2 club then has a stadium and players and no debt (andhopefully money to pay future wages and tax) - just needing somewhere to play. Now if only there was a vacany in a top flight league ....

Events of the last 5 minutes have overtaken us!

Ticketus reckon they would have a toe-hold in RFC2, so there's half your season-ticket cash for the next 4 years gone already.

[CropleyWasGod]

You Sir, are a bad man.......,


:wink:

Bad taste, sure, but I remain convinced that SDM must have known.

[Caversham Green]

Don't see that Ticketus have a leg to stand on.

If, as previously reported, they gave the dosh to Craig Whyte (or his company Wavetower) BEFORE Whytey actually bought Rangers, then how can the deal be with Rangers?

:confused:

I suspect what happened was that the money was put in an escrow account (as described much earlier on this thread, but I forget by who) and only passed to CW (or more accurately the holding company) after he had handed over his shiny pound coin to Sir Dave (who of course was totally oblivious to what was happening).

[johnrebus]

I suspect what happened was that the money was put in an escrow account (as described much earlier on this thread, but I forget by who) and only passed to CW (or more accurately the holding company) after he had handed over his shiny pound coin to Sir Dave (who of course was totally oblivious to what was happening).

I can see the lawyers arguing the point of principal - er.., no, silly me - point of law, as to who the deal was with, whether Whyte actually had the money in his possession or not.

He - Whyte - did the deal, not Rangers.

:dunno:

[StevieC]

Don't see that Ticketus have a leg to stand on.

If, as previously reported, they gave the dosh to Craig Whyte (or his company Wavetower) BEFORE Whytey actually bought Rangers, then how can the deal be with Rangers?

I'm sure that they placed the money with his solicitor but CW never actually received the money until he was the owner of RFC. If CW had not managed to become owner then the money would have been taken back from the solicitors account.

On the Ticketus deal though ..

Apart from it looking like they get season tickets for about £250 a pop :eek:

What if RFC/NewCo end up in division 3? Will they still be able to charge £400-£500 a season ticket? Can't see many Huns buying into that?

[CropleyWasGod]

I can see the lawyers arguing the point of principal - er.., no, silly me - point of law, as to who the deal was with, whether Whyte actually had the money in his possession or not.

He - Whyte - did the deal, not Rangers.

:dunno:

...at which point, CW reveals his evidence that SDM knew about it.:cb

[jgl07]

I'm sure that they placed the money with his solicitor but CW never actually received the money until he was the owner of RFC. If CW had not managed to become owner then the money would have been taken back from the solicitors account.

On the Ticketus deal though ..

Apart from it looking like they get season tickets for about £250 a pop :eek:

What if RFC/NewCo end up in division 3? Will they still be able to charge £400-£500 a season ticket? Can't see many Huns buying into that?

Especially if they are playing at Broadwood!

[johnrebus]

Especially if they are playing at Broadwood!



I prefer the thought of Rangers playing at Elgin.


Huns at the pillbox has a certain ring to it, no?


:greengrin

[blindsummit]

One would assume that Ticketus had their lawyers examine the contract.

Or else, .....re-read the first line of your post there, and think who else might be in that same predicament. :wink:

ooh you are awful :greengrin

[green glory]

We've had yesterday's statement from the SFA, but we still have the SPL's statement to come (not sure when?). This will be dealing with the dual contracts which are alleged to have taken place. If they are found guilty, then sanctions will follow. If the SPL don't impose sanctions which are acceptable to the other SPL member clubs, can the other clubs walk away from the SPL? Clearly next weeks meeting of the "gang of ten" isn't for the benefit of either half of the OF.

Is it looking like the other the clubs will be imposing changes, ie revenue distribution and the voting structure in return for letting the OF remain in the SPL, or maybe even dissolving the SPL and setting up a new league structure? :agree:

[jgl07]

BBC Sport Chris McLaughlin
"Negotiations continue at Murray Park over wording of wage cut agreement. 3 month deal but ripped up if #Rangers come out of administration."

They are either operating at a £1million loss per month or they're not. Why would they go back to full wage once out of Administration, wouldn't they just go back to losing fortunes every month? Getting too confusing for me now, this business. :rolleyes:

It is assumed this will buy the time to get to the end of the season and the opening of the transfer window when the likes of Whittakar and Wallace will be moved on.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm sure that they placed the money with his solicitor but CW never actually received the money until he was the owner of RFC. If CW had not managed to become owner then the money would have been taken back from the solicitors account.

On the Ticketus deal though ..

Apart from it looking like they get season tickets for about £250 a pop :eek:

What if RFC/NewCo end up in division 3? Will they still be able to charge £400-£500 a season ticket? Can't see many Huns buying into that?

Welllll... investments can go down as well as up. Ticketus have, in effect, invested in RFC's future. If the market won't stand ST's at £400, then their investors won't get as much return as they thought they would.

The Ticketus website does claim to get that level of return, by the way. Who said you can't get a good return for your money these days?

[CropleyWasGod]

ooh you are awful :greengrin

***ake, Dick's back....

[Seveno]

D & P seem confident of getting out of Ticketus deal but they still have their Lloyds debt paid off. Rangers don't think they are liable to anyone for the £18m This is like someone breaking in to your house and paying all your bills.:confused:

I love that ! Not even yamanomics could come up with that one.

[jgl07]

Welllll... investments can go down as well as up. Ticketus have, in effect, invested in RFC's future. If the market won't stand ST's at £400, then their investors won't get as much return as they thought they would.

But they have only paid £250 a ticket. I am sure that some would pay £300 plus for a Rangers season ticket if they were playing in the West of Scotland All-Priests Five-a-Side Over-75 Indoor Football League.

[Seveno]

Bad taste, sure, but I remain convinced that SDM must have known.

Fat Jim probably knew as well.:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

But they have only paid £250 a ticket. I am sure that some would pay £300 plus for a Rangers season ticket if they were playing in the West of Scotland All-Priests Five-a-Side Over-75 Indoor Football League.

Sure, but the point I'm making is that the investors would have expected an almost 100% return, less of course Ticketus' own cut.

In your scenario, that's "only" 20%.

Bloody good return all the same. You got their number?

[CropleyWasGod]

Fat Jim probably knew as well.:greengrin

And Big Jock.

[Seveno]

If anyone is looking for a good investment opportunity, I'm setting up a scheme that will buy off-licences in wee towns up and down Scotland. I am confident that I'll get them cheap and then reap the benefits when the Hun hordes descend on these sleepy hamlets to watch RFC2 in their titanic struggle through the leagues.

:cb

[CropleyWasGod]

If anyone is looking for a good investment opportunity, I'm setting up a scheme that will buy off-licences in wee towns up and down Scotland. I am confident that I'll get them cheap and then reap the benefits when the Hun hordes descend on these sleepy hamlets to watch RFC2 in their titanic struggle through the leagues.

:cb

Your insurance premiums will outweigh your income.

I'm out.

[jgl07]

The use of an EBT as a tax avoidance device was widespread, it was not just used by football clubs. Given that this device may have been used by very large, as well as medium to small, businesses I would be astonished if HMRC will concede principal and do any public deal. I'd guess that any tax lost by Rangers going into liquidation would be dwarfed by the loss of tax within the wider business community if such a deal was done.

I also doubt any first tier decision in the Rangers case could set a precedent as it would appear that Rangers may not have followed the EBT "rules", i.e. if contractual payments were found to have been made via the EBT this is enough for HMRC to win. Normally you would not expect to find such a blatant abuse of the rules. The Rangers case would then stand apart from others.

As I understand things the use of EBT was supposed to apply for overseas earnings. The likes of t-shirts with pictures of the player sold in the Far East. It was never supposed to cover for earnings in the UK. The first clubs to use EBTs such as Chelsea could have some sort of a case but Rangers do not have a hope. I Personally do not see replica shirts with 'Kyle Lafferty' on the back selling well very in Singapore or Hong Kong. As for t-shirts with an image of Ally McCoist on the front, these would only fit Sumo Wrestlers!

HMRC are putting a public image of being open to suggestions and flexible as they have to be. However I suspect they would regard the liquidation of Rangers as a major win 'pour encourager les autres'. Rangers were once regarded as the richest club, not just in Scotland but in the UK. They would be massive coup for HMRC and would send a message to the Portsmouth's of this world that tax has to be paid.

[Peevemor]

I suspect what happened was that the money was put in an escrow account (as described much earlier on this thread, but I forget by who) and only passed to CW (or more accurately the holding company) after he had handed over his shiny pound coin to Sir Dave (who of course was totally oblivious to what was happening).

"Escrow" is how the French word for "crook" is pronounced. :cool2:

[CropleyWasGod]

As I understand things the use of EBT was supposed to apply for overseas earnings. The likes of t-shirts with pictures of the player sold in the Far East. It was never supposed to cover for earnings in the UK. The first clubs to use EBTs such as Chelsea could have some sort of a case but Rangers do not have a hope. I Personally do not see replica shirts with 'Kyle Lafferty' on the back selling well very in Singapore or Hong Kong. As for t-shirts with an image of Ally McCoist on the front, these would only fit Sumo Wrestlers!

HMRC are putting a public image of being open to suggestions and flexible as they have to be. However I suspect they would regard the liquidation of Rangers as a major win 'pour encourager les autres'. Rangers were once regarded as the richest club, not just in Scotland but in the UK. They would be massive coup for HMRC and would send a message to the Portsmouth's of this world that tax has to be paid.

A client of mine, in property in the UK, told me recently that, some years ago, they had a meeting with "a friend of a friend who was involved with Rangers" who could "save them a lot of tax". The substance of the meeting, they now realise, was to sell them the benefits of an EBT. Thankfully, they took the view that "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is", and rejected the sales pitch.

How many, though, took that route?

[Seveno]

Your insurance premiums will outweigh your income.

I'm out.
No problem, Deborah.

Duncan is backing me. He has offered to have one of his security guard companies looking after each of the various premises as the occasion demands.

Meanwhile, his ice cream van business is doing very well following the smeltic fans around the country.

[alfie]

We've had yesterday's statement from the SFA, but we still have the SPL's statement to come (not sure when?). This will be dealing with the dual contracts which are alleged to have taken place. If they are found guilty, then sanctions will follow. If the SPL don't impose sanctions which are acceptable to the other SPL member clubs, can the other clubs walk away from the SPL? Clearly next weeks meeting of the "gang of ten" isn't for the benefit of either half of the OF.

Is it looking like the other the clubs will be imposing changes, ie revenue distribution and the voting structure in return for letting the OF remain in the SPL, or maybe even dissolving the SPL and setting up a new league structure? :agree:

Perhaps the gang of 10 are planning to force the SFL and SPL to merge quicker than planned (or more simply shutdown the SPL) with the agreement to drop down into an SFL with a better distribution of any funds from sponsorship or tv rights. :dunno:

I get the feeling that the Tache and his fellow tight-fisted chairmen are sick of the duopoly in the SPL and want to see things change pronto, and that doesn't mean bending over backwards to help RFC out of the position they have got themselves into.

Send the remnants to the bottom of the third division!

[ancienthibby]

I see that Caley Thistle are saying that RFC have paid them £25k out of £40k outstanding.

Suggests to me even wholesale players cuts at 75% will not balance the cash flow.:devil:

[BarneyK]

It is assumed this will buy the time to get to the end of the season and the opening of the transfer window when the likes of Whittakar and Wallace will be moved on.

Aye fair enough, but the buyers dinnae want to have to be shelling out for a whole new squad - Paul Murray has said that himself, he wants the same squad moving forward. A mass exodus due to an inability to pay the squad is not what they are looking for.

[Andy74]

Aye fair enough, but the buyers dinnae want to have to be shelling out for a whole new squad - Paul Murray has said that himself, he wants the same squad moving forward. A mass exodus due to an inability to pay the squad is not what they are looking for.

But they will have to pay them and they are losing £1m per month on that basis. I presume they also can't be too keen on covering the loss so this is what I don't get about allowing this to still be in the business, temporarily cut down now or not.

[CropleyWasGod]

Aye fair enough, but the buyers dinnae want to have to be shelling out for a whole new squad - Paul Murray has said that himself, he wants the same squad moving forward. A mass exodus due to an inability to pay the squad is not what they are looking for.

I suspect that, as each player signs a deal today that entitles him to leave on his own terms, the price the Knights are prepared to pay edges just that little bit downward.

[BarneyK]

I see that Caley Thistle are saying that RFC have paid them £25k out of £40k outstanding.

Suggests to me even wholesale players cuts at 75% will not balance the cash flow.:devil:

They are due piles of cash to various clubs. They haven't paid for Cellik yet either.

[BarneyK]

I suspect that, as each player signs a deal today that entitles him to leave on his own terms, the price the Knights are prepared to pay edges just that little bit downward.

It just seems bizarre that any buyer does so to willingly inherit a squad he cannot afford. In the case of Murray, he is going out of his way to insist upon a squad he can't afford.

[CropleyWasGod]

It just seems bizarre that any buyer does so to willingly inherit a squad he cannot afford. In the case of Murray, he is going out of his way to insist upon a squad he can't afford.

As Graham Spiers said, the same Paul Murray who asked "who would buy Rangers with the BTC hanging over him?".

Is he posturing? Or is he the front-man for a cabal of SDM-era Huns who have the £100m that is needed?

He's not stupid, though. Is he?:confused:

[Seveno]

It just seems bizarre that any buyer does so to willingly inherit a squad he cannot afford. In the case of Murray, he is going out of his way to insist upon a squad he can't afford.

Maybe Murray is just assembling his bid for post-liquidation but trying to look the good guy meantime.

Unless there are some rich Arab Hun supporters, I cannot see a serious purchaser emerging.

[calmac12000]

As Graham Spiers said, the same Paul Murray who asked "who would buy Rangers with the BTC hanging over him?".

Is he posturing? Or is he the front-man for a cabal of SDM-era Huns who have the £100m that is needed?

He's not stupid, though. Is he?:confused:
It appears to me that the usual suspects are trying to create their own version of reality, which will no doubt convince the knuckle dragging majority who follow that manky mob. However, to anyone with even a modicum of intelect it is clear that Castle Greyskull's foundations are excedingly shaky

[banchoryhibs]

As I understand things the use of EBT was supposed to apply for overseas earnings. The likes of t-shirts with pictures of the player sold in the Far East. It was never supposed to cover for earnings in the UK. The first clubs to use EBTs such as Chelsea could have some sort of a case but Rangers do not have a hope. I Personally do not see replica shirts with 'Kyle Lafferty' on the back selling well very in Singapore or Hong Kong. As for t-shirts with an image of Ally McCoist on the front, these would only fit Sumo Wrestlers!

HMRC are putting a public image of being open to suggestions and flexible as they have to be. However I suspect they would regard the liquidation of Rangers as a major win 'pour encourager les autres'. Rangers were once regarded as the richest club, not just in Scotland but in the UK. They would be massive coup for HMRC and would send a message to the Portsmouth's of this world that tax has to be paid.

You are confusing EBTs with the marketing of image rights and how earnings from such rights are taxed on players who are not domiciled in the UK. In brief a foreign player could claim that any income arising from his name / image abroad was not income earned in the UK thus was not taxable here.

EBTs are a widespread device used across the board and claim to ensure that monies lent to individuals through various offshore trusts do not attract tax. HMRC beg to differ!:agree:

I don't disagree with your take on the message that HMRC would sent to "les autres" :greengrin

[green glory]

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=213493&pid=1059852010&st=0&#entry1059852010

This is new. Tickets behind the Blue Knights?

[CropleyWasGod]

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=213493&pid=1059852010&st=0&#entry1059852010

This is new. Tickets behind the Blue Knights?

Knee-jerk reaction is that, because those on that forum don't like, I like.

More to follow....

[CropleyWasGod]

One of the conditions I thought PM would attach to his/the consortium deal was a guarantee about the Ticketus deal being avoided. As I said earlier, there's no way the admins could give such a guarantee.

However, this is a new twist. Get into bed with one of the flies in the ointment, to mix a couple of metaphors.

If it works, the only other major condition PM would ask for is that the deal is subject to the BTC going RFC's way.

I think.

[StevieC]

Aye fair enough, but the buyers dinnae want to have to be shelling out for a whole new squad - Paul Murray has said that himself, he wants the same squad moving forward. A mass exodus due to an inability to pay the squad is not what they are looking for.

I'm getting the impression that the demands this Paul Murray is making is on the basis of being a Rangers supporter and wanting the best team on the park during administration. False hope and promises on the basis that the team isn't sold and they can still compete with Celtc for their two remaining games.

:dunno:

If he's really interested in the business is he wanting a company that is going to bleed him out of £3m of his own cash during the close season??

[johnrebus]

Knee-jerk reaction is that, because those on that forum don't like, I like.

More to follow....


More to follow, follow, surely?


:rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm getting the impression that the demands this Paul Murray is making is on the basis of being a Rangers supporter and wanting the best team on the park during administration. False hope and promises on the basis that the team isn't sold and they can still compete with Celtc for their two remaining games.

:dunno:

If he's really interested in the business is he wanting a company that is going to bleed him out of £3m of his own cash during the close season??

Keep up, Stevie boy, you're 5 minutes out of date.

It's Ticketus' cash he's spending now :greengrin

[StevieC]

However, this is a new twist. Get into bed with one of the flies in the ointment, to mix a couple of metaphors.

Exactly.

I get the impression that this (if true) is desperation from Ticketus who must be genuinely worried that they are close to getting "bumped" for £24m.
By being a major shareholder in any "new" Rangers it gives them a fighting chance of ensuring that they'll get their season ticket contract honoured.

[CentreLine]

Exactly.

I get the impression that this (if true) is desperation from Ticketus who must be genuinely worried that they are close to getting "bumped" for £24m.
By being a major shareholder in any "new" Rangers it gives them a fighting chance of ensuring that they'll get their season ticket contract honoured.

Or parhaps they have been offered shares and a seat at the top table in place of theor money?????

[Seveno]

I wish that Rod would hurry up and get on to Ticketus to get some of this free cash while it is still going.

[StevieC]

Keep up, Stevie boy, you're 5 minutes out of date.

It's Ticketus' cash he's spending now :greengrin

Keep up? I lost track of things days ago.

Even the guy that was doing the scotslawthoughts website is 3 days behind! :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Exactly.

I get the impression that this (if true) is desperation from Ticketus who must be genuinely worried that they are close to getting "bumped" for £24m.
By being a major shareholder in any "new" Rangers it gives them a fighting chance of ensuring that they'll get their season ticket contract honoured.

It seems a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, though.

They are an investment company. They know that investment in football clubs rarely works. They have their own little niche, which works, but this is different.

Other than protecting their £24m., I am not sure what is in this for them. And how much are they putting in to protect that investment?


As an aside, my gut is reminding me that one of the Ticketus directors is the owner of Close Finance, who have the famous "pie security" at Ibrox. I am not sure if this is significant... it's Friday afternoon, my brain is fried.

[Andy74]

One of the conditions I thought PM would attach to his/the consortium deal was a guarantee about the Ticketus deal being avoided. As I said earlier, there's no way the admins could give such a guarantee.

However, this is a new twist. Get into bed with one of the flies in the ointment, to mix a couple of metaphors.

If it works, the only other major condition PM would ask for is that the deal is subject to the BTC going RFC's way.

I think.

Getting into bed with an oiled up fly eh.

[CropleyWasGod]

Or parhaps they have been offered shares and a seat at the top table in place of theor money?????

At £24m, that's a helluva good seat.

Is it a recliner?


Having shares in RFC wouldn't satisfy their investors. I can't see that....

[ancienthibby]

At £24m, that's a helluva good seat.

Is it a recliner?


No. It's a hospital bed!:greengrin

[greenginger]

http://rangerstaxcase.com/2012/03/09/its-a-deal/


The Rangers Tax Case blogger seems sure talk of HMRC doing a deal with der Hun as " Utter Bollox " :thumbsup:

[JeMeSouviens]

From rangerstaxcase.com (who has been a helluva lot more accurate over the last year than any of the papers) on rumours of an HMRC deal:


An actual source close to the facts of this story described the latest wave of claims of about a Treasury sanctioned deal as “utter bollocks”.

[greenginger]

SNAP !:greengrin

[blackpoolhibs]

SSN reporting no redundancies at ibrox, not even office or shop staff ? :confused:

[johnrebus]

http://rangerstaxcase.com/2012/03/09/its-a-deal/


The Rangers Tax Case blogger seems sure talk of HMRC doing a deal with der Hun as " Utter Bollox " :thumbsup:



Lets hope he's right.

IICR the story about, ' treasury permission', was written by Roddy Forsyth in the Guardian. Dear old Roddy is a dyed in the wool Hun, I'm sure he wanted to believe it.......,


:na na:

[JeMeSouviens]

SNAP !:greengrin

damn you're quick! :greengrin

[PaulSmith]

http://rangerstaxcase.com/2012/03/09/its-a-deal/


The Rangers Tax Case blogger seems sure talk of HMRC doing a deal with der Hun as " Utter Bollox " :thumbsup:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17213691 - all be the below is about Port Vale it is relevant to this case.

HMRC told BBC Sport that they would not discuss individual cases, but said all clubs have a responsibility to pay their taxes on time.
“Any business that regards paying tax as an optional extra after other expenses are met, or that uses tax collected from employees or customers as working capital, is potentially heading for trouble,” said HMRC.
“It is only fair to those clubs and to other taxpayers who do meet their obligations that HMRC enforces payment of tax debts owed – and if need be, issues a winding up petition or seeks to appoint an administrator.
“There is little HMRC can do for a business – be it a football club or not – whose viability is dependent either on not paying the UK taxes to which they are liable, or on special treatment not available to other customers with similar tax affairs.”

[stokesmessiah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17213691 - all be the below is about Port Vale it is relevant to this case.

HMRC told BBC Sport that they would not discuss individual cases, but said all clubs have a responsibility to pay their taxes on time.
“Any business that regards paying tax as an optional extra after other expenses are met, or that uses tax collected from employees or customers as working capital, is potentially heading for trouble,” said HMRC.
“It is only fair to those clubs and to other taxpayers who do meet their obligations that HMRC enforces payment of tax debts owed – and if need be, issues a winding up petition or seeks to appoint an administrator.
“There is little HMRC can do for a business – be it a football club or not – whose viability is dependent either on not paying the UK taxes to which they are liable, or on special treatment not available to other customers with similar tax affairs.”

I think that was actually lazy BBC journalism because that is word for word what was said at the time of Rangers going into administration...copied and pasted into a story about Port Vale.

[stokesmessiah]

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=213508

You could not make those clowns up.

[PaulSmith]

I think that was actually lazy BBC journalism because that is word for word what was said at the time of Rangers going into administration...copied and pasted into a story about Port Vale.

Fair play if it is but why then would that stance so dramatically change. Only surely the PM or that ilk would manage to influence a change, is he thinking about politics here and the Union rather than the tax payer?

[WindyMiller]

It just gets better for the "Billionaire saviour" of the institution.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-17314070

:cb

[stokesmessiah]

Fair play if it is but why then would that stance so dramatically change. Only surely the PM or that ilk would manage to influence a change, is he thinking about politics here and the Union rather than the tax payer?

I guess it depends on what you read some people saying a deal can get done and others saying its not happening. I think a huge amount of the stuff we read is put out there to try and influence goings on.

[Keith_M]

It just gets better for the "Billionaire saviour" of the institution.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-17314070

:cb

"Mr Whyte resigned as Pritchards' company secretary after that ruling.
He said he wanted to focus on his role at Ibrox."

Makes a change to "spending more time with the family" I suppose.

However, exactly what is he doing with all this new found free time at Ibrox? Has he uncovered more stuff in the attic and he's now down at Paddy's Market trying to get rid?

[calmac12000]

Just listening to that fat blob Traynor on BBC Scotland saying basically that +we don't want to be too hard" on the Huns, just who does he mean he certainly doesn't speak for me or indeed most non-Huns in Scotland. Its so predictable that all the forces of the Scottish establishment will join forces to ensure they don't get kicked out of the SPL. If they do...

[PaulSmith]

I guess it depends on what you read some people saying a deal can get done and others saying its not happening. I think a huge amount of the stuff we read is put out there to try and influence goings on.


I think your right, the pressure on the Rangers players to accept a 75% pay cut was huge, basically if they didn't the Rangers were liquidated.

So the administrators have to protect the creditors, they need a short term fix otherwise the current liabilities close the club. But now they have a win/win where they fulfil the SPL fixtures, keep the assets (the players). Therefore the club plods along until the next transfer window but then has a cash injection from the selling of those players which they couldn't do until the window opens.

[CA Hibby]

For some of you guys that are more clued up than me, talk last night about the Huns centered around the guy riding in on a white horse as Joe MaCall (I think that was his first name), was too busy laughing at there justification of being saved to pay attention.

Anybody heard this?

[down-the-slope]

It seems from reports over last couple of hours that Ticketus are interested in buying - maybe as part of consortioum - the club....:rolleyes:

Darn it...that has a ring of potential...can they not just go bust:grr:

[ancienthibby]

It seems from reports over last couple of hours that Ticketus are interested in buying - maybe as part of consortioum - the club....:rolleyes:

Darn it...that has a ring of potential...can the not just go bust:grr:

It's all been sorted!!:cb

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17311003

[Hibernia&Alba]

The agreed wage cuts mean they will have the money to see the season out, but it will be interesting to learn what clauses the players have insisted upon for their protection. The cuts will only be temporary and many players will have to go in the transfer window, unless the magical new buyer comes forward.

Overall, though it keeps the wolves from the door for now, does this news actually diminish the danger of liquidation at some point, and, if so, by what degree?

[Part/Time Supporter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17213691 - all be the below is about Port Vale it is relevant to this case.

HMRC told BBC Sport that they would not discuss individual cases, but said all clubs have a responsibility to pay their taxes on time.
“Any business that regards paying tax as an optional extra after other expenses are met, or that uses tax collected from employees or customers as working capital, is potentially heading for trouble,” said HMRC.
“It is only fair to those clubs and to other taxpayers who do meet their obligations that HMRC enforces payment of tax debts owed – and if need be, issues a winding up petition or seeks to appoint an administrator.
“There is little HMRC can do for a business – be it a football club or not – whose viability is dependent either on not paying the UK taxes to which they are liable, or on special treatment not available to other customers with similar tax affairs.”

That's word for word the same statement they issued about the Huns a couple of weeks back. The talk of HMRC taking 10p in the £ is wishful thinking from the same bunch of "journalists" who were telling us last summer that Craig Whyte was the "whyte knight" who was going to give Super Ally a "warchest". Pish utter.

[Part/Time Supporter]

I think that was actually lazy BBC journalism because that is word for word what was said at the time of Rangers going into administration...copied and pasted into a story about Port Vale.

It's not lazy journalism, it's HMRC issuing a standard statement for any football club with tax debts. ie there isn't any favouritism from them to the Huns.

[snooky]

Will Specsavers up their sponsorship monies to compensate for the 75% wage cut? :wink:

[greenginger]

For some of you guys that are more clued up than me, talk last night about the Huns centered around the guy riding in on a white horse as Joe MaCall (I think that was his first name), was too busy laughing at there justification of being saved to pay attention.

Anybody heard this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McColl

I think this is the guy you are thinking about. Hope he has too much sense to get involved with Bigots 1873.

[PaulSmith]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McColl

I think this is the guy you are thinking about. Hope he has too much sense to get involved with Bigots 1873.

Can't recall which paper it was in but he categorically denied a wish to get involved in rangers within the last 24hrs

[WindyMiller]

The agreed wage cuts mean they will have the money to see the season out, but it will be interesting to learn what clauses the players have insisted upon for their protection. The cuts will only be temporary and many players will have to go in the transfer window, unless the magical new buyer comes forward.

Overall, though it keeps the wolves from the door for now, does this news actually diminish the danger of liquidation at some point, and, if so, by what degree?


The agreement with the players only stands as long as the club are in administration, if the club comes out of it, then they get to go back to full wages.

[killie-hibby]

Just listening to that fat blob Traynor on BBC Scotland saying basically that +we don't want to be too hard" on the Huns, just who does he mean he certainly doesn't speak for me or indeed most non-Huns in Scotland. Its so predictable that all the forces of the Scottish establishment will join forces to ensure they don't get kicked out of the SPL. If they do...


Tonights Sportsound was even more vomit inducing than usual. Continual references to todays developments as "a good news story" "Rangers are a family club" "some supporters just dont get it that Rangers bring money to their clubs,just look at how much Dunfernline got". They (Traynor,Dodds,Young et al) express their own emotions while conventiently abdicating the journalists role of reporting factually.

[down-the-slope]

The agreed wage cuts mean they will have the money to see the season out, but it will be interesting to learn what clauses the players have insisted upon for their protection. The cuts will only be temporary and many players will have to go in the transfer window, unless the magical new buyer comes forward.

Overall, though it keeps the wolves from the door for now, does this news actually diminish the danger of liquidation at some point, and, if so, by what degree?

It staves off iminent liquidation. But if they are still in admin in 3 weeks then no Europe = less money = less chance of buyer. Remember Ticketus own 30,000 (if deal is correct) tickets for next 3 years..so in effect they only have 22,000 seats to sell / income to get.

The 'Brand' must be reduced in value to sponsors - no one with squeaky clean image will want to work with fraudsters

If they have done a deal to release for free / low fees (lets say £2million whitty etc - guess work) then they will easily sell them get cash reduce high earners and replace with decent cheaper players and carry on....which would be dissapointing as they really need to go bust to allow the changes to be forced...otherwise it will be a mere blip....

[Littlest Hobo]

Sick to death of hearing about how we need the Huns, doesn't anyone in the Scottish media have any real vision of what the future might/could hold if they were to go into liquidation.

Wouldn't it open the door for another team to compete for CL. Or even the SPL? Surely the crowds would rocket?

[jdships]

The agreed wage cuts mean they will have the money to see the season out, but it will be interesting to learn what clauses the players have insisted upon for their protection. The cuts will only be temporary and many players will have to go in the transfer window, unless the magical new buyer comes forward.

Overall, though it keeps the wolves from the door for now, does this news actually diminish the danger of liquidation at some point, and, if so, by what degree?

I am friends with a man whose son is a "youth player" at Hunbrox and am only quoting what he told me this afternoon .
It would seem that the hold up has been due to a number of senior players wanting a clause giving them a " free transfer" at season end in return for taking a 75% wage cut.
This would allow them as " free agents" to negotiate massive " signing on " fees due to there being no transfer fee involved .
If this is correct it would leave Rankers with fewer assets to sell in next window

Please " don't shoot the piano player etc . " I am only repeating what I was told :greengrin

P.S. This is the second source I have heard this story from

[greenginger]

Tonights Sportsound was even more vomit inducing than usual. Continual references to todays developments as "a good news story" "Rangers are a family club" "some supporters just dont get it that Rangers bring money to their clubs,just look at how much Dunfernline got". They (Traynor,Dodds,Young et al) express their own emotions while conventiently abdicating the journalists role of reporting factually.


Did nobody point out that Dunfermline would have made more money out of Hibs visit on 14th January.

Roughly the same gate with a fraction of the policing and stewarding charges !

[CropleyWasGod]

It seems from reports over last couple of hours that Ticketus are interested in buying - maybe as part of consortioum - the club....:rolleyes:

Darn it...that has a ring of potential...can they not just go bust:grr:

For potential, I would read "desperation" on the part of Ticketus.

I can't see what they would get out of it.... unless their part of the deal is to buy the properties, and rent them to the footbal club.

[CropleyWasGod]

I am friends with a man whose son is a "youth player" at Hunbrox and am only quoting what he told me this afternoon .
It would seem that the hold up has been due to a number of senior players wanting a clause giving them a " free transfer" at season end in return for taking a 75% wage cut.
This would allow them as " free agents" to negotiate massive " signing on " fees due to there being no transfer fee involved .
If this is correct it would leave Rankers with fewer assets to sell in next window

Please " don't shoot the piano player etc . " I am only repeating what I was told :greengrin

P.S. This is the second source I have heard this story from

I thought one of the admins had actually said this, no?

Maybe not... maybe I read it on :hnet:, which is becoming the only reliable source of news these days.

[jdships]

I thought one of the admins had actually said this, no?

Maybe not... maybe I read it on :hnet:, which is becoming the only reliable source of news these days.

I haven't heard it on radio/tv but could be and why not if it is true !!:wink:
My other source is the more reliable - a Glasgow taxi driver :greengrin
Remember only Taxi cab drivers and people who cut your hair really know what is going in this country :rolleyes:

[down-the-slope]

For potential, I would read "desperation" on the part of Ticketus.

I can't see what they would get out of it.... unless their part of the deal is to buy the properties, and rent them to the footbal club.

Maybe - or it could be they see the chance to make even more dosh - cut out the middle man and sell all tickets / hospitality etc with the charges for payment plans / admin etc etc -they could take a lot of money out the business for legitamate fees & charges

[jdships]

Maybe - or it could be they see the chance to make even more dosh - cut out the middle man and sell all tickets / hospitality etc with the charges for payment plans / admin etc etc -they could take a lot of money out the business for legitamate fees & charges

My thoughts exactly when I first read the story and could have massive implications for RFC . :agree:
Why would this type of company want to get involved in a FC unless they were sure of sowing up a watertight deal to make money ?
Think there is " a lot of water to flow under the bridge " before this saga comes to an end .
Could be HMR&C have a big part to play in the final outcome unless we get a " whitewash /fudge " :rolleyes:

[Bighoose]

http://www.jeffwinterentertainmentandmedia.co.uk/rangers2012/2012001.php

WTF? :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

My thoughts exactly when I first read the story and could have massive implications for RFC . :agree:
Why would this type of company want to get involved in a FC unless they were sure of sowing up a watertight deal to make money ?
Think there is " a lot of water to flow under the bridge " before this saga comes to an end .
Could be HMR&C have a big part to play in the final outcome unless we get a " whitewash /fudge " :rolleyes:

First of all, Ticketus want to protect the investment they have in RFC. They have invested £24m, and would expect to get double that back. So it makes sense to do what they can to keep RFC going.

However, it seems that they are spending more money than that, if the reports are to be believed. This seems to be outwith their normal activities. According to their website,:-

What does Ticketus do?

Ticketus buys tickets in advance for events.
It buys tickets in bulk from the organisation putting on or hosting an event in advance, and then collects the proceeds when those tickets are sold to the public. These events can be football matches using season tickets, but also other sports and entertainment businesses.

So... what is their involvement in the Blue Knights? I think that, as an investment company, they will be providing funds only. Nothing else. They know, as an investment company, that running a football club is rarely profitable. So they will put a substantial amount of cash up, perhaps in return for shares, but at a fairly high interest rate and with a clearly-defined exit strategy within, say 5 years.

That way, they get to keep an eye on the ST's, and make a decent return on their investment and, if they have them, a profit on their shares.

Of course, those dreaded acronyms BTC and HMRC are the Octopus ( see what I did there?) in the water. And, I am not sure if they will be able to find Stranraer and Peterhead.

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.jeffwinterentertainmentandmedia.co.uk/rangers2012/2012001.php

WTF? :confused:

So, £5k for a Corporate Package. 20,000 of them, and the Huns are sorted.

:rolleyes:

I love the bit about re-naming Murray Park. Yammish revisionism anyone?

[PatHead]

Email received this evening from Octopus

9 March 2012 Statement on Rangers Football Club
The “Blue Knights”, led by Paul Murray, today confirm that they are finalising an offer for Rangers Football Club (“the Club”) in partnership with fans’ representatives (from the Rangers Supporters Assembly, the Rangers Supporters Association and the Rangers Supporters Trust) and Ticketus (together, “the Consortium”).
The members of the Consortium are united in their belief that a collaborative approach is essential in securing the Club’s future through a CVA, thereby achieving a fair and fast resolution that will put the Club on a secure financial footing. Through a CVA rather than liquidation, the Club will benefit from being able to qualify for future European competition and access the significant revenues associated with this. Preserving this revenue stream, and the Club’s 140 year old legacy, is paramount and in the best interests of all parties.
Paul Murray said:
“I believe that the Blue Knights, working in collaboration with the fans and Ticketus, are able to deliver an attractive solution that will see the Club emerge from administration with a clear plan for the future that will bring the financial stability that the Club needs.”
“We firmly believe that a CVA is the best way forwards and we are working hard to offer a solution that will enable this to happen. As the Administrators have stated, the alternative route of putting the Club into liquidation is much less attractive for creditors, supporters and players, with its capacity to destroy value. Under current UEFA rules, a football club is banned from European competition for three years in the event of liquidation. Taking this route would have a significant impact on Rangers’ future revenues and the overall financial viability of the Club, so it is something we want to avoid.”
Ticketus stated:
“We believe that the Blue Knights understand very clearly what needs to be done to stabilise the Club, and represent the most attractive long-term solution to Rangers’ financial situation. We are therefore backing their bid and will be an active partner, contributing to a successful outcome. We believe working alongside the Blue Knights and fans’ representatives offers the best chance of the Club surviving and becoming a viable business.”
The Consortium is confident that the Club can achieve financial stability through appropriate restructuring and the appointment of a new and experienced board with a sensible business plan.
The Consortium have spoken to the Administrators today to tell them that they will be working together to buy the club out of the CVA process and will be meeting the Administrators to discuss the proposed deal in detail on Monday.
The Consortium will continue to work with the Administrators as it finalises its bid in order to bring a swift resolution for the Club, its fans and employees.
For all media enquiries, please contact:

[CropleyWasGod]

Email received this evening from Octopus

9 March 2012 Statement on Rangers Football Club
The “Blue Knights”, led by Paul Murray, today confirm that they are finalising an offer for Rangers Football Club (“the Club”) in partnership with fans’ representatives (from the Rangers Supporters Assembly, the Rangers Supporters Association and the Rangers Supporters Trust) and Ticketus (together, “the Consortium”).
The members of the Consortium are united in their belief that a collaborative approach is essential in securing the Club’s future through a CVA, thereby achieving a fair and fast resolution that will put the Club on a secure financial footing. Through a CVA rather than liquidation, the Club will benefit from being able to qualify for future European competition and access the significant revenues associated with this. Preserving this revenue stream, and the Club’s 140 year old legacy, is paramount and in the best interests of all parties.
Paul Murray said:
“I believe that the Blue Knights, working in collaboration with the fans and Ticketus, are able to deliver an attractive solution that will see the Club emerge from administration with a clear plan for the future that will bring the financial stability that the Club needs.”
“We firmly believe that a CVA is the best way forwards and we are working hard to offer a solution that will enable this to happen. As the Administrators have stated, the alternative route of putting the Club into liquidation is much less attractive for creditors, supporters and players, with its capacity to destroy value. Under current UEFA rules, a football club is banned from European competition for three years in the event of liquidation. Taking this route would have a significant impact on Rangers’ future revenues and the overall financial viability of the Club, so it is something we want to avoid.”
Ticketus stated:
“We believe that the Blue Knights understand very clearly what needs to be done to stabilise the Club, and represent the most attractive long-term solution to Rangers’ financial situation. We are therefore backing their bid and will be an active partner, contributing to a successful outcome. We believe working alongside the Blue Knights and fans’ representatives offers the best chance of the Club surviving and becoming a viable business.”
The Consortium is confident that the Club can achieve financial stability through appropriate restructuring and the appointment of a new and experienced board with a sensible business plan.
The Consortium have spoken to the Administrators today to tell them that they will be working together to buy the club out of the CVA process and will be meeting the Administrators to discuss the proposed deal in detail on Monday.
The Consortium will continue to work with the Administrators as it finalises its bid in order to bring a swift resolution for the Club, its fans and employees.
For all media enquiries, please contact:

Meanwhile, Hector is sitting in Whitehall saying "that will be shining bright".

I see that as quite arrogant, that they don't even acknowledge the Revenue. If I were Hector, I would be insulted, and even surer of my stance.

Unless, of course, Hector is a mason.

[PatHead]

Mr Crops

With Ticketus up with the Blue Knights would this be enough to carry a Voluntary Agreement?

[green glory]

Worried now.

[CropleyWasGod]

Mr Crops

With Ticketus up with the Blue Knights would this be enough to carry a Voluntary Agreement?

Ticketus aren't a creditor, apart from the £6m they are owed for this season's ST's. (see a couple of pages back for the explanation, from Caversham Greens).

However, even if they were seen as a creditor for the full £24m...... HMRC are still at £15m. (arguably, for the other £49m as well, albeit it that is under appeal in the BTC).

If we just look at the £15m for HMRC.... assuming that they block any CVA, if that is more than 25% of total creditors, then the CVA won't pass.

Therefore total creditors have to be more than £60m. for a CVA to pass. £39m between HMRC and Ticketus. ... leaves £21m.....will there be that much? :confused: I don't think there will be.

[CropleyWasGod]

Worried now.

Don't be, GG. We still have three trump cards:-

HMRC

BTC

Ticketus still need to get payment for their 25,000 ST's every year for the next 3/4 years.

Edit:- There's a fourth, the SPL.

Cheer up :agree:

[PatHead]

Re your comments suppose Ticketus are as much a creditor as Hearts as payment only due on never, never...........Joking apart I will be in touch with Octupus re clients I have with them. I will need an awful good explanation as to logic behind investment or they could lose a couple of large investments.

[CropleyWasGod]

Re your comments suppose Ticketus are as much a creditor as Hearts as payment only due on never, never...........Joking apart I will be in touch with Octupus re clients I have with them. I will need an awful good explanation as to logic behind investment or they could lose a couple of large investments.

Ticketus are a deferred creditor, even more deferred than Hearts. As Cav explained, they only really become a "current" creditor when the ST's are sold, at the start of each season. I think Hearts would be entitled to see themselves as a creditor "now", as the event that triggered the debt, the transfer of Wallace, has already taken place.

As for Octopus, I would be very interested in hearing what they say, without breaking confidentiality of course. Despite my guess-take on it a few posts ago, I am still unclear as to "why" they're doing it.

[carnoustiehibee]

http://www.jeffwinterentertainmentandmedia.co.uk/rangers2012/2012001.php

WTF? :confused:

He had that closed down did he not, in jan after some of his blog posts. If anyone is trying to sum up a typical Hun there's your man. Bigoted, small minded ****bag!!!

[ancient hibee]

So they want to invest in a company based on a non existing CVA when they don't know its liabilities or don't know who "owns"its assets or in some cases where they are.Sounds good to me I wonder if I can chip in some of the Ancient Hibee millions.



Apropos of this I see I will not be able to use Pritchards the Bournemouth stockbrokers to make my investment for me as they've folded-think Mr.Whyte may have a job staying ahead of the posse on that one.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

If Dundee United hadn't beaten Rangers, then der hun would have been looking forward to a bumper pay-day this weekend that might have helped keep them afloat. On the eve of a weekend of cup footie, I will sink one tonight and salute the Arabs.

[down-the-slope]

If Dundee United hadn't beaten Rangers, then der hun would have been looking forward to a bumper pay-day this weekend that might have helped keep them afloat. On the eve of a weekend of cup footie, I will sink one tonight and salute the Arabs.


I was thinking much the same earlier....if they can double the medicine on Sunday then I may send a bottle Glenkinchie to DUFC as reward :greengrin

[Liberal Hibby]

Interesting article on the Beeb: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17300753

A bit more pressure on HMRC not to treat anyone differently. Can't see them agreeing a CVA - unless it is so they can better pursue the BTC.

[grunt]

All over the BBC news is the story about Paul Murray, the two Rangers Supporters groups and Ticketus "consortium" putting together a bid. Sorry but I don't believe a word of it. It seems to me to lack any basis in reality. Where's the critical inquiry, the independent scepticism? Since when did the broadcast news in this country become the mouthpiece for self-seeking fantasists? Whatever happened to the journalistic integrity that the BBC used to be famed for?

[CropleyWasGod]

All over the BBC news is the story about Paul Murray, the two Rangers Supporters groups and Ticketus "consortium" putting together a bid. Sorry but I don't believe a word of it. It seems to me to lack any basis in reality. Where's the critical inquiry, the independent scepticism? Since when did the broadcast news in this country become the mouthpiece for self-seeking fantasists? Whatever happened to the journalistic integrity that the BBC used to be famed for?

I think there's a lot of truth in their "intention". But, many a slip twixt cup and lip etc....

As I have said before, though.... still no mention, or questioning, of the HMRC aspect of all of this. By anyone.

You can see it happening...a package is put together, only to be scuppered by those pesky kids at the HMRC. Paul Murray will shrug his shoulders and say "well, I tried". Centre 1 in East Kilbride will get their many windows tanned.

[grunt]

You can see it happening...a package is put together, only to be scuppered by those pesky kids at the HMRC.But what would be the point of that? Wasting everybody's time and effort. I just don't get it.

[CropleyWasGod]

But what would be the point of that? Wasting everybody's time and effort. I just don't get it.

Vanity? Arrogance? Maybe they assume that HMRC can't possibly refuse the mighty Glasgow Rangers?

Or... maybe they know something we don't. Maybe they know how much debt there really is, and that they can get over 75% of the creditors on side.

[PatHead]

But what would be the point of that? Wasting everybody's time and effort. I just don't get it.

Buys them time to the end of the season. They win the BTC and all is dandy.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't get how todays agreement with the players has saved one million pounds a month. Assuming the average wage at the huns is 10k a week, they would need to cut the salaries of a lot of players to save a million.

anyone enlighten me?

[PaulSmith]

Buys them time to the end of the season. They win the BTC and all is dandy.

Or they take 1000's of supporters cash and it's lost in the blink of an eye when BTC asks for £49m.
Anyone business or 'Knight' buying the club will want to protect themselves from this, unless of course we have seen HMRC give the green light to tax avoidance carte blanche across the UK.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I think there's a lot of truth in their "intention". But, many a slip twixt cup and lip etc....

As I have said before, though.... still no mention, or questioning, of the HMRC aspect of all of this. By anyone.

You can see it happening...a package is put together, only to be scuppered by those pesky kids at the HMRC. Paul Murray will shrug his shoulders and say "well, I tried". Centre 1 in East Kilbride will get their many windows tanned.

windows in east kilbride are are pretty pointless, never seen an uglier town in all my life

[...WentToMowAnSPL]

Not an intellectual comment I know, but I hope they scuttle the huns, and like their bretheren we can then spot their appearance in South Africa, or America as appropriate............

'I've never met a nice Glaswegian Hun"

To the tune of ......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v439zTOJVho

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't get how todays agreement with the players has saved one million pounds a month. Assuming the average wage at the huns is 10k a week, they would need to cut the salaries of a lot of players to save a million.

anyone enlighten me?

Starting with the 3 big earners who, going on the media reports, are Naisy, Whitty and Daviesy. They seem to have taken a cut of £15k a week each. That's £180k for starters. NI would take that up to £200k.

Let's say another 15 are on £10k, and that they came down to £5k. That's £300k, plus NI, say £340k.

That's half a million already, with half the first team squad.

Play around with these numbers, add in the rest of the first teamers, then the Under-19s, and of course the coaching staff... and I think you might get near £1m.

[PaulSmith]

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/hmrc-and-the-cva-process

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/vas-factsheet.pdf

Probably somewhere else in the 106 pages but...

[CropleyWasGod]

Buys them time to the end of the season. They win the BTC and all is dandy.

I hear Tony Soprano has been put on a contract to deliver the BTC.

" I might as well put a bullet in my head. Here, here and here...."

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/hmrc-and-the-cva-process

"They will approve a CVA if it is a properly structured, a well thought through plan and the company has been compliant with tax rules in the past. "

The clue is in the last bit :greengrin

This one is more helpful:-

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/vas-factsheet.pdf

Read the first two lines of the paragraph "Rejecting a voluntary arrangement". That's important.

[CentreLine]

"They will approve a CVA if it is a properly structured, a well thought through plan and the company has been compliant with tax rules in the past. "

The clue is in the last bit :greengrin

This one is more helpful:-

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/vas-factsheet.pdf

Read the first two lines of the paragraph "Rejecting a voluntary arrangement". That's important.

It looks like that is the reason they wanted rid of CW. With him gone it looks more likely that they will cut a deal. Not sure I like that

[CropleyWasGod]

It looks like that is the reason they wanted rid of CW. With hom gone it looks more likely that they will cut a deal. Not sure I like that

First of all, there is only speculation that HMRC want rid of CW. No confirmation either way.

Secondly, RFC do have at least an allegation of "evasion of statutory liabilities" in the BTC and its wee brother. There is a clear history of non-payment in the CW era, and .... perhaps in the SDM years too, HMRC will know that.

Also, "payment of other creditors whilst withholding sums due to the Crown". In recent weeks alone, DAFC and Strathclyde Polis. There will be others.

[WindyMiller]

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/hmrc-and-the-cva-process

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/vas-factsheet.pdf

Probably somewhere else in the 106 pages but...

Stumbling block!!!!!



"They will approve a CVA if it is a properly structured, a well thought through plan and the company has been compliant with tax rules in the past"


Edit: Too f***king slow!!

[CropleyWasGod]

Stumbling block!!!!!



"They will approve a CVA if it is a properly structured, a well thought through plan and the company has been compliant with tax rules in the past"

TBH, I wouldn't rely on that site to any great extent. It's trying to sell that company's services. The HMRC helpsheet Paul and I posted is more balanced.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Is Paul Murray the guy the South African tax authorities are chasing for over £200 million?

[CropleyWasGod]

Is Paul Murray the guy the South African tax authorities are chasing for over £200 million?

Dave King, sadly.

Although we could start an internet rumour that Paul Murray has a raging coke habit, and is into people trafficking and young boys.

Fancy taking that job on?

[PatHead]

Dave King, sadly.

Although we could start an internet rumour that Paul Murray has a raging coke habit, and is into people trafficking and young boys.

Fancy taking that job on?

Hear its not a rumour. FACT


(Will that do? I put fact 'cause that makes it true.)

[Hibernia&Alba]

Dave king, sadly.


That is a shame. Dave King Billy, is it? Well he did say liquidation is inevitable, and he must know a conman like Whyte when he sees one.


I'm not too worried about the Blue Knights yet. They won't get their CVA whilst the big tax case is unresolved. As you said, CWG, for that to happen Rangers need around £60 million of debt just now, which is unlikely. Let the Huns build their hopes up then have it all taken away from them.

[jgl07]

First of all, there is only speculation that HMRC want rid of CW. No confirmation either way.

Secondly, RFC do have at least an allegation of "evasion of statutory liabilities" in the BTC and its wee brother. There is a clear history of non-payment in the CW era, and .... perhaps in the SDM years too, HMRC will know that.

Also, "payment of other creditors whilst withholding sums due to the Crown". In recent weeks alone, DAFC and Strathclyde Polis. There will be others.

Like all of Rangers' problems with HMRC started when Craig Whyte came on the scene?

The Big Tax Case and the Wee Tax Case ran up a claim approaching £55 million under Sir David Murray.

So get rid of Craig Whyte and all will be well!

[PatHead]

Is there a team of Cropley Was Gods or are you getting this legendary status by yourself?

[CropleyWasGod]

Is there a team of Cropley Was Gods or are you getting this legendary status by yourself?

Eh?:confused:

[matty_f]

It would be more than a little amusing if they managed to worm their way out of liquidation, get their money worries sorted out and all that, only for the SPL to expel them for being cheating b*****ds, leaving them with nowhere to go.

Preferred option is still for them to go completely under and die. Soon.

[PatHead]

Eh?:confused:

You seem to be on everytime I log in and wondered if this was all the work of one man

[greenginger]

It looks like that is the reason they wanted rid of CW. With him gone it looks more likely that they will cut a deal. Not sure I like that


I don't think so, HMRC won't do a deal where

" other creditors have been paid whilst sums due to the Crown have been withheld "

I think paying wages etc for 9 months whilst bumping Hector for tax ,N I and Vat has them nailed.


Besides, the HMRC have been working on this case for years, and spent a fortune in hours and legal advice to throw in the towel now.
I bet they are also still seething at loosing the Rednapp case :greengrin

[TornadoHibby]

First of all, there is only speculation that HMRC want rid of CW. No confirmation either way.

What would be the motivation for HMRC to 'want rid of CW' and (presumably) act 'out of their ordinary manner' to achieve that?



Secondly, RFC do have at least an allegation of "evasion of statutory liabilities" in the BTC and its wee brother. There is a clear history of non-payment in the CW era, and .... perhaps in the SDM years too, HMRC will know that.

Why do you think that what you suggest is the case?



Also, "payment of other creditors whilst withholding sums due to the Crown". In recent weeks alone, DAFC and Strathclyde Polis. There will be others.

'Payments to protect the value of the assets' perhaps which, provided the justifying basis for doing so is sound will be acceptable I suspect! Which others do you suspect there will be and why I wonder?

[ScottB]

This seems to be nothing more than getting Rangers fans to wet themselves with excitement.

Several issues still to resolve:

Murray himself has previously said any bid would be dependent on the Big Tax Case. Presumably this has not changed.

Ticketus are involved. This would suggest that they want and will get their share of season tickets over the coming seasons.

The investigation into second contracts.

And, most massively of course, casting a huge shadow over Castle Greyskull, is the taxman. Will they agree to a CVA? Unlikely, then there's still the Wee Tax Case and it's much bigger brother to deal with. Does Murray's group have the resources to deal with these?


Now, I know some folk are getting worked up at the thought of an HMRC deal, but personally, I'd be delighted at a Rangers that has to spend the next 4 seasons handing cash to Ticketus and another 6 minimum giving millions a year to the taxman...

[CropleyWasGod]

You seem to be on everytime I log in and wondered if this was all the work of one man

Ah, I see.

It's actually a wee cottage industry here.

One Crop is on Accountancy For Dummies, a page ahead of you guys.

Another Cropette is on Wikipedia, looking for dodgy factoids to throw in and confuse the lot of you.

Another is keeping shottie, lest I get a visit from Craig's Crew, the polis, or my own former professional regulators.

I wish I could say that Mrs. Crop is constantly keeping us going with cups of tea, but she ****** off the minute Craigy did that speech at the doors of Ibrox. She knew her days were numbered...

Ex-Sir Fred Crop is preparing the invoice to be sent to Hibs.net for all of this toxic, I mean, entirely right and proper advice.

Me? I'm just typing this shecht until somebody else comes up with a damn fool question or Jim Traynor gives us another wee exclusive.

[CropleyWasGod]

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
First of all, there is only speculation that HMRC want rid of CW. No confirmation either way.
What would be the motivation for HMRC to 'want rid of CW' and (presumably) act 'out of their ordinary manner' to achieve that? I have no idea, I was only repeating the media speculation. If HMRC tried that on with one of my clients, I'd tell them where to go.

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Secondly, RFC do have at least an allegation of "evasion of statutory liabilities" in the BTC and its wee brother. There is a clear history of non-payment in the CW era, and .... perhaps in the SDM years too, HMRC will know that.
Why do you think that what you suggest is the case? I am not suggesting anything. I am stating the facts, that there are two tax enquiries going on, and that RFC have hardly paid a thing to HMRC since May

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Also, "payment of other creditors whilst withholding sums due to the Crown". In recent weeks alone, DAFC and Strathclyde Polis. There will be others.
'Payments to protect the value of the assets' perhaps which, provided the justifying basis for doing so is sound will be acceptable I suspect! Which others do you suspect there will be and why I wonder? The company is still trading. To enable it to do that since last May, it must have been paying its suppliers, its tradesmen, its security staff and the police. All of these payments were made to the exclusion of HMRC.

.

[hibs0666]

Dave King, sadly.

Although we could start an internet rumour that Paul Murray has a raging coke habit, and is into people trafficking and young boys.

Fancy taking that job on?

Nah, that was the lawyer McBride, allegedly.

[TornadoHibby]

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
First of all, there is only speculation that HMRC want rid of CW. No confirmation either way.
What would be the motivation for HMRC to 'want rid of CW' and (presumably) act 'out of their ordinary manner' to achieve that? I have no idea, I was only repeating the media speculation. If HMRC tried that on with one of my clients, I'd tell them where to go.

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Secondly, RFC do have at least an allegation of "evasion of statutory liabilities" in the BTC and its wee brother. There is a clear history of non-payment in the CW era, and .... perhaps in the SDM years too, HMRC will know that.
Why do you think that what you suggest is the case? I am not suggesting anything. I am stating the facts, that there are two tax enquiries going on, and that RFC have hardly paid a thing to HMRC since May

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod H
Also, "payment of other creditors whilst withholding sums due to the Crown". In recent weeks alone, DAFC and Strathclyde Polis. There will be others.
'Payments to protect the value of the assets' perhaps which, provided the justifying basis for doing so is sound will be acceptable I suspect! Which others do you suspect there will be and why I wonder? The company is still trading. To enable it to do that since last May, it must have been paying its suppliers, its tradesmen, its security staff and the police. All of these payments were made to the exclusion of HMRC.

.

Thanks for your very prompt response but I'm not sure if you've clarified any of the issues that you had simply raised suppositions about.

I've peeked into this thread periodically over the past couple of weeks and see that you have been very active, possibly the most prolific poster on the thread actually.

However, I don't believe that you've added any helpful value with your responses to the queries I raised and wonder what drives you to comment here so prolifically?

Purely out of possibly selfish self interest I might add!

[CropleyWasGod]

Thanks for your very prompt response but I'm not sure if you've clarified any of the issues that you had simply raised suppositions about.

I've peeked into this thread periodically over that past couple of weeks and see that you have been very active, possibly the most prolific poster on the thread actually.

However, I don't believe that you've added any helpful value with your responses to the queries I raised and wonder what drives you to comment here so prolifically?

Purely out of possibly selfish self interest I might add!

Can you be more specific about the "suppositions"?

[TornadoHibby]

Can you be more specific about the "suppositions"?

:faf:

Far too late at night for that kind of nonsense dare I say!

You set out the suppositions yourself for goodness sake!

[CropleyWasGod]

:faf:

Far to late at night for that kind of nonsense dare I say!

You set out the suppositions yourself for goodness sake!

What nonsense?? I asked the question seriously, as I didn't understand what you meant by suppositions.

To recap, though,

1. I repeated the fact that there had been media speculation about HMRC'S desire for regime change.

2. I stated the fact that HMRC have hardly been paid anything since last May.

3. I stated the fact that there are two ongoing tax cases.

4. I made the case for the reasonable assumption that creditors have been paid to the exclusion of HMRC. Had these creditors not been paid.... the police being a prime example... RFC would not have even got this far.

Other than 4, which I have explained, there are no "suppositions", only facts.

[green glory]

Why would the Blue Knight/Tickitus consortium ( bearing in mind Paul Murray's comments about the big tax case) even consider putting together an offer now when the BGT is still undecided? Do they know something we don't or just impossibly naive?

[Dashing Bob S]

What nonsense?? I asked the question seriously, as I didn't understand what you meant by suppositions.

To recap, though,

1. I repeated the fact that there had been media speculation about HMRC'S desire for regime change.

2. I stated the fact that HMRC have hardly been paid anything since last May.

3. I stated the fact that there are two ongoing tax cases.

4. I made the case for the reasonable assumption that creditors have been paid to the exclusion of HMRC. Had these creditors not been paid.... the police being a prime example... RFC would not have even got this far.

Other than 4, which I have explained, there are no "suppositions", only facts.

Keep up the fabulous work CWG, these posts are brilliant, imformative yet optimistic and positive. They make my day.

[CropleyWasGod]

Keep up the fabulous work CWG, these posts are brilliant, imformative yet optimistic and positive. They make my day.

OI!!!! KIDS!!!! We've snared another sucker!!!!!

Ahem.

Thank you for your kind words, DBS. I shall head for bed now with a smile on my face. I need a lot of beauty sleep before the assault on Err the morrow.

[down-the-slope]

Vanity? Arrogance? Maybe they assume that HMRC can't possibly refuse the mighty Glasgow Rangers?

Or... maybe they know something we don't. Maybe they know how much debt there really is, and that they can get over 75% of the creditors on side.

Now we all know it football rather than straight business...

But lets assume it just business...why would any creditor agree a CVA when there are millions in assets still with in the company? CVA's are when there is little prospect of getting full payment due to lack of assets.
Do you fancy 10p in the £ Mr creditor...nah i'll just wait on liquidation as i reckon that nice shiney stadium / MP / car park (the one that was going to have Govan Vegas on it) / player contracts are worth a few bob and will get me more........

Discuss :rolleyes:

[TornadoHibby]

What nonsense?? I asked the question seriously, as I didn't understand what you meant by suppositions.

To recap, though,

1. I repeated the fact that there had been media speculation about HMRC'S desire for regime change.

2. I stated the fact that HMRC have hardly been paid anything since last May.

3. I stated the fact that there are two ongoing tax cases.

4. I made the case for the reasonable assumption that creditors have been paid to the exclusion of HMRC. Had these creditors not been paid.... the police being a prime example... RFC would not have even got this far.

Other than 4, which I have explained, there are no "suppositions", only facts.

Personally speaking, I can't see why you suggest that HMRC want rid of CW (implying that the RFC corporate vehicle has no relevance) nor why you suggest that RFC under SDM's stewardship might have been 'at it' regarding payment HMRC liabilities when MIH is an organisation which has a large network of professional advisors whose advice it will act upon, even tax matters, controversial though that may sound in relation to a lot of the unsubstantiated suggestions and suppositions being posted on mb's as though there is some foundation behind them!

Interesting though some of these comments may be, they will only be that , as opposed to being (known) facts until the facts become reliably known IMO.

That's my point, nothing more than that!

[CentreLine]

The company is still trading. To enable it to do that since last May, it must have been paying its suppliers, its tradesmen, its security staff and the police. All of these payments were made to the exclusion of HMRC.

.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention a new fitted kitchen

[CentreLine]

Thanks for your very prompt response but I'm not sure if you've clarified any of the issues that you had simply raised suppositions about.

I've peeked into this thread periodically over the past couple of weeks and see that you have been very active, possibly the most prolific poster on the thread actually.

However, I don't believe that you've added any helpful value with your responses to the queries I raised and wonder what drives you to comment here so prolifically?

Purely out of possibly selfish self interest I might add!

WHAT? For most of us CWG has put accurate and understandable comment on this thread. Perhaps, now that it is morning, you would be good enough to be more specific about what you consider to be "supposition". Then we can all make a judgement as to who we should follow for reliable posts. It is always good to learn from experts and maybe you can join in with something constructive and add to the enjoyment

[CentreLine]

Personally speaking, I can't see why you suggest that HMRC want rid of CW (implying that the RFC corporate vehicle has no relevance)

I think you will find that it was one of my uneducated posts, referring to a newspaper suggestion, that HMRC wanted rid of CW. As I recall CWG responded to my comment and if not rubbished it, certainly watered it down substantially.

But clearly you have something to offer this thread so how about picking appart CWG's comments one by one, with informed counter argument, and we call all sit back, enjoy the show and make our own judgement. If, hpwever, you are only prepared to say "your wrong" then it is not helpful or entertaining.

[Leithenhibby]

How is anyone going to stop Whyte 'coming back'? Despite what everyone seems to think, he is the rightful owner unless the club goes into liquidation.

Anyone that wants to buy Rangers will have to deal with Whyte. :confused:

[down-the-slope]

How is anyone going to stop Whyte 'coming back'? Despite what everyone seems to think, he is the rightful owner unless the club goes into liquidation.

Anyone that wants to buy Rangers will have to deal with Whyte. :confused:

:agree: indeed...its af it because he is now the bady and SFA say he is not fit and proper (which he will rightly contest) people think he has disappeared. He will want to leave the stage on his terms and with cash in his pocket - and liquidation aside - he will manage that...as he has the aces in being shareholder...even if others want to sue for perceived breaches of trust / undertakings...he could just tie that up in court proceedings while Rangers slowly die

The other bit that has got lost in all this is that the Administrators are court appointed and they have to report to the court....I wonder how they are going to be able to show that they have acted in best interests of creditors...which is main legal duty...wheteher the 'business' survives or not is not their remit other than to serve creditors best interests....

[WindyMiller]

:agree: indeed...its af it because he is now the bady and SFA say he is not fit and proper (which he will rightly contest) people think he has disappeared. He will want to leave the stage on his terms and with cash in his pocket - and liquidation aside - he will manage that...as he has the aces in being shareholder...even if others want to sue for perceived breaches of trust / undertakings...he could just tie that up in court proceedings while Rangers slowly die

The other bit that has got lost in all this is that the Administrators are court appointed and they have to report to the court....I wonder how they are going to be able to show that they have acted in best interests of creditors...which is main legal duty...wheteher the 'business' survives or not is not their remit other than to serve creditors best interests....

SFA clearly lay the blame fairly and squarely on the people who were desperate to get any buyer they could find.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/sfa-chief-responsibility-for-owner-test-lay-with-rangers-1-2165105

[TornadoHibby]

I think you will find that it was one of my uneducated posts, referring to a newspaper suggestion, that HMRC wanted rid of CW. As I recall CWG responded to my comment and if not rubbished it, certainly watered it down substantially.

But clearly you have something to offer this thread so how about picking appart CWG's comments one by one, with informed counter argument, and we call all sit back, enjoy the show and make our own judgement. If, hpwever, you are only prepared to say "your wrong" then it is not helpful or entertaining.

If I thought that I could add factual and helpful comments to this thread then I would but so long as this situation is retained "behind closed doors" in the main speculation on speculation is not helpful to anyone IMO! :agree:

That's why I haven't posted unless I have (personally) thought that some comments are worthy of highlighting for substance or clarity to be added even if (selfishly) only for me! :confused:

I had no intention of spoiling the show for anyone else however!

[Spike Mandela]

More musings from a legalese perspective...........

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/what-deadlines-do-duff-phelps-have-re-rangers-football-club-plc-in-administration/#more-911

[TornadoHibby]

WHAT? For most of us CWG has put accurate and understandable comment on this thread. Perhaps, now that it is morning, you would be good enough to be more specific about what you consider to be "supposition". Then we can all make a judgement as to who we should follow for reliable posts. It is always good to learn from experts and maybe you can join in with something constructive and add to the enjoyment

I don't agree that speculation on speculation is either necessarily accurate nor understandable but then that's my opinion and I do understand and appreciate that others are entitled to different views! :agree:

Don't bother following me as I won't be posting hypothetical "what if" analysis for the reasons already given! :wink: :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Now we all know it football rather than straight business...

But lets assume it just business...why would any creditor agree a CVA when there are millions in assets still with in the company? CVA's are when there is little prospect of getting full payment due to lack of assets.
Do you fancy 10p in the £ Mr creditor...nah i'll just wait on liquidation as i reckon that nice shiney stadium / MP / car park (the one that was going to have Govan Vegas on it) / player contracts are worth a few bob and will get me more........

Discuss :rolleyes:

I've mentioned a few times that, from HMRC's immediate point of view, they would be better off waiting for liquidation.However, the counter-argument to that is that that may result in shutting off a future revenue stream. I had a situation where I was able to demonstrate to HMRC that pursuing their proposed settlement would result in the taxpayer's bankruptcy and no money for them. By accepting a lower settlement, they were able to recover that amount in full, plus (and this is my point) would secure a future income stream from the business.

The value in keeping the business going is, I reckon, the player squad. The admins have alluded to this a few times. I am not sure on this point, but in liquidation the players' contracts are either voided or revert to the SFA.

Incidentally, I have been saying for a few years now that the only way out for Hearts is liquidation... for the very reasons you mention.

[CropleyWasGod]

Personally speaking, I can't see why you suggest that HMRC want rid of CW (implying that the RFC corporate vehicle has no relevance) nor why you suggest that RFC under SDM's stewardship might have been 'at it' regarding payment HMRC liabilities when MIH is an organisation which has a large network of professional advisors whose advice it will act upon, even tax matters, controversial though that may sound in relation to a lot of the unsubstantiated suggestions and suppositions being posted on mb's as though there is some foundation behind them!

Interesting though some of these comments may be, they will only be that , as opposed to being (known) facts until the facts become reliably known IMO.

That's my point, nothing more than that!

First of all, I didn't suggest that HMRC want rid of CW. I merely repeated the speculation.

I didn't suggest that RFC might have been "at it" under SDM. I repeated the fact of the two HMRC enquiries.

[s.a.m]

Personally speaking, I can't see why you suggest that HMRC want rid of CW (implying that the RFC corporate vehicle has no relevance) nor why you suggest that RFC under SDM's stewardship might have been 'at it' regarding payment HMRC liabilities when MIH is an organisation which has a large network of professional advisors whose advice it will act upon, even tax matters, controversial though that may sound in relation to a lot of the unsubstantiated suggestions and suppositions being posted on mb's as though there is some foundation behind them!

Interesting though some of these comments may be, they will only be that , as opposed to being (known) facts until the facts become reliably known IMO.

That's my point, nothing more than that!

He's obviously capable of defending himself.........but I think he has made the point that he DOESN'T think that HMRC could demand regime change, but that it has been reported by others that they have. As far as SDM goes, is that not what the big tax case is about? So HMRC have declared that they believe the regime were 'at it', at that time. Or am I missing something?



Edit: and he's beaten me to it..........

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't agree that speculation on speculation is either necessarily accurate nor understandable but then that's my opinion and I do understand and appreciate that others are entitled to different views! :agree:

Don't bother following me as I won't be posting hypothetical "what if" analysis for the reasons already given! :wink: :greengrin

If we all refrained from speculation and opinion, there would be hardly any threads on Hibs.net.

[TornadoHibby]

If we all refrained from speculation and opinion, there would be hardly any threads on Hibs.net.

Can't disagree with that but something like this case is not something that I feel that speculation upon speculation is suited to and only serves the purpose of a few rather than the population generally! :rolleyes:

[Sas_The_Hibby]

I've mentioned a few times that, from HMRC's immediate point of view, they would be better off waiting for liquidation.However, the counter-argument to that is that that may result in shutting off a future revenue stream. I had a situation where I was able to demonstrate to HMRC that pursuing their proposed settlement would result in the taxpayer's bankruptcy and no money for them. By accepting a lower settlement, they were able to recover that amount in full, plus (and this is my point) would secure a future income stream from the business.

The value in keeping the business going is, I reckon, the player squad. The admins have alluded to this a few times. I am not sure on this point, but in liquidation the players' contracts are either voided or revert to the SFA.

Incidentally, I have been saying for a few years now that the only way out for Hearts is liquidation... for the very reasons you mention.

And for SO MANY other reasons! :greengrin:wink:

[TornadoHibby]

First of all, I didn't suggest that HMRC want rid of CW. I merely repeated the speculation.


My point exactly, speculation upon speculation!


I didn't suggest that RFC might have been "at it" under SDM. I repeated the fact of the two HMRC enquiries.

I think that you'll find that you did in a previous thread from last night when you stated:-

"There is a clear history of non-payment in the CW era, and .... perhaps in the SDM years too, HMRC will know that."

Have you ever considered that the actions now being considered as "not compliant" by HMRC may well have been at the recommendation of a professional advisor, who had examined the tax "mechanism" at the heart of this particular aspect of the Administration and RFC finances and, who had recommended it as a "mechanism" which was tax compliant? :confused: :wink:

Perhaps if HMRC are successful with the BTC, as it now seems to have been christened, it will be possible to recoup the tax and penalties from the PII of a professional advisor but, then again, that is speculation without having seen the facts on my part! :rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

Can't disagree with that but something like this case is not something that I feel that speculation upon speculation is suited to and only serves the purpose of a few rather than the population generally! :rolleyes:

At the risk of sounding like I am banging my own drum, almost three weeks ago I offered the opinion that CW couldn't have a valid claim to the RFC assets. As things turn out, that is the opinion of the admins, as well as most informed parties I have spoken to on the same subject. So, did I get lucky with that, or was I exercising my own judgement and instinct?

An old boss and mentor of mine once said to me "there are people in this world, and accountants are particularly guilty of this, who have to wait until the last full stop is put on the last piece of paper in the last file before they make a decision. They will never make it in business." That is something that has stayed with me in my own business dealings. Instinct and gut reaction are more important in business than the manuals will admit.

Now, I am out of here. I have Ron to fluff, and sannies to make up for today's wee trip.

[TornadoHibby]

At the risk of sounding like I am banging my own drum, almost three weeks ago I offered the opinion that CW couldn't have a valid claim to the RFC assets. As things turn out, that is the opinion of the admins, as well as most informed parties I have spoken to on the same subject. So, did I get lucky with that, or was I exercising my own judgement and instinct?

Lucky IMO unless you are privy to the actual information! :rolleyes:


An old boss and mentor of mine once said to me "there are people in this world, and accountants are particularly guilty of this, who have to wait until the last full stop is put on the last piece of paper in the last file before they make a decision. They will never make it in business." That is something that has stayed with me in my own business dealings. Instinct and gut reaction are more important in business than the manuals will admit.

I'm only suggesting that one becomes intimately acquainted with the actual facts before becoming a font of all knowledge! Anything else is irresponsible IMO and a professional advisor's parent governing body would be particularly interested in it's members that did not as would the PII insurers of such members! :agree:


Now, I am out of here. I have Ron to fluff, and sannies to make up for today's wee trip.

Good luck with your tasks and enjoy the trip! :wink: :greengrin

[Hibs Class]

It looks like that is the reason they wanted rid of CW. With him gone it looks more likely that they will cut a deal. Not sure I like that


To what extent is CW relevant? The activities/liability throughout has been that of Rangers Football Club and I would have thought that CW's role as owner/shareholder/director etc. was secondary. Otherwise in similar situations it would be possible to just point at the bad man, say that he's gone now, and please go lightly on us.

[grunt]

Can't disagree with that but something like this case is not something that I feel that speculation upon speculation is suited to and only serves the purpose of a few rather than the population generally! :rolleyes:3250 posts might suggest otherwise... :dunno:

[Billy Whizz]

I've enjoyed CWG's updates and views on this. As I don't really understand most of the options on the Rangers situation, his guide is helpful to me

[grunt]

I'm only suggesting that one becomes intimately acquainted with the actual facts before becoming a font of all knowledge! Anything else is irresponsible IMO ... Last time I looked, this was a discussion forum. We don't need no facts! :wink:


... a professional advisor's parent governing body would be particularly interested in it's members that did not as would the PII insurers of such members! :agree:Geez. I sure hope CWG isn't gonna charge us for his time!

[Benny Brazil]

Lucky IMO unless you are privy to the actual information! :rolleyes:



I'm only suggesting that one becomes intimately acquainted with the actual facts before becoming a font of all knowledge! Anything else is irresponsible IMO and a professional advisor's parent governing body would be particularly interested in it's members that did not as would the PII insurers of such members! :agree:



Good luck with your tasks and enjoy the trip! :wink: :greengrin

Oh jeez lighten up Tornado.

I have enjoyed this thread - as a mere mortal who knows very little about the ins and outs of accounts,balance sheets, company transactions etc - it has been insightful, helpful and humorous to read CWG's / Cav Greens and everyone else's thoughts and input into the subject. Of course no one on here knows exactly what is going on - but this is a discussion forum and people are discussing it and trying to get a better understanding of what is happening.

[s.a.m]

Oh jeez lighten up Tornado.

I have enjoyed this thread - as a mere mortal who knows very little about the ins and outs of accounts,balance sheets, company transactions etc - it has been insightful, helpful and humorous to read CWG's / Cav Greens and everyone else's thoughts and input into the subject. Of course no one on here knows exactly what is going on - but this is a discussion forum and people are discussing it and trying to get a better understanding of what is happening.

:agree:

[TornadoHibby]

3250 posts might suggest otherwise... :dunno:

Can't disagree with the numbers tbh but why do papers like the Sun, Star, People etc have so many more readers per day than say The Times, FT, Scotsman and Herald? :confused:

Something to do with reporting stories with 'an edge' of suggestion in one with the other keen to stick to facts as far as possible! :dunno::dunno:

The second that the 'suggestions' begin to be portrayed somehow as dependable knowledge based facts the whole thing just becomes very silly IMO as people reading may as well conjure up a version that suits them for themselves! :confused:

That's my point!

[grunt]

More guff from Duff & Phelps...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17323222?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=sportsound
Rangers: Tax case outcome 'will not hold up sale'

Joint administrator Paul Clark says the pending outcome of Rangers' tax dispute will not hold up the sale of the club.
Rangers are awaiting the verdict of a tribunal, commonly known as the 'big tax case', relating to payments to employees over a 10-year period. "The big tax is something that is out of our hands," said Clark. "Even if the big tax case decision has not actually been delivered, we still think that we could conduct a transaction with a new buyer." And he added: "Just because we don't have the final extent of the amount that's outstanding, it needn't hold that process up, so it doesn't concern me. "To some extent it's about what that would mean in terms of the deal that was offered to settle the big tax case."

Asked about the possibility of a "deal" being made with HM Revenue and Customs, Clark replied: "We're not at the stage where we can go to any of the creditors with any specifics and so I think that it would be too early for me to say what the chances of a deal with any of the creditors are. "It's something that, when we've got a considered position, when we've got a suitable purchaser, that will be the time to sit down and talk to the various of the stakeholders who at the end of the day will need to make the decisions and that's the creditors."
Clark also reiterated his firm Duff and Phelps' view that the club can avoid liqidation and that the required information was being made available to prospective buyers. "The plan of ours from the outset is to avoid any talk of liquidation," he said. "We firmly believe that Rangers Football Club will continue to operate and that's why we are talking to all these parties and that's why it was so important to get all the necessary cuts in place so that we could keep the club in operation for long enough to enable a party to come in and make an acquisition.
"We have given as much clarity as we can. There are some issues that still need to be dealt. "We believe that we can give that clarity to enable someone to make a considered judgement in a more stabilised environment so that they know what they're buying and that they know what they're getting into."

Meanwhile, former Motherwell chief executive Pat Nevin believes Duff and Phelps's success in reaching an agreement over wage cuts at Ibrox (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17301939) "is a way for Rangers to possibly survive only until the summer". Former Scotland international Nevin, who was at Motherwell during the Fir Park club's period of administration, told BBC Radio 5 live: "There are two ways out; one is a CVA [Company Voluntary Arrangement] then asking HMRC to look for 10p in the pound and the £49m big tax bill and there's a smaller tax bill - which is considerable too.
"If the HMRC do not agree then there is no route out. Nobody is going to come in and pay £60m/£70m to Rangers because that money will never be recouped.

"They still have massive problems."

Well said Pat Nevin.

[grunt]

Can't disagree with the numbers tbh but why do papers like the Sun, Star, People etc have so many more readers per day than say The Times, FT, Scotsman and Herald? :confused:

Something to do with reporting stories with 'an edge' of suggestion in one with the other keen to stick to facts as far as possible! :dunno::dunno:

I think you'll find it has more to do with the former papers' fascination with naked ladies and soap stars' indiscretions and other "celebrity" claptrap.

[Hibs7]

I think you'll find it has more to do with the former papers' fascination with naked ladies and soap stars' indiscretions and other "celebrity" claptrap.

Totally agree, say's a lot about the mentality of the average Brit that the most popular papers are these trash, also soaps and reality programmes have the highest viewers, limited mentality rules present day Britain.

[TornadoHibby]

I think you'll find it has more to do with the former papers' fascination with naked ladies and soap stars' indiscretions and other "celebrity" claptrap.

Nothing to do with the "red top" fascination with applying their principal doctrine of "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" then! :wink: :greengrin

Listen, if that philosophy blows your hair back then I'm sure that you'll just run with it! :agree:

You might be surprised when the facts become known though should they be quite different to the current "red top" esque speculation running through our media and mb's especially on this topic! :wink: :greengrin

[jdships]

Am I missing something in all this ?
How come someone can " buy" and operate RFC with a court case involving HME & C still to be heard ?
If a deal is not struck with HME&C surely the buyers would become liable for the full amount due
Does this mean that they will be prepared to throw in/write off £60/70M at the stroke of a pen ?
I appreciate that Pat Nevin has spoken about this but for me what is " the bottom line" here ?
Is this all going to boil up again at seasons end ?

:confused:

[johnrebus]

Totally agree, say's a lot about the mentality of the average Brit that the most popular papers are these trash, also soaps and reality programmes have the highest viewers, limited mentality rules present day Britain.


IMHO by far the best coverage of the Rangers fiasco has been by the much maligned - and rightly so - Daily Mail.


:cb

[Kaiser1962]

Lucky IMO unless you are privy to the actual information! :rolleyes:



Or an informed opinion reached after a careful analysis of all known facts AND speculative comments, based on many years of experience working in this particular sector with the very scenario and set of circumstance which is now unfolding in Glasgow.

Your criticism is harsh and, IMO, unfounded.

[greenginger]

Am I missing something in all this ?
How come someone can " buy" and operate RFC with a court case involving HME & C still to be heard ?
If a deal is not struck with HME&C surely the buyers would become liable for the full amount due
Does this mean that they will be prepared to throw in/write off £60/70M at the stroke of a pen ?
I appreciate that Pat Nevin has spoken about this but for me what is " the bottom line" here ?
Is this all going to boil up again at seasons end ?

:confused:

I'm sure Paul Murray and the Bluenose Knights are just making sure they get a seat at the table. Any offer will be conditional on numerous conditions that the administrators can't guarantee at the moment so the process will run until the BTC is decided.

[blindsummit]

I've enjoyed CWG's updates and views on this. As I don't really understand most of the options on the Rangers situation, his guide is helpful to me

I agree. Very informative and enjoyable. Just the kind of posts I look for on a forum. Great conversation.

[Seveno]

If I thought that I could add factual and helpful comments to this thread then I would but so long as this situation is retained "behind closed doors" in the main speculation on speculation is not helpful to anyone IMO! :agree:

That's why I haven't posted unless I have (personally) thought that some comments are worthy of highlighting for substance or clarity to be added even if (selfishly) only for me! :confused:

I had no intention of spoiling the show for anyone else however!


Can't disagree with the numbers tbh but why do papers like the Sun, Star, People etc have so many more readers per day than say The Times, FT, Scotsman and Herald? :confused:

Something to do with reporting stories with 'an edge' of suggestion in one with the other keen to stick to facts as far as possible! :dunno::dunno:

The second that the 'suggestions' begin to be portrayed somehow as dependable knowledge based facts the whole thing just becomes very silly IMO as people reading may as well conjure up a version that suits them for themselves! :confused:

That's my point!


Your comments are insulting to the many people who are enjoying the comments, speculation, analysis, opinion, humour and old fashioned banter on this thread.

If you don't like it, can I respectfully suggest that you refrain from reading it.

[jdships]

I'm sure Paul Murray and the Bluenose Knights are just making sure they get a seat at the table. Any offer will be conditional on numerous conditions that the administrators can't guarantee at the moment so the process will run until the BTC is decided.

That sounds like a sensible take to me
Thankyou :thumbsup:

[H18sry]

Imagine my surprise when I walked into ASDA today to find Rangers players bag packing to raise funds for there club #skintandoutofthecup :thumbsup: