Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Gatecrasher]

What a bloody farce
i hope they get Shafted every way possible

[aDONis]

There's no need for Murray to be part of the deal, it could be done directly between Ticketus and Whyte, then held in escrow.

It sounds to me as though the money was held in escrow until the takeover is complete, but did not go direct to RFC to pay Lloyds but instead went to another group company and then Lloyds.

The trigger to release the funds could quite well have been on contract signature when Whyte took control of RFC.

The kicker could be, that Ticketus are not on the list of creditors for any CVA. Instead it is one of Whytes companies, so he can manipulate which way the vote on any CVA goes.

For those of you not familiar with the term. Escrow is where something is held by a third party until certain conditions are met, and then that item or part of the item is released. A bit like getting a trusted mate to hold your stakes when you bet on a game of pool down the pub.

Sorry if that's condescending, it's not meant to be.

Yours
aDONis

[CropleyWasGod]

It sounds as though the money was held in escrow until the takeover is complete, but did not go direct to RFC to pay Lloyds but instead went to another group company and then Lloyds.

The trigger to release the funds could quite well have been on contract signature when Whyte took control of RFC.

The kicker could be, that Ticketus are not on the list of creditors for any CVA. Instead it is one of Whytes companies, so he can manipulate which way the vote on any CVA goes.

For those of you not familiar with the term. Escrow is where something is held by a third party until certain conditions are met, and then that item or part of the item is released. A bit like getting a trusted mate to hold your stakes when you bet on a game of pool down the pub.

Sorry if that's condescending, it's not meant to be.

Yours
aDONis

But that same company will be a debtor to RFC for £24m

Also... if CW is owed £18m, and HMRC £9m at the moment, he can't get the 75% majority he needs to bring the company out of administration.

[Andy74]

I'm lost and I now have no idea why they are in administration and who they owe money to and why?!

Also have no idea why this is being done now when the tax thing is imminent? Is this a way to avoid it?

[ancienthibby]

I found the administrators completely incredible on the question of cash at the bank, which a number of reporters questioned them on.

Their standard answer was 'we have yet to conduct an examination of that', or words to that effect.

Surely that's about the first thing an administrator gets to grip with - the cash position, all transactions in the past week, month, etc, who authorises payments, what the cash flow is, etc??

On all these, they put up a huge deflect shield.

One thing we did learn was that only a down payment has been made for Jelavic.

[aDONis]

But that same company will be a debtor to RFC for £24m

Also... if CW is owed £18m, and HMRC £9m at the moment, he can't get the 75% majority he needs to bring the company out of administration.

No, RFC owe the £18m to Craig Whyte's company.

Also as I understand it, RFC are disputing the £9m figure and claim it's only about half of that (only a rumour mind).

So the potential CVA percentages could be closer than you and I think.

However, I think the fundamental problem is that RFC are losing money quicker than Whyte can plug the gaps, and the situation was begining to spiral. It certainly sounds as though things like the big tax case have moved from being a chance of happening to likely to happen.

From a business point of view and faced with all of that, you've got to try and clear the decks quickly and realise what you can.

What I'm not sure of, is how much of the big-tax liablilty would be used in any Creditors calculation. If the creditors percentages are tight, what discretion is there in only recognising a small percentage of the big-tax. (Not that I'm suggesting any sort of pre-pack a la Leeds United). :wink:

[Keith_M]

We're now in the incredible situation whereby the Administrators are business associates of CW, at the very least 'CW Friendly'.

How can anyone possibly trust that there will be any outcome other than what CW has planned all along, that of getting Rangers for nothing and magically removing all the debt?

As for the Ticketus money, and the fact that CW didn't actually have the money to takeover Rangers, it has been public knowledge since last summer. Quite how the mainstream press thought that it wasn't even worth investigating those calims until know is quite incredible.

[CropleyWasGod]

We're now in the incredible situation whereby the Administrators are business associates of CW, at the very least 'CW Friendly'.

How can anyone possibly trust that there will be any outcome other than what CW has planned all along, that of getting Rangers for nothing and magically removing all the debt?

As for the Ticketus money, and the fact that CW didn't actually have the money to takeover Rangers, it has been public knowledge since last summer. Quite how the mainstream press thought that it wasn't even worth investigating those calims until know is quite incredible.

He hasn't got it for nothing. He has paid £18m of RFC's cash.... cash which he will have to pay back, and more.

And there is debt... £24m to Ticketus.

As for the cosy-pals bit, I get the feeling that his erstwhile "pals" might be happy to ditch him, if only to stave off any criticism of their integrity. This may be too high-profile for any of the stunts they may have pulled in the past.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm lost and I now have no idea why they are in administration and who they owe money to and why?!

Also have no idea why this is being done now when the tax thing is imminent? Is this a way to avoid it?

I am guessing... from what one of the administrators said, that the "intention" to go into administration was announced to force HMRC to come to an early negotiated settlement on all liabilities. HMRC then called CW's bluff, and went for it themselves. CW then tried to get control back by actually filing for it.

As for avoiding the BTC, I don't think that is likely either. That is clearly in the thoughts of the administrators. My gut feeling is that a negotiated settlement will be done there.

[Smidge]

As for the cosy-pals bit, I get the feeling that his erstwhile "pals" might be happy to ditch him, if only to stave off any criticism of their integrity. This may be too high-profile for any of the stunts they may have pulled in the past.

The entire opening gambit of their statement seemed to be aimed at distancing themselves from being his close acquaintances. However, I am sceptical as it has been suggested elsewhere that they advised him on the takeover itself, this being at odds from their claim to have been brought in the latter stages of 2011.

[CropleyWasGod]

The entire opening gambit of their statement seemed to be aimed at distancing themselves from being his close acquaintances. However, I am sceptical as it has been suggested elsewhere that they advised him on the takeover itself, this being at odds from their claim to have been brought in the latter stages of 2011.

Yup, I heard that too.:agree: They know the world is watching... this case is different from any other scam that "may" have been pulled in the past.

[strummbo]

SOmeone today said tha the articles surrounding membership of the SPL declare that should a club go out of business, perhaps like rangers... then all they need do is re-apply to the SPL as it is not governed by the articles of association that govern leagues 1, 2 & 3...

If this is the case... dear oh dear..

Moreover, if they get a reduced rate of payment to HMRC, say 30p in the pound... what is the point of anyone paying tax if it can be bypassed

Alex Salmond intervention dragging Celtic into the mud is well dodgy too. For the first minister to declare publically that Scottish Football needs Rangers is appalling.

Me, I wont be voting for SNP or Independence given his biased remarks... keep in mind Salmond tried to drum up interest in Hertz on a state visit to Quatar...

Dreadful state of affairs...

[Smidge]

I am guessing... from what one of the administrators said, that the "intention" to go into administration was announced to force HMRC to come to an early negotiated settlement on all liabilities. HMRC then called CW's bluff, and went for it themselves. CW then tried to get control back by actually filing for it.

As for avoiding the BTC, I don't think that is likely either. That is clearly in the thoughts of the administrators. My gut feeling is that a negotiated settlement will be done there.

And if there is a negotiated settlement, pressure needs to be put on ALL our elected representatives - Westminster and Holyrood - to ensure that HMRC do not settle for anything less than they should. This is entirely separate, in my view, from whatever long-lasting punishment the football authorities should levy for 14 years of financial doping.

(I say 14 years, because the EBT thing kicked in during the largesse of the Advocaat era, and he was appointed in 1998)

[CropleyWasGod]

And if there is a negotiated settlement, pressure needs to be put on ALL our elected representatives - Westminster and Holyrood - to ensure that HMRC do not settle for anything less than they should. This is entirely separate, in my view, from whatever long-lasting punishment the football authorities should levy for 14 years of financial doping.

(I say 14 years, because the EBT thing kicked in during the largesse of the Advocaat era, and he was appointed in 1998)

Agreed, but the words "blood" and "stone" come to mind.... and I have used them often in discussions with HMRC. What's the most that they could get here? Either:-

1. in a liquidation, a percentage share 75%??, (taking into account Ticketus and others) of the value of MP, Ibrox and the car park.

or 2. allowing them to trade on, and pay off the full whack over the next 10-20 years??? Ohhh, that would be sair!!

or 3. mortgaging the whole lot of the property. Is that feasible?

[Irish_Steve]

If that`s the case, then, as someone else on here suggested, all the other SPL clubs (bar Celtc and the other financially cheating club), should upsticks and leave the SPL - bring up Dundee, Ross County and one other for a truly competitive league

[hibeeleicester]

SOmeone today said tha the articles surrounding membership of the SPL declare that should a club go out of business, perhaps like rangers... then all they need do is re-apply to the SPL as it is not governed by the articles of association that govern leagues 1, 2 & 3...

If this is the case... dear oh dear..

Moreover, if they get a reduced rate of payment to HMRC, say 30p in the pound... what is the point of anyone paying tax if it can be bypassed

Alex Salmond intervention dragging Celtic into the mud is well dodgy too. For the first minister to declare publically that Scottish Football needs Rangers is appalling.

Me, I wont be voting for SNP or Independence given his biased remarks... keep in mind Salmond tried to drum up interest in Hertz on a state visit to Quatar...

Dreadful state of affairs...

I can only laugh at comments like this.

Salmond would do the same for us, football is a major part of the economy.

[DH1875]

If they get away with this we should just bite the bullet, go out and sign Messi and Ronaldo, win the league and cup and then say sorry to everyone but we can't pay our way. It's a total joke if they not only get away with this but also come out of it at the other side smelling of roses and debt free.

[IWasThere2016]

Who owns Ticketus? Sounds like something some daft bank would operate .. It better no be RBS or Lloyds or the taxpayer is getting it up them left, right and centre!

[CropleyWasGod]

Who owns Ticketus? Sounds like something some daft bank would operate .. It better no be RBS or Lloyds or the taxpayer is getting it up them left, right and centre!

lol.

Octopus :agree:

http://www.principlefirst.co.uk/investments/octopus-vcts/

[blindsummit]

Who owns Ticketus? Sounds like something some daft bank would operate .. It better no be RBS or Lloyds or the taxpayer is getting it up them left, right and centre!

I don't know who owns them, but I suspect their sphincter has been rapidly tightning over the last few days, as from what I've seen they are going to be left high and dry!

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't know who owns them, but I suspect their sphincter has been rapidly tightning over the last few days, as from what I've seen they are going to be left high and dry!

They insure against this type of thing, apparently. (see earlier on in this thread, or maybe the other one... losing the plot here :greengrin)

[blackpoolhibs]

I can only laugh at comments like this.

Salmond would do the same for us, football is a major part of the economy.

Paying taxes is a bigger part of ANY economy, i'd bet he'd have more to say about this if it was an english private company trying to weasel its way out of this?

[blindsummit]

They insure against this type of thing, apparently. (see earlier on in this thread, or maybe the other one... losing the plot here :greengrin)

you and me both! This whole thing administration thing and all the possible outcomes is giving me a headache. Which is a vast improvement on how the Old Firm normally make me feel which is completely nauseous :greengrin

[strummbo]

C'mon hibeeleicester... are you for real...

Salmond or any first minister would not give a monkey for the financial plight of Hibernian

Football is not a major part of the economy at all, its a bit part player in terms of turnover and tax comapred to other industries

Where was he when the fishing industry got rail roaded into EU quotas, where was he when other, more contributory areas towards the state coffers were in plight and headin down the tubes?

No where, he kept shtoom.

re celtic needing rangers... mebbes aye mebbes naw... but if push came to shove and one had to sink... do tesco need M&S, do sainsbury need Morrisons...

business is about driving your competitors out of business and taking them over... kinda like what mercer proposed years back

only this time its whyte trying to abscond from his fiscal responsability to the state via tax etc...

sordid little bunch that they are...

mon the tash and hibs...::wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

you and me both! This whole thing administration thing and all the possible outcomes is giving me a headache. Which is a vast improvement on how the Old Firm normally make me feel which is completely nauseous :greengrin

It's fun, though....and just warms us up for the main event, happening at a bus-shelter near you very soon :cb

[andy1875]

I really don't understand all the ins and outs of the Rangers case but the more I hear and read about this £75 million odd figure, the more I start to believe they are only going to be paying about 10-15% back?

Spend millions of pounds over years whilst clearly not being able to afford tax bills and when the taxman really does come knocking shout......we're skint, let's go into administration!

Is it really that easy to in reality to make a mockery of the tax system? What's to stop any football club or any other business for that matter to spend money, with-hold taxes and then say we can't afford to pay said tax bill then in a nutshell come to an agreement to only pay a fraction of the original figure?

Shocking if this the way of it. I may have misunderstood mind!

GGTTH

[ancienthibby]

It's fun, though....and just warms us up for the main event, happening at a bus-shelter near you very soon :cb

Who are the directors left at Rangers??

I know Greig, the security guy (I kid you not! maybe Anderson?), Bain the MD and MacIntyre the FD, all exited.

Is wrongful trading about to catch all these directors out!?

I can not imagine that 'wrongful trading' is not wholly applicable right now!!:greengrin

[Hibee87]

had a quick scan of this = http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Rules%20as%20at%2018-Apr-11%20(CURRENT).pdf but can't see anything to say what will or will not happen. maybe one of the more eagle eyes members will pick somthing up :confused:

[StevieC]

What's to stop any football club or any other business for that matter to spend money, with-hold taxes and then say we can't afford to pay said tax bill then in a nutshell come to an agreement to only pay a fraction of the original figure?

I think that HMRC will be well aware of the possible issues that accepting a deal would/could cause, and may well push for liquidation if they dont get what they want.

[GreenPJ]

C'mon hibeeleicester... are you for real...

Salmond or any first minister would not give a monkey for the financial plight of Hibernian

Football is not a major part of the economy at all, its a bit part player in terms of turnover and tax comapred to other industries

Where was he when the fishing industry got rail roaded into EU quotas, where was he when other, more contributory areas towards the state coffers were in plight and headin down the tubes?

No where, he kept shtoom.

re celtic needing rangers... mebbes aye mebbes naw... but if push came to shove and one had to sink... do tesco need M&S, do sainsbury need Morrisons...

business is about driving your competitors out of business and taking them over... kinda like what mercer proposed years back

only this time its whyte trying to abscond from his fiscal responsability to the state via tax etc...

sordid little bunch that they are...

mon the tash and hibs...::wink:

Too be fair when the EU fishing quotas came in my recollection was the SNP did kick up a big fuss but they did not have a mandate or public support at the same levels as they have now.

Football is not about driving your competitors out of business its about beating them in a game. Football may not be a significant contributor to the economy but there is a lot of public interest in it and sadly there is a lot of Rangers supporters therefore the same clamour would be made by 'some' of the electorate if no government comment was made.

None of this detracts from Rangers should pay the price for firstly avoiding tax (assuming its proved) and secondly selling out to a conman (allegedly).

[Keith_M]

I'm really surprised anyone is taking what various politicians are saying too seriously. So far as I know, we've had one SNP and one Labour politician (and presumably others) make meaningless soundbites, saying what they feel they have to so as to sound like they actually care.

The SNP, for example, are scared to alienate any potential voters, as are most other parties. They've tried already to make the independence issue appeal to Unionists/Loyalists by stating that the Queen will still be head of state after Independence. IMHO, what Salmond is doing now is just a continuation of that attempt at vote winning.

[ancienthibby]

Quite incredible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17067141

We are the administrators and we do not know where this money went!!

[BroxburnHibee]

Quite incredible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17067141

We are the administrators and we do not know where this money went!!

Surely there's a crime been committed there somewhere - outrageous.

Liquidate them I say :greengrin

[PaulSmith]

Quite incredible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17067141

We are the administrators and we do not know where this money went!!

I am confused now, says that Ticketus lent the cash to a parent company (Rangers FC Group) and not the company in administration (i.e Rangers FC) but then goes on to mention that they will now become unsecured creditors and be part of the CVA?


He said the Ticketus debt was not secured against the assets of the football club.
It means the ticket firm is unlikely to be repaid in full should Rangers exit the administration process.
Instead, Ticketus and other creditors would be asked to agree to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) to receive a percentage of what they are due.
Rangers FC Group, a separate entity from the club itself, remains solvent.
Ticketus loaned Rangers the money in return for flows of future season ticket sale revenue, a primary source of the Ibrox club's income.

[TornadoHibby]

I found the administrators completely incredible on the question of cash at the bank, which a number of reporters questioned them on.

Their standard answer was 'we have yet to conduct an examination of that', or words to that effect.

Surely that's about the first thing an administrator gets to grip with - the cash position, all transactions in the past week, month, etc, who authorises payments, what the cash flow is, etc??

On all these, they put up a huge deflect shield.

One thing we did learn was that only a down payment has been made for Jelavic.

I imagine that they have a "pretty good" understanding of the financial position of RFC but have not yet had time to set that out to the eagerly listening World in a manner that deals "safely" with all of the other "issues" (nature and substance of relationship with CW etc) that may or not be "smouldering" at the same time! :wink:

The next few days will reveal more I suspect as constant pressure from the media, politicians and fans etc will provoke information release over and above the statutory requirements! :agree:

[Hibs Class]

I can only laugh at comments like this.

Salmond would do the same for us, football is a major part of the economy.

I suspect you are talking pish, but I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you post links to salmond's interventions for motherwell, gretna, livingston and dundee and prove yourself right?

[blindsummit]

I am confused now, says that Ticketus lent the cash to a parent company (Rangers FC Group) and not the company in administration (i.e Rangers FC) but then goes on to mention that they will now become unsecured creditors and be part of the CVA?


He said the Ticketus debt was not secured against the assets of the football club.
It means the ticket firm is unlikely to be repaid in full should Rangers exit the administration process.
Instead, Ticketus and other creditors would be asked to agree to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) to receive a percentage of what they are due.
Rangers FC Group, a separate entity from the club itself, remains solvent.
Ticketus loaned Rangers the money in return for flows of future season ticket sale revenue, a primary source of the Ibrox club's income.

Just this whole ticketus thing alone stinks of fraud.

[greenginger]

If ,as it has been suggested ,Whyte has moved Rangers assets ,ie the Stadium and the training ground from the football club to the holding company,Rangers Football Group, leaving the football club with virtually no assets and a massive tax liability.

The football club is then allowed to be liquidated with all its debts and the holding company emerges with the stadium etc and reforms the football club.

One spoke in the wheel of this plan is the HMRC legal right to override property and asset shifting if it can be shown to have been done for
" non commercial purposes "

In other words if the HMRC consider this asset shifting is for tax reasons alone they can set it aside and treat the property as a part of the football club.

Any of the accountancy people still on this thread please clarify.

[degenerated]

I am confused now, says that Ticketus lent the cash to a parent company (Rangers FC Group) and not the company in administration (i.e Rangers FC) but then goes on to mention that they will now become unsecured creditors and be part of the CVA?


He said the Ticketus debt was not secured against the assets of the football club.
It means the ticket firm is unlikely to be repaid in full should Rangers exit the administration process.
Instead, Ticketus and other creditors would be asked to agree to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) to receive a percentage of what they are due.
Rangers FC Group, a separate entity from the club itself, remains solvent.
Ticketus loaned Rangers the money in return for flows of future season ticket sale revenue, a primary source of the Ibrox club's income.

If, as has been previously suggested, that the ticketus money was either in whytes sweaty little hands or in escrow prior to the deal being concluded then the little shyster has used an asset as collateral to finance the purchase of the huns. I'm sure the relevant authorities will be looking quite closely at that one :agree: won't be an FSA investigation it'll be the fraud squad :hilarious

[Billy Whizz]

If ,as it has been suggested ,Whyte has moved Rangers assets ,ie the Stadium and the training ground from the football club to the holding company,Rangers Football Group, leaving the football club with virtually no assets and a massive tax liability.

The football club is then allowed to be liquidated with all its debts and the holding company emerges with the stadium etc and reforms the football club.

One spoke in the wheel of this plan is the HMRC legal right to override property and asset shifting if it can be shown to have been done for
" non commercial purposes "

In other words if the HMRC consider this asset shifting is for tax reasons alone they can set it aside and treat the property as a part of the football club.

Any of the accountancy people still on this thread please clarify.

Maybe this was his way of protecting the football club from the big tax case with HMRC?

[blackpoolhibs]

I suspect you are talking pish, but I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you post links to salmond's interventions for motherwell, gretna, livingston and dundee and prove yourself right?

:agree: I think you will wait a very long time.

[truehibernian]

If ,as it has been suggested ,Whyte has moved Rangers assets ,ie the Stadium and the training ground from the football club to the holding company,Rangers Football Group, leaving the football club with virtually no assets and a massive tax liability.

The football club is then allowed to be liquidated with all its debts and the holding company emerges with the stadium etc and reforms the football club.

One spoke in the wheel of this plan is the HMRC legal right to override property and asset shifting if it can be shown to have been done for
" non commercial purposes "

In other words if the HMRC consider this asset shifting is for tax reasons alone they can set it aside and treat the property as a part of the football club.

Any of the accountancy people still on this thread please clarify.

Add into the mix the Ticketus scenario greenginger, does it not have all the hallmarks of a classic long firm fraud ?

[greenginger]

Maybe this was his way of protecting the football club from the big tax case with HMRC?


Yeah, and in the past I'm sure he has moved cash and bonds off-shore beyond the reaches of U K courts, but they can't easily move a football stadium offshore :greengrin

[TornadoHibby]

Quite incredible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17067141

We are the administrators and we do not know where this money went!!

"David Whitehouse, from administrators Duff and Phelps told a press conference: "Our understanding is that the funds from Ticketus didn't come through the company's account, they went through a parent company account so we haven't got visibility on that.

"Ticketus don't have security on the assets of the club."

Ticketus have refused to comment on the Rangers season ticket deal, citing client confidentiality."

I suspect it to be very unlikely that this ST cash has been lent in a manner which leaves it as Unsecured (similar to the HMRC debts) in a corporate environment that seems to have had "Administration" or similar associated with it since CW was associated with it. The ST cash lender will have some form of security for this cash which it was comfortable with at the time of lending it and I am sure that security would not have amounted to £Nil in value terms!

Ticketus may not be commenting as their client may not be the company in administration despite the "apparent" repayment method for the loan arising from future sales receipts of RFC ST's! :confused:

[greenginger]

Add into the mix the Ticketus scenario greenginger, does it not have all the hallmarks of a classic long firm fraud ?

Absolute racing certainty, I'm just hoping there are the means available to prevent this giant tax fraud and they are actually used by the HMRC .

[Billy Whizz]

Yeah, and in the past I'm sure he has moved cash and bonds off-shore beyond the reaches of U K courts, but they can't easily move a football stadium offshore :greengrin

Ha ha
Maybe his own way of moving Rangers out of the SPL
Play their games in Portsmouth

[HFC 0-7]

The Ticketus money was with CW's solicitors before the takeover.

Not the full 24.4 million though, when the first payment was due Craig Whyte sold more tickets to ticketus to cover the first payment. I heard that he initially only sold about 16 million worth of ST but when the first repayment was due (about 9M) he sold more to bring the total money to 24.4M. As the second wave of ST sales was to pay for the first repayment, Whyte never actually had the 24.4M.

It does seem that the only bills Whyte has been paying since he came has been the salaries.

[TornadoHibby]

If ,as it has been suggested ,Whyte has moved Rangers assets ,ie the Stadium and the training ground from the football club to the holding company,Rangers Football Group, leaving the football club with virtually no assets and a massive tax liability.

The football club is then allowed to be liquidated with all its debts and the holding company emerges with the stadium etc and reforms the football club.

One spoke in the wheel of this plan is the HMRC legal right to override property and asset shifting if it can be shown to have been done for
" non commercial purposes "

In other words if the HMRC consider this asset shifting is for tax reasons alone they can set it aside and treat the property as a part of the football club.

Any of the accountancy people still on this thread please clarify.

I haven't looked at the accounts of RFC or any other Group (and therefore related) company but it is the case that assets cannot be moved from one entity to another (particularly related) entity unless they are transferred at "fair market value". Directors of companies which may be, or are likely to become insolvent must be very careful not to permit such transactions or to behave recklessly! This (http://www.bankruptcy-insolvency.co.uk/ltd-companies/director-responsibilities.php) may help people follow this more easily!

"(Fraudulent) preferences" or "transactions at undervalue" are things to look at particularly!

[HFC 0-7]

"David Whitehouse, from administrators Duff and Phelps told a press conference: "Our understanding is that the funds from Ticketus didn't come through the company's account, they went through a parent company account so we haven't got visibility on that.

"Ticketus don't have security on the assets of the club."

Ticketus have refused to comment on the Rangers season ticket deal, citing client confidentiality."

I suspect it to be very unlikely that this ST cash has been lent in a manner which leaves it as Unsecured (similar to the HMRC debts) in a corporate environment that seems to have had "Administration" or similar associated with it since CW was associated with it. The ST cash lender will have some form of security for this cash which it was comfortable with at the time of lending it and I am sure that security would not have amounted to £Nil in value terms!

Ticketus may not be commenting as their client may not be the company in administration despite the "apparent" repayment method for the loan arising from future sales receipts of RFC ST's! :confused:

If they have loaned the money to another company does that not mean they are NOT effected by the administration? I believe the Ticketus deals mean that they basically sell their allocation of ST's first meaning they get their money back first. If Rangers exit administration will ticketus not just be looking to get their money when ST's for next year are on sale?

[TornadoHibby]

If they have loaned the money to another company does that not mean they are NOT effected by the administration? I believe the Ticketus deals mean that they basically sell their allocation of ST's first meaning they get their money back first. If Rangers exit administration will ticketus not just be looking to get their money when ST's for next year are on sale?

That will depend upon the terms of the loan facility documentation and agreement(s) none of which we can guess about with any degree of accuracy ! :confused:

[HFC 0-7]

That will depend upon the terms of the loan facility documentation and agreement(s) none of which we can guess about with any degree of accuracy ! :confused:

Its sounds to me like the parent company has taken out a loan that was due to be repaid via Rangers FC, if the loan was paid to the parent company, surely it was taken out by the parent company and therefore ticketus wont have to go accepting any administration deals?

[TornadoHibby]

Its sounds to me like the parent company has taken out a loan that was due to be repaid via Rangers FC, if the loan was paid to the parent company, surely it was taken out by the parent company and therefore ticketus wont have to go accepting any administration deals?

Very possibly but without seeing the documentation none of us can know the true position and debate is purely hypothetical! :confused:

[PaulSmith]

Alastair Johnston has asked crown office to conduct a criminal fraud investigation into CW's takeover, as per bbc reporters twitter

[DCI Gene Hunt]

Having sat back and observed for the past few days now the countless stories, the media frenzy and the hundreds of comments posted on here, I just thought I'd fling my tuppence worth in, for all it's worth.

Rangers have brought this misfortune on themselves entirely by their own doing and therefore should be held fully accountable. For one thing, as a UK taxpayer I am not happy at all that a company has diddled the Government out of at least £50 Million. It is in all our interests to see that this debt is paid back fully for our sakes.

Like many others who have expressed the same opinion here I believe that what Rangers have done over the past two decades, i.e. spending stupendous amounts of money that didn't exist and refusing to pay their appropriate dues with HMRC in order to gain footballing success is nothing short of a swindle. There is no doubt about it it is CHEATING. Cheats break the rules and therefore must be punished by the rules.

I have sat back and digested all of what the talking heads have to say - businessmen, lawyers, pundits, fans, idiot politicians - and I cannot reach any other conclusion that what we have here is undoubtedly an absolutely brilliant thing. For once, we have a fantastic opportunity to completely revamp Scottish football for the better. It is simply an opportunity we cannot and must not let pass us by.

We have an opportunity to destroy the old corrupt ways run by the Glasgow clubs and get back some real football. We have an opportunity to kick out a club which seems to think that it has divine rule in the SPL and has a right to cheat its way into victory and has some sort of right to be in the SPL. We have an opportunity to break an unfair duopoly which has destroyed any competition in the SPL and has hence damaged the game. We have a chance to level things both financially and in football terms. We have a chance to kick out the odious heathen bigotry which has decimated the reputation of our game.

We have a chance to have a fairer, livelier, more competative league, without the baggage of certain teams having an unfair political, financial and footballing upper hand, and without the disgusting ugly bigotry that seems to come with it.

I am furious that we have the likes of idiot Salmond mouthing that the game will be better with Rangers than without. Piffle! Our game is suffering *because* of Rangers. Speak to the fans. The only people who want Rangers to stay are Rangers themselves! Everyone else cannot wait to boot them out! All fans' forums of other clubs are bristling with the exact same sentiments being expressed here - and that sentiment is for goodness' sake, kick them out, and good riddance!

Now let's get that owed cash off them, get them liquidated, block any "phoenix" club from waltzing back in as if nothing has happened and let's get the rules, the cash and the league much fairer and look forward to good, entertaining, competitive football :agree:

Gene

[CropleyWasGod]

I haven't looked at the accounts of RFC or any other Group (and therefore related) company but it is the case that assets cannot be moved from one entity to another (particularly related) entity unless they are transferred at "fair market value". Directors of companies which may be, or are likely to become insolvent must be very careful not to permit such transactions or to behave recklessly! This (http://www.bankruptcy-insolvency.co.uk/ltd-companies/director-responsibilities.php) may help people follow this more easily!

"(Fraudulent) preferences" or "transactions at undervalue" are things to look at particularly!

The administrators were quite clear this afternoon in saying that the properties were still owned by RFC.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not the full 24.4 million though, when the first payment was due Craig Whyte sold more tickets to ticketus to cover the first payment. I heard that he initially only sold about 16 million worth of ST but when the first repayment was due (about 9M) he sold more to bring the total money to 24.4M. As the second wave of ST sales was to pay for the first repayment, Whyte never actually had the 24.4M.

It does seem that the only bills Whyte has been paying since he came has been the salaries.

I am not getting this.

The £24 million was advance of 4 years season tickets. That was advanced to RFC/Wavetower. If £16m of season tickets was sold by RFC, then the first repayment (£9m you say) could have easily been covered.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

[CropleyWasGod]

Quite incredible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17067141

We are the administrators and we do not know where this money went!!

To be fair to them, they have only been in office 48 hours. It's unreasonable to expect them to know where money paid by a third party, possibly to a fourth party, went. All they can do, with any certainty, is say "we don't have it, and never have had it."

[SteveHFC]

http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/uploads/monthly_02_2012/post-20092-0-76404000-1329428469_thumb.jpg (http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=63653):hilarious

[degenerated]

Strathclyde polis confirm on their Facebook page that they have been passed information on current situation at rangers which they are examining but deem it inappropriate to comment further at this stage. :greengrin

[CallumLaidlaw]

Alastair Johnston has asked crown office to conduct a criminal fraud investigation into CW's takeover, as per bbc reporters twitter

And now this -

More developments: Strathclyde Police confirm they have received information on 'ongoing situation' at Rangers being examined by force

[HFC 0-7]

I am not getting this.

The £24 million was advance of 4 years season tickets. That was advanced to RFC/Wavetower. If £16m of season tickets was sold by RFC, then the first repayment (£9m you say) could have easily been covered.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

What I am saying is the original deal between Whyte and Ticketus wasnt for 24.4 million, it was for about 16 million. The first repayment was due to ticketus and whyte couldnt pay it, so, he sold more tickets to ticketus to raise the cash for the first repayment, therefore Whyte only ever received 16 million or so from ticketus, the remainder was immediately given back to ticketus as per of the first repayment. He has basically taken out another loan secured against ST's to pay a repayment installment of a loan.

[TornadoHibby]

The administrators were quite clear this afternoon in saying that the properties were still owned by RFC.

I didn't know one way or the other is what I was saying but I felt that some background to what can safely be done with assets of potentially or actually insolvent companies might be helpful in this thread!

[CropleyWasGod]

What I am saying is the original deal between Whyte and Ticketus wasnt for 24.4 million, it was for about 16 million. The first repayment was due to ticketus and whyte couldnt pay it, so, he sold more tickets to ticketus to raise the cash for the first repayment, therefore Whyte only ever received 16 million or so from ticketus, the remainder was immediately given back to ticketus as per of the first repayment. He has basically taken out another loan secured against ST's to pay a repayment installment of a loan.

We're having this conversation on two threads now. Let's keep it here :agree:

So.. Wavetower/CW gets £24m, but gives £8m back as the first repayment, yeah?

So Ticketus are now owed £16m.

CW uses the £16m to partly pay Lloyds TSB, plus another £2m from somewhere.

RFC owes CW £18m now.

RFC also owe Ticketus £16m.

BUT.... Wavetower owe RFC £16m as well for the Ticketus money that they never got.

Yeah??

[CropleyWasGod]

I didn't know one way or the other is what I was saying but I felt that some background to what can safely be done with assets of potentially or actually insolvent companies might be helpful in this thread!

I get that :agree:

There has been so much talk about the properties being transferred out , and I was concerned that it may have happened .. albeit illegally, as you say. Therefore I was pleased that someone asked that question this afternoon, and that the admins nailed that particular myth.

[HFC 0-7]

We're having this conversation on two threads now. Let's keep it here :agree:

So.. Wavetower/CW gets £24m, but gives £8m back as the first repayment, yeah?

So Ticketus are now owed £16m.

CW uses the £16m to partly pay Lloyds TSB, plus another £2m from somewhere.

RFC owes CW £18m now.

RFC also owe Ticketus £16m.

BUT.... Wavetower owe RFC £16m as well for the Ticketus money that they never got.

Yeah??

No, apparently there was a deal with rangers and ticketus for a smaller amount prior to Whyte getting involved, around 8 million. Whyte came in and sold Future ST's and got 16 million from ticketus (Total debt to ticketus now 24 million). Rangers sold 15 million worth of ST's and the deal is meant to mean ticketus get their cash first before rangers, but when ticketus asked for their money rangers could only afford 3.5 million. Whyte agreed a deal with ticketus for an additional amount to cover the outstanding repayment. So at this point Rangers / whyte owe ticketus 24 million with Rangers having to pay 9 million as first installment. Rangers can only afford 3.5 million so they agree a deal with ticketus to sell more future ST's, at this point I am not sure whether rangers paid the 3,5 million or they just agreed that the outstanding repayment is added to the existing debt and secured against even more future ST sales. As I say this is what I have heard but its from a guy I know that used to work for Rangers and still has access to info and people in the know. What I would like to know though is if Rangers got 24 million from ticketus, how much do they actually owe them, I wonder what ticketus' interest is like.

[CropleyWasGod]

No, apparently there was a deal with rangers and ticketus for a smaller amount prior to Whyte getting involved, around 8 million. Whyte came in and sold Future ST's and got 16 million from ticketus (Total debt to ticketus now 24 million). Rangers sold 15 million worth of ST's and the deal is meant to mean ticketus get their cash first before rangers, but when ticketus asked for their money rangers could only afford 3.5 million. Whyte agreed a deal with ticketus for an additional amount to cover the outstanding repayment. So at this point Rangers / whyte owe ticketus 24 million with Rangers having to pay 9 million as first installment. Rangers can only afford 3.5 million so they agree a deal with ticketus to sell more future ST's, at this point I am not sure whether rangers paid the 3,5 million or they just agreed that the outstanding repayment is added to the existing debt and secured against even more future ST sales. As I say this is what I have heard but its from a guy I know that used to work for Rangers and still has access to info and people in the know. What I would like to know though is if Rangers got 24 million from ticketus, how much do they actually owe them, I wonder what ticketus' interest is like.

Rangers didn't actually get the £24m though, that's the thing. The holding company maybe did, but not the football club.

As far as I can make out, RFC will owe them the full whack......whatever that is!! But Wavetower owe RFC the same amount.

This tells you all you need to know about the Ticketus model..... http://www.principlefirst.co.uk/investments/octopus-vcts/

[crewetollhibee]

If, as has been previously suggested, that the ticketus money was either in whytes sweaty little hands or in escrow prior to the deal being concluded then the little shyster has used an asset as collateral to finance the purchase of the huns. I'm sure the relevant authorities will be looking quite closely at that one :agree: won't be an FSA investigation it'll be the fraud squad :hilarious

There's a scene in All The President's Men when Deep Throat says to Woodward, ' follow the money, that's the key'. Something similar here needs to be done; hope the Administrators are on it/up to it.

[CropleyWasGod]

Rangers supporters at my work are 100% confident that Rangers will come out of this better, still in the SPL because the league will not survive without them. "The SPL are already holding talks to ensure we (Rangers) are still in the league, they would lose too much money in tv rights and other revenue. All the clubs in scotland would fold"

Not a hint of a smile.
Total belief.

I started smirking and ended raging.

Ask them how strong they will feel when Ibrox, Murray Park and the car park are taken off them to pay some of the tax, and when HMRC ask for the rest to be paid off at £5m a year. That's the way the wind is starting to blow, I reckon.

[truehibernian]

Rangers supporters at my work are 100% confident that Rangers will come out of this better, still in the SPL because the league will not survive without them. "The SPL are already holding talks to ensure we (Rangers) are still in the league, they would lose too much money in tv rights and other revenue. All the clubs in scotland would fold"

Not a hint of a smile.
Total belief.

I started smirking and ended raging.


Their mood swing-o-meter on Rangers Media Bears Den has gone from 'Smug as F***' at around 4pm post media conference to 'In need of new underwear' since around 10pm and the criminal investigation information........they are already hawking ideas to save money.......probably along the lines of a hubcap amnesty or handing in as many Globe juice bottles as they can get there hands (or hauns) on (or oan).

[SurferRosa]

Having sat back and observed for the past few days now the countless stories, the media frenzy and the hundreds of comments posted on here, I just thought I'd fling my tuppence worth in, for all it's worth.

Rangers have brought this misfortune on themselves entirely by their own doing and therefore should be held fully accountable. For one thing, as a UK taxpayer I am not happy at all that a company has diddled the Government out of at least £50 Million. It is in all our interests to see that this debt is paid back fully for our sakes.

Like many others who have expressed the same opinion here I believe that what Rangers have done over the past two decades, i.e. spending stupendous amounts of money that didn't exist and refusing to pay their appropriate dues with HMRC in order to gain footballing success is nothing short of a swindle. There is no doubt about it it is CHEATING. Cheats break the rules and therefore must be punished by the rules.

I have sat back and digested all of what the talking heads have to say - businessmen, lawyers, pundits, fans, idiot politicians - and I cannot reach any other conclusion that what we have here is undoubtedly an absolutely brilliant thing. For once, we have a fantastic opportunity to completely revamp Scottish football for the better. It is simply an opportunity we cannot and must not let pass us by.

We have an opportunity to destroy the old corrupt ways run by the Glasgow clubs and get back some real football. We have an opportunity to kick out a club which seems to think that it has divine rule in the SPL and has a right to cheat its way into victory and has some sort of right to be in the SPL. We have an opportunity to break an unfair duopoly which has destroyed any competition in the SPL and has hence damaged the game. We have a chance to level things both financially and in football terms. We have a chance to kick out the odious heathen bigotry which has decimated the reputation of our game.

We have a chance to have a fairer, livelier, more competative league, without the baggage of certain teams having an unfair political, financial and footballing upper hand, and without the disgusting ugly bigotry that seems to come with it.

I am furious that we have the likes of idiot Salmond mouthing that the game will be better with Rangers than without. Piffle! Our game is suffering *because* of Rangers. Speak to the fans. The only people who want Rangers to stay are Rangers themselves! Everyone else cannot wait to boot them out! All fans' forums of other clubs are bristling with the exact same sentiments being expressed here - and that sentiment is for goodness' sake, kick them out, and good riddance!

Now let's get that owed cash off them, get them liquidated, block any "phoenix" club from waltzing back in as if nothing has happened and let's get the rules, the cash and the league much fairer and look forward to good, entertaining, competitive football :agree:

Gene

An excellent post.
Unfortunately, there are cretins in charge of our game who will ensure that RFC ( in whatever form ) can carry on as normal.

There will be no radical shake-up of our game, despite opportunity knocking....politicians, SFA, media and SPL will endorse cheating and tax avoidance and the blatant criminal manoeuvering of Craig Whyte.
He even managed to get his pals appointed as administrators to ensure no creditor even comes close to getting what they are owed.
RFC will emerge out of this with a host of prospective buyers drooling at the prospect of getting their hands on the club for reletively little and debt free.
Utterly, utterly sickening.

[hibsbollah]

Having sat back and observed for the past few days now the countless stories, the media frenzy and the hundreds of comments posted on here, I just thought I'd fling my tuppence worth in, for all it's worth.

Rangers have brought this misfortune on themselves entirely by their own doing and therefore should be held fully accountable. For one thing, as a UK taxpayer I am not happy at all that a company has diddled the Government out of at least £50 Million. It is in all our interests to see that this debt is paid back fully for our sakes.

Like many others who have expressed the same opinion here I believe that what Rangers have done over the past two decades, i.e. spending stupendous amounts of money that didn't exist and refusing to pay their appropriate dues with HMRC in order to gain footballing success is nothing short of a swindle. There is no doubt about it it is CHEATING. Cheats break the rules and therefore must be punished by the rules.

I have sat back and digested all of what the talking heads have to say - businessmen, lawyers, pundits, fans, idiot politicians - and I cannot reach any other conclusion that what we have here is undoubtedly an absolutely brilliant thing. For once, we have a fantastic opportunity to completely revamp Scottish football for the better. It is simply an opportunity we cannot and must not let pass us by.

We have an opportunity to destroy the old corrupt ways run by the Glasgow clubs and get back some real football. We have an opportunity to kick out a club which seems to think that it has divine rule in the SPL and has a right to cheat its way into victory and has some sort of right to be in the SPL. We have an opportunity to break an unfair duopoly which has destroyed any competition in the SPL and has hence damaged the game. We have a chance to level things both financially and in football terms. We have a chance to kick out the odious heathen bigotry which has decimated the reputation of our game.

We have a chance to have a fairer, livelier, more competative league, without the baggage of certain teams having an unfair political, financial and footballing upper hand, and without the disgusting ugly bigotry that seems to come with it.

I am furious that we have the likes of idiot Salmond mouthing that the game will be better with Rangers than without. Piffle! Our game is suffering *because* of Rangers. Speak to the fans. The only people who want Rangers to stay are Rangers themselves! Everyone else cannot wait to boot them out! All fans' forums of other clubs are bristling with the exact same sentiments being expressed here - and that sentiment is for goodness' sake, kick them out, and good riddance!

Now let's get that owed cash off them, get them liquidated, block any "phoenix" club from waltzing back in as if nothing has happened and let's get the rules, the cash and the league much fairer and look forward to good, entertaining, competitive football :agree:

Gene

Great post.

[EuanH78]

An excellent post.
Unfortunately, there are cretins in charge of our game who will ensure that RFC ( in whatever form ) can carry on as normal.

There will be no radical shake-up of our game, despite opportunity knocking....politicians, SFA, media and SPL will endorse cheating and tax avoidance and the blatant criminal manoeuvering of Craig Whyte.
He even managed to get his pals appointed as administrators to ensure no creditor even comes close to getting what they are owed.
RFC will emerge out of this with a host of prospective buyers drooling at the prospect of getting their hands on the club for reletively little and debt free.
Utterly, utterly sickening.

I hope not. With the news that the Police are investigating now I'm hoping more and more info starts coming out that makes it too hot for anyone (SPL, SFA, Government, even the media) to attempt to brush over but guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Geo_1875]

I'd like to know if RFC have found money down the back of the settee to pay policing costs for this weekends fixture or if Strathclyde polis are taking an IOU.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'd like to know if RFC have found money down the back of the settee to pay policing costs for this weekends fixture or if Strathclyde polis are taking an IOU.

The money will come out of the takings. They will make a profit on the game, which will go towards the other creditors.

[Leithenhibby]

The money will come out of the takings. They will make a profit on the game, which will go towards the other creditors.

I'm I right in saying that ST will be valid at Ibrox this Saturday?

With some 15,000 walk-up's, plus all the catering I would think that they have a few bob in the tin ...

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm I right in saying that ST will be valid at Ibrox this Saturday?

With some 15,000 walk-up's, plus all the catering I would think that they have a few bob in the tin ...

I think you're right... haven't heard anything to the contrary.

It makes perfect sense to have the game on. There will be a big gate (supporter solidarity and all that), and a fair chunk will be raised.

[Leithenhibby]

I think you're right... haven't heard anything to the contrary.

It makes perfect sense to have the game on. There will be a big gate (supporter solidarity and all that), and a fair chunk will be raised.


That was my first thoughts when this broke.

As any other clubs fans would do, rally round and try and make a stance. As much as I loath that lot they will have a huge support this weekend, but it will still not be enough :greengrin

[Geo_1875]

That was my first thoughts when this broke.

As any other clubs fans would do, rally round and try and make a stance. As much as I loath that lot they will have a huge support this weekend, but it will still not be enough :greengrin

So basically the police (and RFC) are hoping there is a big enough crowd to cover all expenses. Do you think they'd be so understanding for anybody else?

[CropleyWasGod]

So basically the police (and RFC) are hoping there is a big enough crowd to cover all expenses. Do you think they'd be so understanding for anybody else?

RFC made assurances to SP that they would be able to cover their costs. They made those assurances on the basis of their expectation of the crowd size. SP obviously took that in good faith.

If it were anyone else, the police would assess the situation in the same way. The margins might well be tighter, though, and the police might be less convinced.

It's not about "understanding", it's about commercial realities.

[Leithenhibby]

So basically the police (and RFC) are hoping there is a big enough crowd to cover all expenses. Do you think they'd be so understanding for anybody else?


As I have said on many posts before. When WM was trying to take us over I recall many teams supporting us, and Yes, many politicians also. I'm in no way supporting that mob, but I do think they will raise enough money to cover expenses on Saturday... :wink:

[TornadoHibby]

Rangers didn't actually get the £24m though, that's the thing. The holding company maybe did, but not the football club.

As far as I can make out, RFC will owe them the full whack......whatever that is!! But Wavetower owe RFC the same amount.

This tells you all you need to know about the Ticketus model..... http://www.principlefirst.co.uk/investments/octopus-vcts/

Aye but only if the actual loan documentation between Ticketus and the borrower is in line with the illustration you have outlined.

I say that as I have no idea of what has actually happened with Ticketus and the ST loan(s) but you may have?!

[CropleyWasGod]

Aye but only if the actual loan documentation between Ticketus and the borrower is in line with the illustration you have outlined.

I say that as I have no idea of what has actually happened with Ticketus and the ST loan(s) but you may have?!

The borrower is RFC.... that was made clear by the administrators today. CW has also confirmed it, although I wouldn't set great store on that.:rolleyes:

However, the Herald reported that the cash was paid over by Ticketus to CW's solicitor before the takeover took place. If that is true, it might suggest a few things:-

1. Ticketus thought that they were dealing with RFC, but were actually dealing with (I forget the name) RFC Group??... CW's holding company, formerly Wavetower. This is where fraud may have taken place.

2. David Murray may have known about CW's plan to use that money to fund the takeover, and turned a blind eye to it just to get the deal done.

These bits are speculation, of course, but the key is finding where the Ticketus money went.

[cabbageandribs1875]

whyte :chop: murray :chop: :gun: :cb

[SteveHFC]

Exclusive footage has emerged of Craig Whyte this evening.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/16/3196826/murrw3.gif

[Spike Mandela]

another excellent blog post setting bare the facts of this case......

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/

[frazeHFC]

Exclusive footage has emerged of Craig Whyte this evening.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/16/3196826/murrw3.gif



:hilarious

That is quality. :top marks

[Easter Road X1]

Maybe the have paid Hearts, Dunfermline, Dundee United and the rest of the teams????:confused:

[Benny Brazil]

another excellent blog post setting bare the facts of this case......

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/

Spike that is indeed an excellent blog and sums up my feelings about the Politicians involvement in this.
Who is the blogger? Is he a former Lawyer - he seems to know a lot of info on the law and the financial side of things.

[ancienthibby]

Maybe the have paid Hearts, Dunfermline, Dundee United and the rest of the teams????:confused:

Heard Traynor on 5Live this morning saying that the Ticketus money was with CW's corporate lawyer which suggests a) Ticketus have not suffered a loss and b) the release of the monies would have conditions attached and these have not been met, hence the lawyers are barred from releasing them to ERFC.

This would be the cause of extreme cash pressures at RFC and would suggest that players and staff and creditors have only been paid at the expense of HMRC.

Throw the book at them:greengrin

[Jim44]

I think I'll have to lie down as for the first time in my life I support the views of Jambo, Stuart Bathgate who. in an article in the Scotsman this morning, has a real go at Whyte, Salmond and Cameron on the non payment of tax issue. Mind you. it's a pity he doesn't pursue the financial frailties of his beloved HOMFC so vehemently. :greengrin

[Smidge]

Heard Traynor on 5Live this morning saying that the Ticketus money was with CW's corporate lawyer which suggests a) Ticketus have not suffered a loss and b) the release of the monies would have conditions attached and these have not been met, hence the lawyers are barred from releasing them to ERFC.

This would be the cause of extreme cash pressures at RFC and would suggest that players and staff and creditors have only been paid at the expense of HMRC.

Throw the book at them:greengrin

Traynor is maybe getting confused. The Ticketus cash was with CW's corporate lawyers, as that's where it was originally transferred, but that doesn't mean it still is. Apart from anything else, if I was Ticketus, I wouldn't have left the cash there for so long, when they could probably just ask for it back!

A couple of other thoughts this morning:

- It's been suggested that the Ticketus deal could allegedly have been fraudulent because they thought they were dealing with the football club, but they were actually giving the money to the parent company. However, the name change from Wavetower to The Rangers FC Group Limited was not formalised until 12/05/11. If the Ticketus deal was done in April, as suggested, then the Group company didn't exist by that name. I think that rules out the old switcheroo trick.

- The administrators definitely said that the football club had the debt to Ticketus but hadn't seen the cash.

Roll on today's developments....

[Wembley67]

Looks like ***** attracts *****

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17072133

Milan Mandaric interested in buying crisis-hit club Rangers
Former Portsmouth and current Sheffield Wednesday chairman Milan Mandaric is interested in buying Rangers.

The administrators revealed on Thursday they had already heard from parties interested in the crisis-hit club.

And BBC Scotland has learned the Serbian - last week cleared of two counts of tax evasion - is one of those to have contacted Duff and Phelps.

Mandaric, who has also been in charge at Leicester, took over at Hillsborough 11 months ago .

[stokesmessiah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17072133

[Smidge]

Nice to see a journalist grow a pair of baws this morning:

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/stuart_bathgate_no_sympathy_when_the_public_purse_ is_being_short_changed_1_2122590

Of course, one might ask, why it took so long?

[jonty]

Spike that is indeed an excellent blog and sums up my feelings about the Politicians involvement in this.
Who is the blogger? Is he a former Lawyer - he seems to know a lot of info on the law and the financial side of things.

I must admit that I understand little about tax evasion, but his blog does make good reading.
Especially today, when it highlights the plight of another company, going into administration, losing 175 jobs and this was a profit making company.

Someone has also put together a corporate strcuture of CWs companies (not including the ones already wound up)
http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/cw-corporate-structure.pdf

[jonty]

Nice to see a journalist grow a pair of baws this morning:

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/stuart_bathgate_no_sympathy_when_the_public_purse_ is_being_short_changed_1_2122590

Of course, one might ask, why it took so long?

Aye - but it is Stuart Bathgate, so they'll be tiny mroon baws. :greengrin

Nice touch to add a link to the e-petition :thumbsup:

[ScottB]

Looks like ***** attracts *****

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17072133

Milan Mandaric interested in buying crisis-hit club Rangers
Former Portsmouth and current Sheffield Wednesday chairman Milan Mandaric is interested in buying Rangers.

The administrators revealed on Thursday they had already heard from parties interested in the crisis-hit club.

And BBC Scotland has learned the Serbian - last week cleared of two counts of tax evasion - is one of those to have contacted Duff and Phelps.

Mandaric, who has also been in charge at Leicester, took over at Hillsborough 11 months ago .

You couldn't make it up!

Solution to having problems with the tax man... Get taken over by Mandaric! Jesus...

[Famous Fiver]

I've not read through this whole thread so apologies if this has already been mentioned.

I am no lawyer but I thought that the duty of the Administrators was to look after the interests of the creditors (the main one by far HMRC).

From all the media reports yesterday it appears that the administrators appear to be working in the best interests of Rangers Football Club.

Any lawyers out there who might like to comment? Can the administrators be asked to justify their apparent bias?

[CropleyWasGod]

I've not read through this whole thread so apologies if this has already been mentioned.

I am no lawyer but I thought that the duty of the Administrators was to look after the interests of the creditors (the main one by far HMRC).

From all the media reports yesterday it appears that the administrators appear to be working in the best interests of Rangers Football Club.

Any lawyers out there who might like to comment? Can the administrators be asked to justify their apparent bias?

I wouldn't necessarily rely on the media reports to get the correct emphasis here. After all, these are mainly sports journalists who are talking to fitba supporters. Fans want to know "what's happening to my team?"

The administrators started off the press conference by emphasising that they were 1. Officers of the Court, and answerable to them. and 2. appointed to act in the best interests of the creditors and shareholders.

I see no bias as yet. However, there will be close scrutiny of this case. If any bias becomes apparent, they will have to account for it to the Court.

[ancienthibby]

I must admit that I understand little about tax evasion, but his blog does make good reading.
Especially today, when it highlights the plight of another company, going into administration, losing 175 jobs and this was a profit making company.

Someone has also put together a corporate strcuture of CWs companies (not including the ones already wound up)
http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/cw-corporate-structure.pdf

Here's a wee story from 3 days ago about one of the Companies in the CW empire - Pritchard Stockbrokers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-17021584

The CW empire is unravelling by the day.:devil:

[CropleyWasGod]

Here's a wee story from 3 days ago about one of the Companies in the CW empire - Pritchard Stockbrokers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-17021584

The CW empire is unravelling by the day.:devil:

Yup... now Sir David Murray has launched an action in the Court to get his £1 from Craig Whyte. :greengrin

[SurferRosa]

Exclusive footage has emerged of Craig Whyte this evening.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/16/3196826/murrw3.gif

:faf::faf:
That had me in stitches....:top marks

[Sylar]

Looks like ***** attracts *****

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17072133

Milan Mandaric interested in buying crisis-hit club Rangers
Former Portsmouth and current Sheffield Wednesday chairman Milan Mandaric is interested in buying Rangers.

The administrators revealed on Thursday they had already heard from parties interested in the crisis-hit club.

And BBC Scotland has learned the Serbian - last week cleared of two counts of tax evasion - is one of those to have contacted Duff and Phelps.

Mandaric, who has also been in charge at Leicester, took over at Hillsborough 11 months ago .

He's denying any interest according to SSN.

[stokesmessiah]

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=211225

Have a read of this thread, they are pretty deluded over there.

"It never went through Rangers books according to the administrators. Could that give us a lifeline?"

[ScottB]

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=211225

Have a read of this thread, they are pretty deluded over there.

"It never went through Rangers books according to the administrators. Could that give us a lifeline?"

Well in theory, if that money was obtained fradulently, ie Ticketus leant it to Rangers the club, yet Whyte has kept it / spent it though his own company, presumably said company does owe Rangers the £24million ish then?

Of course, the club would then still owe all that back to Ticketus anyway, so it doesn't actually help them much, though it might give them a bit more short term breathing room if they got their hands on it (which they have utterly no chance of doing anyway).

[CropleyWasGod]

Well in theory, if that money was obtained fradulently, ie Ticketus leant it to Rangers the club, yet Whyte has kept it / spent it though his own company, presumably said company does owe Rangers the £24million ish then?

Of course, the club would then still owe all that back to Ticketus anyway, so it doesn't actually help them much, though it might give them a bit more short term breathing room if they got their hands on it (which they have utterly no chance of doing anyway).

In that scenario, they would also owe CW £18M, with an alleged security... and we don't want that!!

[jonty]

http://www.octopusinvestments.com/press/news.html?newsId=363
Octopus/Ticketus press release.
nothing much in it.

[Twa Cairpets]

Some great reads over there (at RangersMedia). Apart from the need to disinfect my screen, it really does seem to be a home for the deluded and feeble-minded. When they go bump I can think or a ready made home for them.

Here's a few tasters:


I can't see Whyte making off with it as he would be extradited to Bar-L.
I have no idea of his intentions, but as someone said earlier, he does appear to be making an unsellable club into a sellable one.
He's never said it would be easy, but we appear to be going in the right direction.Yes, thats why you're in administration


The only reason that we are here is that the HMRC has squeezed the life out of our club, because they cannot prove their case.
The EBT Scheme was legal, it is a paperwork issue.
But we have protected our assets and regardless of the HMRC outcome, we will be safe.
Do not believe the MHedia Oh just paperwork. That's alright then.


Why did Ticketus not make the cheque out to Rangers? Then it would showQuick! Someone tell the administrators just to check who the cheque is made to! That'll help them find where that cash has gone. Maybe Ticketus can just show the stub

And they wonder why we laugh.

[Leithenhibby]

http://www.octopusinvestments.com/press/news.html?newsId=363
Octopus/Ticketus press release.
nothing much in it.


No reading it then ... :devil:

[Twa Cairpets]

http://www.octopusinvestments.com/press/news.html?newsId=363
Octopus/Ticketus press release.
nothing much in it.

Sorry Jonty, but that reads as spectacularly bad news for the Huns. Ticketus own the Assets of the ST's for 4 years. If CW has diddled them its (literally) criminal, if he hasn't there's a creditor with claim to those assets. I think.

[jonty]

Sorry Jonty, but that reads as spectacularly bad news for the Huns. Ticketus own the Assets of the ST's for 4 years. If CW has diddled them its (literally) criminal, if he hasn't there's a creditor with claim to those assets. I think.

Sorry - meant nothing much in it, as in it's not very long and doesnt go into great depth :greengrin


Octopus Investments would like to clarify the position of Ticketus with regard to the current Glasgow Rangers coverage.
Ticketus is one of the many entities into which Octopus Protected EIS invests. Ticketus has purchased tickets for Glasgow Rangers games for a number of seasons in advance, as it has done for a number of years previously with the club.
Ticketus does not lend money; Ticketus is the owner of assets - the tickets. Octopus is continuing to work with the administrators and Glasgow Rangers on this matter.

[CropleyWasGod]

Sorry Jonty, but that reads as spectacularly bad news for the Huns. Ticketus own the Assets of the ST's for 4 years. If CW has diddled them its (literally) criminal, if he hasn't there's a creditor with claim to those assets. I think.

Inever saw it as anything else. To me, RFC have always owed £24m to Ticketus.

[Liberal Hibby]

Inever saw it as anything else. To me, RFC have always owed £24m to Ticketus.

Is this why the administrators have honoured season tickets v Killie - because they're not theirs?

[Seveno]

Sorry Jonty, but that reads as spectacularly bad news for the Huns. Ticketus own the Assets of the ST's for 4 years. If CW has diddled them its (literally) criminal, if he hasn't there's a creditor with claim to those assets. I think.

If Rangers go into Liquidation then Ticketus lose the lot. Why they went into these deal with a business on the edge of bankruptcy defies belief.

[ScottB]

If Rangers go into Liquidation then Ticketus lose the lot. Why they went into these deal with a business on the edge of bankruptcy defies belief.

Which raises the fraud viewpoint, did he promise them security over assets? If he didn't, and Ticketus happily leant a guy with a shady as a room with no lights and no windows past who didn't even own the (already substantially indebted, with huge tax case ahead) club, £24million with no safety nets for themselves then frankly they deserve to lose the lot!

[CropleyWasGod]

If Rangers go into Liquidation then Ticketus lose the lot. Why they went into these deal with a business on the edge of bankruptcy defies belief.

Not sure that they do lose the lot.

1. they have insurance in place, apparently.

2. in a liquidation, the properties will be sold to pay the creditors, as much as can be realised.

[CropleyWasGod]

Is this why the administrators have honoured season tickets v Killie - because they're not theirs?

Could be

[Andy74]

Inever saw it as anything else. To me, RFC have always owed £24m to Ticketus.

Not really, they owe them the equivalent of £24m of season tickets over the next 4 yrs.

As those seasons aren't upon us yet there's no outstanding debt to them.

They were very clear they don't lend money, they see it as paying for tickets in advance.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not really, they own them the equivalent of £24m of season tickets over the next 4 yrs.

As those seasons aren't upon us yet there's no outstanding debt to them.

They were very clear they don't lend money, they see it as paying for tickets in advance.

In accounting terms, I would agree. However, in cash terms, the capital is still owed.

In fact, Ticketus try to get 50-100% Return for their "investment". I am sure that the first repayment was to have been £9m, presumably for this current year's season tickets, payable last summer. In other words, a £9m return for £6m worth of tickets.

In my mind, therefore, the debt could be £9m for this season, plus £18m for the next 3 seasons.

[Seveno]

Not sure that they do lose the lot.

1. they have insurance in place, apparently.

2. in a liquidation, the properties will be sold to pay the creditors, as much as can be realised.


1. No sane underwriter would write such a risk.

2. What use is a season ticket fo a club that doesn't exist ?


He claimed that one of his other companies were 'underwriting' the risk and this is perhaps why the money appears to have been paid to a company other than Rangers. Time will tell what sort of security they were able to offer.

[Andy74]

1. No sane underwriter would write such a risk.

2. What use is a season ticket fo a club that doesn't exist ?


He claimed that one of his other companies were 'underwriting' the risk and this is perhaps why the money appears to have been paid to a company other than Rangers. Time will tell what sort of security they were able to offer.

It's not a loan so why would there be security?

They have paid for season tickets in advance.

Rangers then ordinarily resell those tickets at a higher price and give ticketus the cash for the tickets that they owned.

Ticketus also pay a premium to someone for insurance - this will be a lot less than the bump up in the ticket price.

The risk is with the undewriter who ordinarily will be allright as these clubs will generally without fail sell at least these amount of tickets. Would you bet against Rangers selling a lot of season tickets next year even now?

[CropleyWasGod]

1. No sane underwriter would write such a risk.

2. What use is a season ticket fo a club that doesn't exist ?


He claimed that one of his other companies were 'underwriting' the risk and this is perhaps why the money appears to have been paid to a company other than Rangers. Time will tell what sort of security they were able to offer.

By properties, I meant Ibrox, Murray Park and the Albion.

[Cropley10]

I think I'll have to lie down as for the first time in my life I support the views of Jambo, Stuart Bathgate who. in an article in the Scotsman this morning, has a real go at Whyte, Salmond and Cameron on the non payment of tax issue. Mind you. it's a pity he doesn't pursue the financial frailties of his beloved HOMFC so vehemently. :greengrin

For all his madness Vlad has no option but to pay his taxes, and does eventually. If he wants to increase Hearts debt and waste his, and their, money then crack on.

[Cropley10]

1. No sane underwriter would write such a risk.

2. What use is a season ticket fo a club that doesn't exist ?


He claimed that one of his other companies were 'underwriting' the risk and this is perhaps why the money appears to have been paid to a company other than Rangers. Time will tell what sort of security they were able to offer.

:agree: I think the risk is uninsurable, you cannot insure against a financial loss without there being a contingent event, say Ibrox being destroyed by fire or other disaster.

There is no insurance policy, end of.

[jonty]

whyte to stand down.

Nope - thats changing now.
He's taking a step back.

And claims not to have taken a penny from Rangers.

[Sylar]

whyte to stand dowm.

:confused:

[jonty]

:confused:
twitter, man, twitter :greengrin:

[jonty]

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2614559


That is why I have decided to take a step back from events so that I do not become a distraction to either that process or to Ally McCoist and the players.Regrettably, I will not be attending tomorrow's match against Kilmarnock. Although I would dearly love to be at Ibrox for the game, my priority is, and will continue to be, to assist the administrators in any way I can to bring this process to as speedy a conclusion as possible.


And they still havent put up a notice on their website stating their in administration. Does a news article count or does it need to be more prominent?

[Captain Trips]

whyte to stand down.

Nope - thats changing now.
He's taking a step back.

And claims not to have taken a penny from Rangers.

Ye do the dodge the taxman then you turnaround. thats what its all about.

[Gus Fring]

Ye do the dodge the taxman then you turnaround. thats what its all about.

Hokey Cokey folk ken whits gon oa

:offski:

[Spike Mandela]

Surprise surprise Whyte disappears to his bolthole till all the dirty deeds are done.:rolleyes:

[Sylar]

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2614559



And they still havent put up a notice on their website stating their in administration. Does a news article count or does it need to be more prominent?

I was just curious, as none of the usual suspects were running any such story.

The Rangers fans will be fuming he's not going to be there tomorrow - he probably doesn't want to deal with the venom/protests he'd otherwise have to deal with!

[Caversham Green]

http://www.octopusinvestments.com/press/news.html?newsId=363
Octopus/Ticketus press release.
nothing much in it.

If taken at face value that actually makes quite a difference to my perception of the deal. Rangers have actually sold the tickets rather than pledged the future income from ticket sales, therefore the VAT is due now, which is why the debt to HMRC is so high. The entry in the balance sheet for the ticket sales would be deferred income rather than a loan creditor i.e. it's not money that will have to go out in the future, it's future sales for which money has (in theory) already come in. The problem in Rangers' case is that it doesn't appear to have come into their account so the balance sheet won't actually balance. In accounting terms there's no corresponding debit to this credit until they can identify where the money did actually go.

It strikes me as an extremely foolish transaction from both sides.

[Smidge]

OK, thinking aloud here.

Octopus/Ticketus state that they have purchased a number of tickets from Rangers and have been doing so for a number of years, though I am guessing not on this scale. It is widely speculated that the current value of tickets they have bought is £24.4m, but this is probably a discounted value. I would hazard a guess that the face value of this tickets would be in the region of at least £40m.

Therefore, they have a contract with Rangers FC in this regard. Under the terms of this contract, the club acts as agent for Ticketus in selling the tickets to the general public - via STs or "walk-ups". The proceeds of the ticket sales then have to be passed onto Ticketus with the football club pocketing a booking fee for their time and energy. As it was widely reported that Rangers had to repay Ticketus a large sum by a certain date last year - mentioned as £9m I think - then presumably the contract states that there are performance targets for the agent, i.e. Rangers. In which case, it is possible that the football club is not in breach of that contract yet as they might not have met a performance target for delivery of income to Ticketus.

The 'debt' to Ticketus could then be construed as the obligations to deliver income from ticket sales at certain future dates, but has not yet crystallised. However, if the administrators have the ability to rip up any contracts, particularly those that impose liabilities upon the club, then Ticketus could be pissing in the wind for their cash. Ignoring the possibility that they have 'insured' the contract in some manner, as has been suggested.

In this analysis, a lot depends on the terms of the contract and when exactly a debt would fall due. However, one thought....if it could be proven that Whyte/Wavetower etc never had any intention of fulfilling the terms of that contract, i.e. an insolvency event was always part of the plan, then I would suggest it sounds quite close to fraud.

Turning back to the question of why the cash didn't go through the football club's account, if they were one disposing of the asset to Ticketus, it is possible that (corporately) a direction was given to settle the cash to their parent company. However, this would have required an asset to be created on the football club's balance sheet, i.e. a debt owed by parent company, or it would have been in settlement of a debt owed to the parent company.

Which brings it back to the case that the Ticketus cash could have wiped out the debt owing from the football club to the parent company. Even if a separate entry was placed on the balance sheet, i.e. football club still owed parent £18m but parent owed football club £24.4m, then the administrators would surely have the right to net these off and pursue the parent company for the difference. However, as the parent company has never filed accounts, I would be very surprised if it had any remaining assets other than the shares in the football club.

[Smidge]

If taken at face value that actually makes quite a difference to my perception of the deal. Rangers have actually sold the tickets rather than pledged the future income from ticket sales, therefore the VAT is due now, which is why the debt to HMRC is so high. The entry in the balance sheet for the ticket sales would be deferred income rather than a loan creditor i.e. it's not money that will have to go out in the future, it's future sales for which money has (in theory) already come in. The problem in Rangers' case is that it doesn't appear to have come into their account so the balance sheet won't actually balance. In accounting terms there's no corresponding debit to this credit until they can identify where the money did actually go.

It strikes me as an extremely foolish transaction from both sides.

Foolish indeed, but I am fairly sure that Rangers will still have acted as agent for Ticketus in selling the tickets to the general public. This would mean there is another underlying contract (see my analysis just posted).

[jonty]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zMGEYVIHOvE/Tz51QqSVk1I/AAAAAAAAEX0/yjJjRWAyDJo/s1600/followfollow.jpg

http://macleodcartoons.blogspot.com/2012/02/glasgow-rangers-go-into-administration.html#.Tz51s5ZrmTY.twitter

[GreenPJ]

whyte to stand down.

Nope - thats changing now.
He's taking a step back.

And claims not to have taken a penny from Rangers.

Is that because the money never went through Rangers in the first instance.

[ScottB]

Is that because the money never went through Rangers in the first instance.

He never took a single penny.

That he did take £24million is entirely separate from not having taken any 1p coins... :wink:

[jonty]

Vatican also to pay taxes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-told-to-pay-taxes-as-italy-tackles-budget-crisis-6988938.html

Coincidence........??? :hmmm: :greengrin

[jonty]

SFA to launch investigation.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2111&newsID=9344


The Scottish FA’s previous efforts in obtaining information relevant to the Fit and Proper Person requirement has been restricted by the club's solicitors' continued failure to share information in a timely or detailed manner.

Wont hold breath.

[Gus Fring]

If found guilty of any wrongdoing I would assume extra sanctions could be put in place? The SFA don't take kindly to being lied to or similar circumstances, that's why they threw the book at Livingston and Gretna.

[Cropley10]

He never took a single penny.

That he did take £24million is entirely separate from not having taken any 1p coins... :wink:

Very true - remember Whyte told Tom English he didn't owe £5m in tax (for this season). He didn't. He owed £9m.

The man's a sociopath.

[Hibrandenburg]

If found guilty of any wrongdoing I would assume extra sanctions could be put in place? The SFA don't take kindly to being lied to or similar circumstances, that's why they threw the book at Livingston and Gretna.

The SFA are Rangers and Celtic. Can't see them throwing the book at themselves.

[stokesmessiah]

From the SFA statement..

"“Finally, I would like to reiterate the need to learn the lessons from this unedifying episode. It is essential that we work together to improve the overall sustainability and competitiveness of the game in this country. This is a matter that the Scottish FA is already in discussions with the relevant league bodies to address.”

Do they mean ongoing talks/initiatives etc to improve the game in this country or are they referring to new talks since the situation with Der Hun kicked off?

[Barney McGrew]

Ibrox is now apparently a sell out for tomorrow.

Huns taking the chance to see them one last time? :greengrin

[HFC 0-7]

OK, thinking aloud here.

Octopus/Ticketus state that they have purchased a number of tickets from Rangers and have been doing so for a number of years, though I am guessing not on this scale. It is widely speculated that the current value of tickets they have bought is £24.4m, but this is probably a discounted value. I would hazard a guess that the face value of this tickets would be in the region of at least £40m.

Therefore, they have a contract with Rangers FC in this regard. Under the terms of this contract, the club acts as agent for Ticketus in selling the tickets to the general public - via STs or "walk-ups". The proceeds of the ticket sales then have to be passed onto Ticketus with the football club pocketing a booking fee for their time and energy. As it was widely reported that Rangers had to repay Ticketus a large sum by a certain date last year - mentioned as £9m I think - then presumably the contract states that there are performance targets for the agent, i.e. Rangers. In which case, it is possible that the football club is not in breach of that contract yet as they might not have met a performance target for delivery of income to Ticketus.

The 'debt' to Ticketus could then be construed as the obligations to deliver income from ticket sales at certain future dates, but has not yet crystallised. However, if the administrators have the ability to rip up any contracts, particularly those that impose liabilities upon the club, then Ticketus could be pissing in the wind for their cash. Ignoring the possibility that they have 'insured' the contract in some manner, as has been suggested.

In this analysis, a lot depends on the terms of the contract and when exactly a debt would fall due. However, one thought....if it could be proven that Whyte/Wavetower etc never had any intention of fulfilling the terms of that contract, i.e. an insolvency event was always part of the plan, then I would suggest it sounds quite close to fraud.

Turning back to the question of why the cash didn't go through the football club's account, if they were one disposing of the asset to Ticketus, it is possible that (corporately) a direction was given to settle the cash to their parent company. However, this would have required an asset to be created on the football club's balance sheet, i.e. a debt owed by parent company, or it would have been in settlement of a debt owed to the parent company.

Which brings it back to the case that the Ticketus cash could have wiped out the debt owing from the football club to the parent company. Even if a separate entry was placed on the balance sheet, i.e. football club still owed parent £18m but parent owed football club £24.4m, then the administrators would surely have the right to net these off and pursue the parent company for the difference. However, as the parent company has never filed accounts, I would be very surprised if it had any remaining assets other than the shares in the football club.

Re the part in bold, rangers could only afford 3.5 million of the 9 million, they had to sell more ST's to ticketus to cover the shortfall. The ticketus agreement is meant to ensure that their tickets are sold ahead of other stocks so they always get their money back. If you look at the ticketus model they make a big margin on the deal (or supposed to) as they buy the tickets in bulk for cheap, so if they have paid 24.4 million for tickets they will be getting back, or should, a lot more than 24.4M. So it seems that Whyte was selling ticketus' tickets and keeping the proceeds as well.

[CropleyWasGod]

If taken at face value that actually makes quite a difference to my perception of the deal. Rangers have actually sold the tickets rather than pledged the future income from ticket sales, therefore the VAT is due now, which is why the debt to HMRC is so high. The entry in the balance sheet for the ticket sales would be deferred income rather than a loan creditor i.e. it's not money that will have to go out in the future, it's future sales for which money has (in theory) already come in. The problem in Rangers' case is that it doesn't appear to have come into their account so the balance sheet won't actually balance. In accounting terms there's no corresponding debit to this credit until they can identify where the money did actually go.

It strikes me as an extremely foolish transaction from both sides.

... which is why there are no accounts.

"We have audited these financial statements..... which are mince cos they dinny balance"

[HFC 0-7]

Does anyone know what happened to the money that was ringfenced by former board members? Did the former board members get the money or are they now a creditor also?

[PaulSmith]

Part of statement from Scottishfa.co.uk

“Finally, I would like to reiterate the need to learn the lessons from this unedifying episode. It is essential that we work together to improve the overall sustainability and competitiveness of the game in this country. This is a matter that the Scottish FA is already in discussions with the relevant league bodies to address.”

More hot air or a genuine attempt at creating fairness?

[PatHead]

Have clients who have invested in Octopus over the years. Been very stable investments. Obviously on returning from holiday today was concerned as to impact on client's money and got in touch with my main contact. He sent an email which I don't feel should be passed around as I believe this would be unprofessional. The jist of it was that was they do lots of deals with sports clubs and do substantial due diligence. They have to understand and be comfortable that investors’ best interests are being looked after. If necessary they will take out 3rd party insurance. They had a club that has went into insolvency ,because of the added protection they never lost any of their capital and indeed made the margin expected.

These guys are no fools and realise that clubs wanting money up front must have cash flow problems or they wouldn't be getting the loan of the money in the first place. My recollection of the Rangers deal is that they borrowed the initial sum, when Whyte didn't come up with the money the debt was crystallised and the balance was paid by adding another year or twos portion of the tickets going forwards.

Just to clarify, they do not take on all the season tickets for one season, they will look at numbers previously sold then buy a percentage of these, say 25-30% at a discounted rate. They own these tickets and are normally paid a portion of these. As for comments by others that no insurer would take them on, insurers have covered risks like this for years and not found them bad risks. Eventually insurers will have claims but actuaries will have calculated the risks and loaded the premium accordingly. This will mean other clubs have to pay higher rates going forwards.

[MCameron]

[email protected]

Our first minister seems to think that all other Scottish football fans realise we couldn't survive without Rangers. You might like to let him know whether you are in agreement.

[Seveno]

Have clients who have invested in Octopus over the years. Been very stable investments. Obviously on returning from holiday today was concerned as to impact on client's money and got in touch with my main contact. He sent an email which I don't feel should be passed around as I believe this would be unprofessional. The jist of it was that was they do lots of deals with sports clubs and do substantial due diligence. They have to understand and be comfortable that investors’ best interests are being looked after. If necessary they will take out 3rd party insurance. They had a club that has went into insolvency ,because of the added protection they never lost any of their capital and indeed made the margin expected.

These guys are no fools and realise that clubs wanting money up front must have cash flow problems or they wouldn't be getting the loan of the money in the first place. My recollection of the Rangers deal is that they borrowed the initial sum, when Whyte didn't come up with the money the debt was crystallised and the balance was paid by adding another year or twos portion of the tickets going forwards.

Just to clarify, they do not take on all the season tickets for one season, they will look at numbers previously sold then buy a percentage of these, say 25-30% at a discounted rate. They own these tickets and are normally paid a portion of these. As for comments by others that no insurer would take them on, insurers have covered risks like this for years and not found them bad risks. Eventually insurers will have claims but actuaries will have calculated the risks and loaded the premium accordingly. This will mean other clubs have to pay higher rates going forwards.

I can understand if the insurance refers to the contingency risk of significant variation of sales. I assumed that the reference was with regard to Credit Insurance.

[ancienthibby]

Part of statement from Scottishfa.co.uk

“Finally, I would like to reiterate the need to learn the lessons from this unedifying episode. It is essential that we work together to improve the overall sustainability and competitiveness of the game in this country. This is a matter that the Scottish FA is already in discussions with the relevant league bodies to address.”

More hot air or a genuine attempt at creating fairness?

It's like asking the Orange Order to investigate the Orange Order!:devil:

[soupy]

Just spotted David Murray in Stockbridge, looking a tad stressed oot :-)

[green glory]

Just spotted David Murray in Stockbridge, looking a tad stressed oot :-)

The bizzies will a chapping his door soon methinks.

[mca]

Just spotted David Murray in Stockbridge, looking a tad stressed oot :-)


maybe a coincidence but a blue nose relative said he reckons that about 6pm a shed load of cops and a few vans full of the fraud squad or something has just decended on ibrox and left with cardboard boxes and big polly bags filled with paperwork...

i thought it was probably the cleaners myself ???

[Billy Whizz]

maybe a coincidence but a blue nose relative said he reckons that about 6pm a shed load of cops and a few vans full of the fraud squad or something has just decended on ibrox and left with cardboard boxes and big polly bags filled with paperwork...

i thought it was probably the cleaners myself ???

Was Super Ally in one if the bags

[mca]

Was Super Ally in one if the bags


Naw - the bag your thinking of was patsy kensit ... :wink:



id still do her tho.. :agree:

[Billy Whizz]

Naw - the bag your thinking of was patsy kensit ... :wink:



id still do her tho.. :agree:

What's the story about those two

[green glory]

maybe a coincidence but a blue nose relative said he reckons that about 6pm a shed load of cops and a few vans full of the fraud squad or something has just decended on ibrox and left with cardboard boxes and big polly bags filled with paperwork...

i thought it was probably the cleaners myself ???

Nowt from the news folks. Would be surprised if they missed that.

[mca]

What's the story about those two


och - He was caught banging patsy kensit a while ago... - hope this link works..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-75318/McCoist-admits-Kensit-affair.html



Nowt from the news folks. Would be surprised if they missed that.

Aye - thats kinda what i said to him - " probably just the cleaners ya numpty " - he said it would all over the papers the morra..

[jst1875]

maybe a coincidence but a blue nose relative said he reckons that about 6pm a shed load of cops and a few vans full of the fraud squad or something has just decended on ibrox and left with cardboard boxes and big polly bags filled with paperwork...

i thought it was probably the cleaners myself ???

so thats what happened to mad vlads planning application

:greengrin

[jonty]

Courtesy of Desperate Dan

:lolrangers:

[Seveno]

I don't get it about the Ticketus arrangement. The BBC are reporting that the owners of Ticketus say that they have bought the tickets and that they are assets. The BBC go on to say that these will still be valid, even in the event of Rangers going under and a new club being formed.

How can tickets to see Rangers FC in the SPL be valid to see Glasgow Rangers 2012 play in whatever
league they are admitted to ?

If this is the case, then the new club will have hardly any revenue for the first 3 years. I'd love this to be true actually.

[TornadoHibby]

If taken at face value that actually makes quite a difference to my perception of the deal. Rangers have actually sold the tickets rather than pledged the future income from ticket sales, therefore the VAT is due now, which is why the debt to HMRC is so high. The entry in the balance sheet for the ticket sales would be deferred income rather than a loan creditor i.e. it's not money that will have to go out in the future, it's future sales for which money has (in theory) already come in. The problem in Rangers' case is that it doesn't appear to have come into their account so the balance sheet won't actually balance. In accounting terms there's no corresponding debit to this credit until they can identify where the money did actually go.

It strikes me as an extremely foolish transaction from both sides.

I don't think there is a great deal of merit in debating the 'suspected' terms of the RFC 'deal' with Ticketus as no-one posting on here has seen the actual loan/sale documentation as far as I can see.

However, your accountancy assessment is flawed in that the balance sheet would balance in the scenario you describe. The balance sheet would show a debit for the GROSS sale proceeds (in respect of the amount due to be paid for the tickets) and a credit for the VAT liability amount with the net (future year) sales amount being the balancing balance sheet credit entry!

The bit you allude to as being the amount of the 'balancing item' relates, I think, to the receipt of cash for the sale which would be a credit against the GROSS sale proceeds debtor (as above) and a debit to the bank account if cash is received by RFC or a loan (debtor) account in the name of the recipient of the cash in cleared funds if not RFC. That balances too but is a separate element from the sale itself and the book-keeping for that!

Just saying likes! :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't get it about the Ticketus arrangement. The BBC are reporting that the owners of Ticketus say that they have bought the tickets and that they are assets. The BBC go on to say that these will still be valid, even in the event of Rangers going under and a new club being formed.

How can tickets to see Rangers FC in the SPL be valid to see Glasgow Rangers 2012 play in whatever
league they are admitted to ?

If this is the case, then the new club will have hardly any revenue for the first 3 years. I'd love this to be true actually.

I can only guess that the BBC have seen the Ticketus agreement. Someone (on here) did say that Ticketus have dealt with a club in (or close to) administration before, so perhaps there is a transfer clause to cover them in that event.

I have my doubts though.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't think there is a great deal of merit in debating the 'suspected' terms of the RFC 'deal' with Ticketus as no-one posting on here has seen the actual loan/sale documentation as far as I can see.

However, your accountancy assessment is flawed in that the balance sheet would balance in the scenario you describe. The balance sheet would show a debit for the GROSS sale proceeds (in respect of the amount due to be paid for the tickets) and a credit for the VAT liability amount with the net (future year) sales amount being the balancing balance sheet credit entry!

The bit you allude to as being the 'balancing item' is the receipt of cash for the sale which would be a credit against the GROSS sale proceeds debtor (as above) and a debit to the bank account if cash is received by RFC or a loan (debtor) account in the name of the recipient of the cash in cleared funds if not RFC. That balances too but is a separate element from the sale itself and the book-keeping for that!

Just saying likes! :wink:

I think Cav's point about the debtor is that no-one knows who it is.

However, given that the admins say that the money went from Ticketus to RFC's parent company, it's not an unreasonable assumption to start there.

[TornadoHibby]

I think Cav's point about the debtor is that no-one knows who it is.

However, given that the admins say that the money went from Ticketus to RFC's parent company, it's not an unreasonable assumption to start there.

I don't think that has anything to do with the balancing of the balance sheet (or not) point that Cav made and which I was commenting on!

Until the facts become known, we are not going to know where the Ticketus cash was banked and why! :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't think that has anything to do with the balancing of the balance sheet (or not) point that Cav made and which I was commenting on!

Until the facts become known, we are not going to know where the Ticketus cash was banked and why! :wink:

The admins said yesterday that it went to the parent company. Whether it stayed there is another story.

[Eyrie]

I think Cav's point about the debtor is that no-one knows who it is.

However, given that the admins say that the money went from Ticketus to RFC's parent company, it's not an unreasonable assumption to start there.
Floating an idea here ....

The parent company probably then shifted that money to a third company which used it to pay off the indebtedness to Lloyds, whilst acquiring security over Rangers assets.

So the parent company is a debtor of the football club and the third company has a valid charge. If the parent had simply lent the Ticketus money back to the football club it would have wiped out the loan it received and so there would have been nothing to secure.

[cabbageandribs1875]

the slippery ones reps have apparently served a writ on the beeb


Meanwhile, Mr Whyte’s representatives said on Friday that a writ had been served on the BBC over a documentary and subsequent reports he had carried on the Rangers owner.

The action is over claims made in a documentary broadcast last October, as well as more recent reports by the corporation on Mr Whyte’s business history.

A BBC Scotland spokesman said: "We can confirm we have received a writ from Mr Whyte. We stand by our journalism, all of the allegations made, and will defend any action vigorously."

[CropleyWasGod]

Floating an idea here ....

The parent company probably then shifted that money to a third company which used it to pay off the indebtedness to Lloyds, whilst acquiring security over Rangers assets.

So the parent company is a debtor of the football club and the third company has a valid charge. If the parent had simply lent the ticket back to the football club it would have wiped out the loan it received and so there would have been nothing to secure.

I was actually scribbling this last night, but got too tired and gave up....

It makes sense on the face of it. However, would the third company not have their claim challenged on the basis that they were party to a fraud?


No charge is registered at Companies House.

[TornadoHibby]

Floating an idea here ....

The parent company probably then shifted that money to a third company which used it to pay off the indebtedness to Lloyds, whilst acquiring security over Rangers assets.

So the parent company is a debtor of the football club and the third company has a valid charge. If the parent had simply lent the Ticketus money back to the football club it would have wiped out the loan it received and so there would have been nothing to secure.

Not if it lent RFC enought to repay the Lloyds Banking Group £18million under loan documentation with a bond and floating charge over the RFC assets granted to it to secure 'repayment'! :wink:

Just saying likes!

[TornadoHibby]

I was actually scribbling this last night, but got too tired and gave up....

It makes sense on the face of it. However, would the third company not have their claim challenged on the basis that they were party to a fraud?


No charge is registered at Companies House.

It still could be though!

[CropleyWasGod]

Not if it lent RFC enought to repay the Lloyds Banking Group £18million under loan documentation with a bond and floating charge over the RFC assets granted to it to secure 'repayment'! :wink:

Just saying likes!

Wouldn't it be paid direct to Lloyds? CW claimed that "he" paid off the bank.

[CropleyWasGod]

It still could be though!

Should've been registered months ago.

Not that that means it doesn't exist, of course.

[TornadoHibby]

Wouldn't it be paid direct to Lloyds? CW claimed that "he" paid off the bank.

Still retaining the 'hypothetical angle', yes it could have but the loan documentation would record that in terms of why it was being directly to LBG on behalf of RFC I would imagine!

[Seveno]

Still retaining the 'hypothetical angle', yes it could have but the loan documentation would record that in terms of why it was being directly to LBG on behalf of RFC I would imagine!

Under FOI, could we not ask LBG who paid them ? :cb

[Ozyhibby]

Under FOI, could we not ask LBG who paid them ? :cb

No, although we own a big chunk of LBG they are still regarded as a private company and therefor exempt from freedom of information requests.

[CropleyWasGod]

No, although we own a big chunk of LBG they are still regarded as a private company and therefor exempt from freedom of information requests.

They may be getting a pile of mail from Duff & Phelps, the Insolvency Service, Strathclyde Polis, the FSA and the SFA :greengrin

[Beefster]

Weird that Whyte's solicitors blank the SFA's requests for information on the 'fit and proper' test for months but as soon as Whyte is no longer in control of the club they launch an 'inquiry'. Spineless ****ers.

[CropleyWasGod]

Weird that Whyte's solicitors blank the SFA's requests for information on the 'fit and proper' test for months but as soon as Whyte is no longer in control of the club they launch an 'inquiry'. Spineless ****ers.

It's difficult to see what else they could do. Their initial inquiry into Whyte was running, but had hit a wall. That wasn't their fault. As a result of that, and the latest stuff, they set up their investigation into the club.

[PatHead]

I can only guess that the BBC have seen the Ticketus agreement. Someone (on here) did say that Ticketus have dealt with a club in (or close to) administration before, so perhaps there is a transfer clause to cover them in that event.

I have my doubts though.

South coast club

[Caversham Green]

I don't think there is a great deal of merit in debating the 'suspected' terms of the RFC 'deal' with Ticketus as no-one posting on here has seen the actual loan/sale documentation as far as I can see.

However, your accountancy assessment is flawed in that the balance sheet would balance in the scenario you describe. The balance sheet would show a debit for the GROSS sale proceeds (in respect of the amount due to be paid for the tickets) and a credit for the VAT liability amount with the net (future year) sales amount being the balancing balance sheet credit entry!

The bit you allude to as being the amount of the 'balancing item' relates, I think, to the receipt of cash for the sale which would be a credit against the GROSS sale proceeds debtor (as above) and a debit to the bank account if cash is received by RFC or a loan (debtor) account in the name of the recipient of the cash in cleared funds if not RFC. That balances too but is a separate element from the sale itself and the book-keeping for that!

Just saying likes! :wink:

The Ticketus statement (see post#1117) clearly lays out the nature of the deal. Regardless of the detailed terms it looks rather foolish IMHO
As I already said
'if taken at face vale'.

CWG has addressed the accounting points briefly, but the normal expected entry would simply be Dr Cash/Cr Deferred income. The deferred income would then be released to sales over the term of the deferral (Dr Deferred income/Cr sales). The point I was making was that no cash had come in and nobody seemed to know where it had gone therefore no debit entry could be identified. The last part of my relevant paragraph was


I've already said this too
until they can identify where the money did actually go.


Just saying likes. :na na:

[CropleyWasGod]

South coast club

I just can't think..... :greengrin

I can see that, in an administration, the Ticketus arrangement could be continued under the new regime. After all, that is the same company.

In a liquidation, though, or a sale to a third party (eg Paul Murray).... what would be the implications?

[HFC 0-7]

It's difficult to see what else they could do. Their initial inquiry into Whyte was running, but had hit a wall. That wasn't their fault. As a result of that, and the latest stuff, they set up their investigation into the club.

IMO, they shouldnt let someone take control of a club until the checks have been done and are satisfied.

[Beefster]

It's difficult to see what else they could do. Their initial inquiry into Whyte was running, but had hit a wall. That wasn't their fault. As a result of that, and the latest stuff, they set up their investigation into the club.


IMO, they shouldnt let someone take control of a club until the checks have been done and are satisfied.

hibs13681 is pretty much on the nail. Either that or have a timescale that, if all the checks haven't been satisfied within 2 or 3 months of takeover, they'll be declared unfit. To be scrambling around 9 months after the takeover and then only launch an 'investigation' after he loses control, despite countless allegations against him since the takeover, is spineless IMHO.

[TornadoHibby]

The Ticketus statement (see post#1117) clearly lays out the nature of the deal. Regardless of the detailed terms it looks rather foolish IMHO
CWG has addressed the accounting points briefly, but the normal expected entry would simply be Dr Cash/Cr Deferred income. The deferred income would then be released to sales over the term of the deferral (Dr Deferred income/Cr sales). The point I was making was that no cash had come in and nobody seemed to know where it had gone therefore no debit entry could be identified. The last part of my relevant paragraph was

Just saying likes. :na na:

I thought that point you were making was that the balance sheet didn't balance until the location of the cash was known?? I'd hoped that I had established that was not in fact the case (it isn't the case) but you've raised a red herring I think to muddy the waters just a bit!

Fair enough but irrespective of where that cash sits, the balance sheet is not 'unbalanced', simply missing the double entry regarding reduction of one debtor and replacement by another or increase in cash balances or reduction in net debt!

Hypothetical chit chat on what might or might not be the case ultimately becomes slightly tedious for some if not others!

[Caversham Green]

I thought that point you were making was that the balance sheet didn't balance until the location of the cash was known?? I'd hoped that I had established that was not in fact the case (it isn't the case) but you've raised a red herring I think to muddy the waters just a bit!

Fair enough but irrespective of where that cash sits, the balance sheet is not 'unbalanced', simply missing the double entry regarding reduction of one debtor and replacement by another or increase in cash balances or reduction in net debt!

Hypothetical chit chat on what might or might not be the case ultimately becomes slightly tedious for some if not others!

In strict technical terms of course there's always a corresponding debit to any credit - you just chuck it in Suspense if you don't know what it is. But, because you don't know what it is you can't complete the balance sheet - it could be an expense, in which case it goes into the P&L or a distibution, in which case it comes out of capital/reserves. At the time of my original post none of this was known, so it wasn't possible to balance the balance sheet. I didn't really think I'd need to explain it to that extent and don't see muddied waters or red herrings in any of my comments.

Anyway, I take it you don't find it tedious since you're engaging in this discussion.

[CropleyWasGod]

In strict technical terms of course there's always a corresponding debit to any credit - you just chuck it in Suspense if you don't know what it is. But, because you don't know what it is you can't complete the balance sheet - it could be an expense, in which case it goes into the P&L or a distibution, in which case it comes out of capital/reserves. At the time of my original post none of this was known, so it wasn't possible to balance the balance sheet. I didn't really think I'd need to explain it to that extent and don't see muddied waters or red herrings in any of my comments.

Anyway, I take it you don't find it tedious since you're engaging in this discussion.

The administrators said on the radio that they have received some information about "certain transactions", which they will be assessing over the next few days.

I'll no sleep..... :greengrin

[stokesmessiah]

I don't get these administrators at all, for a start they do not sound impartial to me and nor do they sound like they have the creditors best intentions at heart.

And how is it they can keep on insisting on there being no liquidation when they can't find £24mil and the result of the big tax case has not been announced. If that were to happen on Monday and it was worst case £75mil scenario for Rangers then there is no way they could go on it would be game over.

[TornadoHibby]

In strict technical terms of course there's always a corresponding debit to any credit - you just chuck it in Suspense if you don't know what it is. But, because you don't know what it is you can't complete the balance sheet - it could be an expense, in which case it goes into the P&L or a distibution, in which case it comes out of capital/reserves. At the time of my original post none of this was known, so it wasn't possible to balance the balance sheet. I didn't really think I'd need to explain it to that extent and don't see muddied waters or red herrings in any of my comments.

Anyway, I take it you don't find it tedious since you're engaging in this discussion.

I'm now totally confused at you still trying to "make good" your point about balance sheets not balancing for the reasons you noted in the original post. Even at the point of the original post it was possible to balance the balance sheet by putting the "unknown element", assuming the accountant responsible for the task was confident that Ticketus had transferred the funds to an entity connected with RFC and "Suspense" might have done meantime depending upon the nature of and audience for the accounts hypothetically speaking. If there is doubt that any cash has been transferred to any RFC related entity then the second leg of your accountancy point is irrelevant at that stage.

The point I think you were trying to make was that the recipient of the cash is actually not known and I think that the point went way off track (waters became muddied perhaps?) when you started the point about the balance sheet "not balancing"! The subject matter in your point from the original post is not accountancy but "where is that Ticketus cash now?" and I was simply trying to steer things back from the brink of that misguidance to non accountants trying to understand what you were actually saying! :rolleyes:

I think the idea that some people seem to think that they are accurately identifying what has happened here when no-one posting seems to have an awareness of the actual legal documents or funds flows concerned is interesting in the hypothetical sense but only to a point.

I'm as interested as the next Scottish football fan to find out what has actually happened here but not to the extent of trying to work out exactly what CW and his associates and advisors have done without the help of actual papers and facts when there are already Administrators and possibly now others already on that particular case who will doubtless make the actual circumstances known to all stakeholders including fans in due course!

PS: Something up with the Octopusinvestments .com web site today!:confused: :rolleyes:

[tony]

You could look upon all of this as a watershed for Scottish Football. A chance to get itself into a shape to mover forward, as this situation is just another example of our steady decline, in terms of quality, excitement, organisation etc etc.

It would be great to make sure that all teams cannot operate outwith their means - as Rangers have been beating us by spending outwith theirs for years now. Clubs can only pay what they can afford, meaning they have to stop bringing in journeymen and start bringing up youngsters. The big clubs will always be big, but with a more even playing field we might end up with tables that reflect the last years of the old first division and the first few of the SPL. Forget Europe, forget England. Lets get a 16 team league playing twice a year and save our game. Who knows, in five/ten years we might actually have a game worth watching and worth getting excited about.

Ok, time to come out of dreamland...........though it was nice for the five minutes I was thinking about it........

:greengrin

[ScottB]

Would be very interesting indeed if Whyte has given Ticketus some sort of deal that guarantees them their money regardless of what Rangers do...

In a way it makes sense, if that wasn't the case, why wouldn't they have any kind of guarantee against the clubs assets or any kind of back up to cover them if Rangers hit the wall? When they did the deal it was clear Rangers were in trouble, and 'The Big Tax Case' was on the horizon. So perhaps this was the price for Rangers getting so many years worth of ticket cash upfront? Not sure how that would work on a legal basis, but if it is true... Rangers are stuffed no matter what they do!

[Caversham Green]

I'm now totally confused at you still trying to "make good" your point about balance sheets not balancing for the reasons you noted in the original post. Even at the point of the original post it was possible to balance the balance sheet by putting the "unknown element", assuming the accountant responsible for the task was confident that Ticketus had transferred the funds to an entity connected with RFC and "Suspense" might have done meantime depending upon the nature of and audience for the accounts hypothetically speaking. If there is doubt that any cash has been transferred to any RFC related entity then the second leg of your accountancy point is irrelevant at that stage.

The point I think you were trying to make was that the recipient of the cash is actually not known and I think that the point went way off track (waters became muddied perhaps?) when you started the point about the balance sheet "not balancing"! The subject matter in your point from the original post is not accountancy but "where is that Ticketus cash now?" and I was simply trying to steer things back from the brink of that misguidance to non accountants trying to understand what you were actually saying! :rolleyes:

I think the idea that some people seem to think that they are accurately identifying what has happened here when no-one posting seems to have an awareness of the actual legal documents or funds flows concerned is interesting in the hypothetical sense but only to a point.

I'm as interested as the next Scottish football fan to find out what has actually happened here but not to the extent of trying to work out exactly what CW and his associates and advisors have done without the help of actual papers and facts when there are already Administrators and possibly now others already on that particular case who will doubtless make the actual circumstances known to all stakeholders including fans in due course!

PS: Something up with the Octopusinvestments .com web site today!:confused: :rolleyes:

The main point of my original post was that the deal with Ticketus was by their stance definitely not a loan - that was different from how I and others had previously regarded it. The accounting aspect was secondary but the basic point was that The Rangers Football Club PLC had an identifiable credit - the deferred income - but no identifiable corresponding debit - no cash, no expense, no identifiable asset. You can't make a balance sheet balance in those circumstances (at least not in a way that is acceptable under any accounting standards). I don't think my reasoning was in any way flawed. Prior to the Ticketus statement I could see a situation where RFC were simply guaranteeing the debt of another company on the strength of their future ST sales, but didn't have a specific liability, in which case there would have been no balance sheet entry at all.

[mca]

Administrators say they have new information about finances - as Rangers lose at Ibrox

RANGERS' adminstrators revealed today they have received new information about the club's finances and expect to make an announcement about it sometime next week.
They said the information had been gained overnight and would be looked over in the coming days.


That was the Headline copied from the record website.... i would post the link but it only bangs on about rangers playing after that wee sentence.. typical weegie paper eh..



So - Whats the NEW information and why are the journos not allowed to tell us !?!? me thinks that this is now a police issue with maybe arrests pending - there is not many ways off gagging the press or keeping new information from being printed.


Kinda curious about it all now - as - i posted last night that a family had seen a few vans of plain clothes types decend on ibrox at 6pm.. ????

i still think it was cleaners btw..

[truehibernian]

** pedant alert.....*****

Oh dear...........seems the Rangers fans have been getting lessons in 'banner making' from the Celtic fans.

http://willievass.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/180212-Rangers-v-Kilmarnock/G0000wn4DvabL9nA/I0000nNZibM6GU2o

[Steven_Hibs]

So - Whats the NEW information and why are the journos not allowed to tell us !?!? me thinks that this is now a police issue with maybe arrests pending

Here's hoping :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Administrators say they have new information about finances - as Rangers lose at Ibrox

RANGERS' adminstrators revealed today they have received new information about the club's finances and expect to make an announcement about it sometime next week.
They said the information had been gained overnight and would be looked over in the coming days.


That was the Headline copied from the record website.... i would post the link but it only bangs on about rangers playing after that wee sentence.. typical weegie paper eh..



So - Whats the NEW information and why are the journos not allowed to tell us !?!? me thinks that this is now a police issue with maybe arrests pending - there is not many ways off gagging the press or keeping new information from being printed.


Kinda curious about it all now - as - i posted last night that a family had seen a few vans of plain clothes types decend on ibrox at 6pm.. ????

i still think it was cleaners btw..

Well, they could be money launderers of course

[CropleyWasGod]

Administrators say they have new information about finances - as Rangers lose at Ibrox

RANGERS' adminstrators revealed today they have received new information about the club's finances and expect to make an announcement about it sometime next week.
They said the information had been gained overnight and would be looked over in the coming days.


That was the Headline copied from the record website.... i would post the link but it only bangs on about rangers playing after that wee sentence.. typical weegie paper eh..



So - Whats the NEW information and why are the journos not allowed to tell us !?!? me thinks that this is now a police issue with maybe arrests pending - there is not many ways off gagging the press or keeping new information from being printed.


Kinda curious about it all now - as - i posted last night that a family had seen a few vans of plain clothes types decend on ibrox at 6pm.. ????

i still think it was cleaners btw..

I heard the press conference on the radio. I didn't hear any indication that the journalists had been given the information, and had been gagged. I heard, as you did, that there was new information (from solicitors) which would be assessed over the next few days.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't get these administrators at all, for a start they do not sound impartial to me and nor do they sound like they have the creditors best intentions at heart.

And how is it they can keep on insisting on there being no liquidation when they can't find £24mil and the result of the big tax case has not been announced. If that were to happen on Monday and it was worst case £75mil scenario for Rangers then there is no way they could go on it would be game over.

They have to say that, to (a) keep the interest of potential buyers and (b) keep potential suppliers.

Were they to say "aye, liquidation is inevitable", all potential buyers would back off until after the liquidation. They might still pick up the club, but not to the benefit of the creditors.

[mca]

I heard the press conference on the radio. I didn't hear any indication that the journalists had been given the information, and had been gagged. I heard, as you did, that there was new information (from solicitors) which would be assessed over the next few days.


They didnt say that it would be assessed - from a quote they said = we have new information about the club's finances and "expect" to make an "announcement" about it sometime next week.

Obvoiously they Already have some information that needs to be announced at some point... !! no..

Why did the admis even say it - and why cant it be announced now if its just trivial matters ???

[steakbake]

Think there is supposed to be a "scoop" in one of the Sundays tomorrow about allegations of criminal behaviour at Ibrox - heard some folk talking about it today but no idea what the details are.

[CropleyWasGod]

They didnt say that it would be assessed - from a quote they said = we have new information about the club's finances and "expect" to make an "announcement" about it sometime next week.

Obvoiously they Already have some information that needs to be announced at some point... !! no..

Why did the admis even say it - and why cant it be announced now if its just trivial matters ???

Is it trivial, though?

From the BBC website, which reflects what I heard:-

Paul Clark, a joint administrator from Duff and Phelps, was speaking as thousands of fans packed out Ibrox in support of the troubled club.

Mr Clark said the transaction details had become available overnight.

He said the information was being assessed and details were expected to emerge in the week ahead.



I still don't get your bit about the journos being gagged.

[Smidge]

They didnt say that it would be assessed - from a quote they said = we have new information about the club's finances and "expect" to make an "announcement" about it sometime next week.

Obvoiously they Already have some information that needs to be announced at some point... !! no..

Why did the admis even say it - and why cant it be announced now if its just trivial matters ???

Depends on what the source is. If it's from a party related to CW, then they may want to take their time in assessing the veracity!

[mca]

Is it trivial, though?

From the BBC website, which reflects what I heard:-

Paul Clark, a joint administrator from Duff and Phelps, was speaking as thousands of fans packed out Ibrox in support of the troubled club.

Mr Clark said the transaction details had become available overnight.

He said the information was being assessed and details were expected to emerge in the week ahead.



I still don't get your bit about the journos being gagged.








something weird about this " Details becoming available Overnight "

i never thought administrators worked 24/7 - modern times maybe and i must be wrong - they just never seemed the type to work all night ..

[CropleyWasGod]

something weird about this " Details becoming available Overnight "

i never thought administrators worked 24/7 - modern times maybe and i must be wrong - they just never seemed the type to work all night ..

How so?

They knocked off last night, and the information is there this morning, by fax or email.

[mca]

How so?

They knocked off last night, and the information is there this morning, by fax or email.


so any idea what is this so called news that has become - " available overnight "

That the admins hinted of - and wont tell us about ????

[CropleyWasGod]

so any idea what is this so called news that has become - " available overnight "

That the admins hinted of - and wont tell us about ????

I can only speculate.

I think I heard him say it came from solicitors, so:-

2-1 it's from CW's solicitors.

4-1 it's from Alastair Johnstone's solicitors.

50-1 Sir David Murray's.

As to its content, it's rational to suggest it's to do with the Ticketus money. Where it went, who has it now, and (importantly, to my mind) who knew.

[mca]

I can only speculate.

I think I heard him say it came from solicitors, so:-

2-1 it's from CW's solicitors.

4-1 it's from Alastair Johnstone's solicitors.

50-1 Sir David Murray's.

As to its content, it's rational to suggest it's to do with the Ticketus money. Where it went, who has it now, and (importantly, to my mind) who knew.


:aok: im expecting some arrests....

[CropleyWasGod]

:aok: im expecting some arrests....

Of whom?

[TornadoHibby]

something weird about this " Details becoming available Overnight "

i never thought administrators worked 24/7 - modern times maybe and i must be wrong - they just never seemed the type to work all night ..

They've always been the kind that do that when the case requires it! :wink:

[erskine-hibby]

Don't know if it has been posted,but the league placings in reverse are...

4-Hearts

3-Motherwell

2-Rangers

1-Celtic

Spooky or what??

[Spike Mandela]

Don't know if it has been posted,but the league placings in reverse are...

4-Hearts

3-Motherwell

2-Rangers

1-Celtic

Spooky or what??

:shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked:

[frazeHFC]

Don't know if it has been posted,but the league placings in reverse are...

4-Hearts

3-Motherwell

2-Rangers

1-Celtic

Spooky or what??



I did it about 5 hours ago :greengrin

[frazeHFC]

:faf:
http://i39.tinypic.com/t685fo.jpg

[green glory]

The information recived "overnight" must allude to whatever Alistair Johnston passed to the police last night. Specific details on the Whyte takeover and possibly the Ticketus deal and most importantly whether this money was used to fund the takeover. If it was then HMRC are now the secured creditors. If HMRC are going to playhard ball, (and remember all the comings and goings at the moment don't include the big tax bill) then liquidation will probably be inevitable despite what the administrators say. Although they were appointed by Whyte, they are accountable to the court of session, and will have to conduct this with transparency, whilst sending out positive signals for potential investors (hence saying liquidation is unlikely).

Death to Scotland's Disgrace.



:lolrangers:

[CropleyWasGod]

The information recived "overnight" must allude to whatever Alistair Johnston passed to the police last night. Specific details on the Whyte takeover and possibly the Ticketus deal and most importantly whether this money was used to fund the takeover. If it was then HMRC are now the secured creditors. If HMRC are going to playhard ball, (and remember all the comings and goings at the moment don't include the big tax bill) then liquidation will probably be inevitable despite what the administrators say. Although they were appointed by Whyte, they are accountable to the court of session, and will have to conduct this with transparency, whilst sending out positive signals for potential investors (hence saying liquidation is unlikely).

Death to Scotland's Disgrace.



:lolrangers:

Don't understand this bit. How can HMRC be a secured creditor?

[StevieC]

Don't understand this bit. How can HMRC be a secured creditor?

Maybe not "secured" creditor, but in the absence of a "secured" creditor (Whyte's "security" being null and void) wouldn't the HMRC become the "main" creditor with tax debt taking priority over any other "non-secured" debt?

[CropleyWasGod]

Maybe not "secured" creditor, but in the absence of a "secured" creditor (Whyte's "security" being null and void) wouldn't the HMRC become the "main" creditor with tax debt taking priority over any other "non-secured" debt?

No. Government debt used to take priority, Stevie, but not nowadays. It would rank along with every other unsecured creditor.

[HibeeHendo]

Because Rangers can't pay the fee's for already transferred players, do they still get to keep the players?

[jgl07]

Because Rangers can't pay the fee's for already transferred players, do they still get to keep the players?

Not if they are liquidated!

[CropleyWasGod]

Because Rangers can't pay the fee's for already transferred players, do they still get to keep the players?

Yup.

[Spike Mandela]

Turns out administrator Mr Clark signed the paperwork to sign Daniel Cousin. Must be first administrators in history who start their bid to turn a loss making company into a profit making one by trying to pay out an extra £7.5k a week. The stink at Ibrox is getting smellier by the day.

[jgl07]

Turns out administrator Mr Clark signed the paperwork to sign Daniel Cousin. Must be first administrators in history who start their bid to turn a loss making company into a profit making one by trying to pay out an extra £7.5k a week. The stink at Ibrox is getting smellier by the day.

I recall that when Motherwell went into administration, half the squad got their jotters on the first day. Season tickets were repudiated and supporters were asked to pay again which most were happy to do.

Rangers are burning £10 million a year after tax (ony they don't pay no tax!). What measures are the administrators taking to protect the interests of the creditors?

They clearly would not be abe to carry on like this unless they were being paid by another organization, presumably the 'Group'.

The whole thing stinks big time.

[Benny Brazil]

Turns out administrator Mr Clark signed the paperwork to sign Daniel Cousin. Must be first administrators in history who start their bid to turn a loss making company into a profit making one by trying to pay out an extra £7.5k a week. The stink at Ibrox is getting smellier by the day.

Good article from Tom English about that this morning:

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/tom_english_someone_with_a_conscience_had_to_say_i t_s_not_right_to_sign_him_when_redundancies_are_in _the_air_1_2125647

[WindyMiller]

Good article from Tom English about that this morning:

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/tom_english_someone_with_a_conscience_had_to_say_i t_s_not_right_to_sign_him_when_redundancies_are_in _the_air_1_2125647

It's a pity English didn't ask Whyte a few more pertinent questions when he wrote that article, when Whyte claimed everything was rosy, a few weeks ago.

[Hibs Class]

Good article from Tom English about that this morning:

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/tom_english_someone_with_a_conscience_had_to_say_i t_s_not_right_to_sign_him_when_redundancies_are_in _the_air_1_2125647

It is a good article. It makes you wonder if HMRC should be going back to court tomorrow to ask for the removal of the current administrator and the appointment of a firm acceptable to them.

[Leithenhibby]

Good article from Tom English about that this morning:

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/tom_english_someone_with_a_conscience_had_to_say_i t_s_not_right_to_sign_him_when_redundancies_are_in _the_air_1_2125647


:rolleyes: Perhaps Mr Clark should be asked to explain this one to "the courts", after all he did stress that it was the "Court", that appointed them.

All in the best interest of the creditors, aye. MY A£SE ..... :wink:

[Eyrie]

Taken from the BBC's Scottish gossip column (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17088738)


HMRC will allow Rangers to pay up their £49m debt over a number of years to prevent putting the club out of business, according to government sources. (The Times)

Good news if true. It means that we as taxpayers will not lose out and that the rest of the SPL will benefit from weaker (therefore more competitive) Huns teams for several years until the debt is repaid.

[Newry Hibs]

Taken from the BBC's Scottish gossip column (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17088738)



Good news if true. It means that we as taxpayers will not lose out and that the rest of the SPL will benefit from weaker (therefore more competitive) Huns teams for several years until the debt is repaid.

I think that would be key - 10 years at £5m or 5 years at £10m. Knowing the carve up that is possible - maybe £1m a year for 50 years. After all RFC are an institution that needs to be protected.

[CropleyWasGod]

Taken from the BBC's Scottish gossip column (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17088738)



Good news if true. It means that we as taxpayers will not lose out and that the rest of the SPL will benefit from weaker (therefore more competitive) Huns teams for several years until the debt is repaid.

Agreed that it is good news for all, apart from the most rabid anti-Hun. However, it makes the assumption that the Tribunal have found in favour of HMRC. Any gossip on whether that is the case?

[Eyrie]

There would also be interest running on the balance until it is fully repaid :greengrin

But if the Huns have annual income of £35m and costs of £45m as is alleged, then cutting their costs back to (say) £10m would cover their overheads and leave them with a playing budget comparable to ourselves and Aberdeen. They'd struggle in Europe and gate money would fall, but they could still bring in £15-20m each year which would enable them to pay the debt off over 5-10 years.

The maths is do-able if the will is there.

[Kaiser1962]

There would also be interest running on the balance until it is fully repaid :greengrin

But if the Huns have annual income of £35m and costs of £45m as is alleged, then cutting their costs back to (say) £10m would cover their overheads and leave them with a playing budget comparable to ourselves and Aberdeen. They'd struggle in Europe and gate money would fall, but they could still bring in £15-20m each year which would enable them to pay the debt off over 5-10 years.

The maths is do-able if the will is there.

Dont know who's doing the sums over there but Rangers published income, and wage bill, over the last ten seasons is;

(Income first then wages)

2001 £46.0m---£33m
2002 £44.2m---£37m
2003 £48.2m---£35m
2004 £56.2m---£30m
2005 £54.3m---£27m
2006 £59.9m---£28m
2007 £41.8m---£24m
2008 £64.5m---£34m
2009 £39.7m---£31m
2010 £56.3m---£28m

Operating costs, excluding wages, must be high.

[Seveno]

I'm astounded at how open the Administrators are, even to the extent of referring to possible criminal charges as a 'grey area'. You would expect them to say nothing until they have full possession of the facts.

Makes me very suspicious. I sense other people working behind the scenes all along.

[Eyrie]

Dont know who's doing the sums over there but Rangers published income, and wage bill, over the last ten seasons is;

(Income first then wages)

2001 £46.0m---£33m
2002 £44.2m---£37m
2003 £48.2m---£35m
2004 £56.2m---£30m
2005 £54.3m---£27m
2006 £59.9m---£28m
2007 £41.8m---£24m
2008 £64.5m---£34m
2009 £39.7m---£31m
2010 £56.3m---£28m

Operating costs, excluding wages, must be high.
Cheers for the correct figures, although it's ruined my afternoon as it means that they have the income to repay the taxman without crippling their ability to outspend the rest of us.

[greenginger]

Dont know who's doing the sums over there but Rangers published income, and wage bill, over the last ten seasons is;

(Income first then wages)

2001 £46.0m---£33m
2002 £44.2m---£37m
2003 £48.2m---£35m
2004 £56.2m---£30m
2005 £54.3m---£27m
2006 £59.9m---£28m
2007 £41.8m---£24m
2008 £64.5m---£34m
2009 £39.7m---£31m
2010 £56.3m---£28m

Operating costs, excluding wages, must be high.

Do these figures include the payments/donations to the trust?

[Caversham Green]

Dont know who's doing the sums over there but Rangers published income, and wage bill, over the last ten seasons is;

(Income first then wages)

2001 £46.0m---£33m
2002 £44.2m---£37m
2003 £48.2m---£35m
2004 £56.2m---£30m
2005 £54.3m---£27m
2006 £59.9m---£28m
2007 £41.8m---£24m
2008 £64.5m---£34m
2009 £39.7m---£31m
2010 £56.3m---£28m

Operating costs, excluding wages, must be high.

I can give you that for the last four years:

2007 - Operating costs £19m/Player amortisation £4m/Interest £1m Total £24m
2008 - £22m/£7m/£2m Total £31m
2009 - £18m/£9m/£2m Total £29m
2010 - £15m/£7m/£1m Total £23m

[Caversham Green]

Do these figures include the payments/donations to the trust?

Yes they do - 2007 £4.988m; 2008 £2.291m; 2009 £2.360m; 2010 £1.358m.

[HiBremian]

Anyone else notice the music being played at Pittodrie at half time today?













"Taxman" by The Beatles :tee hee:

[neilmartinrocks]

Anyone else notice the music being played at Pittodrie at half time today?













"Taxman" by The Beatles :tee hee:

just got a text from my mate at the game. Dons having a wee dig?!!
:na na::na na:

[green glory]

At least we're not Rangers. Thought I'd cheer us all up.

[silverhibee]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/02/19/rangers-boss-ally-mccoist-insists-he-welcomes-probe-into-ibrox-owner-craig-whyte-86908-23756481/


:faf:

:lolrangers:

[ScottB]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/02/19/rangers-boss-ally-mccoist-insists-he-welcomes-probe-into-ibrox-owner-craig-whyte-86908-23756481/


:faf:

:lolrangers:

That's an interesting order for those banners to be in... :wink:

[johnbc70]

All very quiet at Ibrox but couple of things wanted to raise.

1) A 'friend of a friend' told me that his son who is 17 and on Rangers books has been promoted to the first team squad, a number of 16 and 17 year old have been told the same and will be training with the first team. Maybe a sign of the impending redundancies of some of the higher earners.

2) I keep reading about how 1 week in the administrators still do not know the whereabouts of the £24.4M Ticketus money - well here is an idea for them, ask Craig Whyte! Pretty simple really - phone him up and ask him where it is? Why have they not done this and why has no journalist questioned this?

[Coco Bryce]

I heard yesterday that the five-year contracts signed by the likes of Whittaker and McGregor are with the parent company, Rangers FC Group (ex-Wavetower) not RFC PLC. If true, that would break SPL rules on third-party ownership. And potentially mean that Rangers would lose every point they've won this season with "unregistered" players in their team. Like . . . every one of them. Which would put them on -10 points.

Supposedly this info came from an ex-Rangers player who is still involved with the club.

[Leithenhibby]

I heard yesterday that the five-year contracts signed by the likes of Whittaker and McGregor are with the parent company, Rangers FC Group (ex-Wavetower) not RFC PLC. If true, that would break SPL rules on third-party ownership. And potentially mean that Rangers would lose every point they've won this season with "unregistered" players in their team. Like . . . every one of them. Which would put them on -10 points.

Supposedly this info came from an ex-Rangers player who is still involved with the club.


Now if that is true :pray: How funny would that be ... :cb

The next few days will be a real testing time for that mob ... :na na::na na:

[Sergio sledge]

The chief sports writer at the Scottish daily mail is saying on Twitter that there'll be a story to "bury" Craig Whyte "and much more" in tomorrows daily mail....

[Famous5forever]

The chief sports writer at the Scottish daily mail is saying on Twitter that there'll be a story to "bury" Craig Whyte "and much more" in tomorrows daily mail....

I Heard from a very good source that there will be a warrant out for his Arrest tomorrow for FRAUD:pfgwa

[Spike Mandela]

The chief sports writer at the Scottish daily mail is saying on Twitter that there'll be a story to "bury" Craig Whyte "and much more" in tomorrows daily mail....

He used the ticketus money to buy Gers.................


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2104025/Craig-Whyte-used-24m-Ticketus-money-pay-bank.html