Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Jack]

Although the initial agreement stated that if the CVA failed (which it did) then the assets would be purchased by Sevco5088 for £5.3m. This may be the start of a very long legal battle whereby CW is putting claim to the assets (possibly claiming they were transfered to Sevco Scotland illegally?).
Remember that CW has a substantial Ticketus claim hanging over his head.

IIRC there were rumours that CW&CG had set up Sevco5088 to become the new rangers. At the last minute CG, without CWs knowledge, had all the old rangers stuff moved to CW free Sevco Scotland, shafting CW.

[GreenLake]

What doesn't make sense .The fact he is telling us his middle name is Thomas .I have my Doubts .:rolleyes:

If his middle name is Thomas then his first name should be John, not Craig.

[green glory]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/escape-to-austerity/#more-4367

[jacomo]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/escape-to-austerity/#more-4367

Still don't understand how this guy is getting hold of this information. On the other hand, one of our fellow posters has a mole inside Tynecastle so anything is possible.

If it's true, Graham Wallace will be out the door soon. Either because he can't do his job, or because he's publicly stated there's no chance of admin 2 and his professional reputation will be in tatters if he doesn't walk before he's pushed.

[Spike Mandela]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/escape-to-austerity/#more-4367

Interesting stuff. Hopefully as bang on the button as he was first time around.

[CropleyWasGod]

Interesting stuff. Hopefully as bang on the button as he was first time around.

Would be an interesting Championship if both Rangers and Hearts were to start on negative points :greengrin

[Spike Mandela]

See McCoist is at his snidey wee conspiracy remarks again which will undoubtedly rouse the Ibrox brown shirts in to action again........

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/263136-ally-mccoist-id-have-bet-on-ibrox-not-being-picked-for-league-cup-final/


I see McCoist as one of those wee weasly men happy to load the bullets but let others fire the gun. Despicable wee man.

[poolman]

See McCoist is at his snidey wee conspiracy remarks again which will undoubtedly rouse the Ibrox brown shirts in to action again........

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/263136-ally-mccoist-id-have-bet-on-ibrox-not-being-picked-for-league-cup-final/


I see McCoist as one of those wee weasly men happy to load the bullets but let others fire the gun. Despicable wee man.

Think the wee scrote is just trying for journos not to ask questions about his crap overpaid keek team

[green glory]

Think the wee scrote is just trying for journos not to ask questions about his crap overpaid keek team

Wee?

[fatbloke]

He's a steaming turd of a man and a raving hysterical bigot blinded by hatred.

No thanks.


:agree: Rangers and Celtic are two cheeks of the same er5e high time this person and others realised it.

[Onion]

See McCoist is at his snidey wee conspiracy remarks again which will undoubtedly rouse the Ibrox brown shirts in to action again........

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/263136-ally-mccoist-id-have-bet-on-ibrox-not-being-picked-for-league-cup-final/


I see McCoist as one of those wee weasly men happy to load the bullets but let others fire the gun. Despicable wee man.

Has there ever been more despicable managers in charge of Celtic and The Rangers ? Lennon and McCoist are classless cowards who exemplify these two clubs and reinforce just why they are universally despised by other clubs in Scotland. They're both comedy figures, taken seriously by our joke of a media. Little wonder no one else wants them.

[marinello59]

Has there ever been more despicable managers in charge of Celtic and The Rangers ? Lennon and McCoist are classless cowards who exemplify these two clubs and reinforce just why they are universally despised by other clubs in Scotland. They're both comedy figures, taken seriously by our joke of a media. Little wonder no one else wants them.

I wouldn't call Lennon a coward.

[CyberSauzee]

Would be an interesting Championship if both Rangers and Hearts were to start on negative points :greengrin

If this thread gets motoring again and the other one keeps ticking over you'll never get any work done! :greengrin

[Keith_M]

I notice SuperSwally made no mention of the fact that both Scottish Cup Semi-Finals are to be played at Ibrox.

[Billy Whizz]

I notice SuperSwally made no mention of the fact that both Scottish Cup Semi-Finals are to be played at Ibrox.

And I hope there not still in it by then

[Carheenlea]

Has there ever been more despicable managers in charge of Celtic and The Rangers ?

Forget the Old Firm, Ally McCoist is one of the most odious individuals to have graced Scottish Football full stop.

[Saorsa]

See McCoist is at his snidey wee conspiracy remarks again which will undoubtedly rouse the Ibrox brown shirts in to action again........

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/263136-ally-mccoist-id-have-bet-on-ibrox-not-being-picked-for-league-cup-final/


I see McCoist as one of those wee weasly men happy to load the bullets but let others fire the gun. Despicable wee man.A snide, despicable, vile creature, be hard tae think of a club/player/manager that would ever be mair suited tae each other.

[Ronniekirk]

I notice SuperSwally made no mention of the fact that both Scottish Cup Semi-Finals are to be played at Ibrox.

Course he wouldn't as it nullifies his point .Worse still bet no journalist challenged him by drawing that to his attention Can't see how it is healthy for the game going forward for him to be allowed to be this outspoken guardian of the Sevco cause he is just stoking up resentment and playing to the fans in hope it keeps him in a job next season .He looks terrible now so bloated and red faced he isn't wearing well .

[CyberSauzee]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/big-day-at-ibrox/

Interesting to see his follow up today. VAT due and no CEO at his desk. But no MSM coverage!? I will be very interested to see how this pans out.

[Broken Gnome]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/big-day-at-ibrox/

Interesting to see his follow up today. VAT due and no CEO at his desk. But no MSM coverage!? I will be very interested to see how this pans out.

No one can open their mouth or put pen to paper in such a cringy self-important manner as a Celtic fan....

[jacomo]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/big-day-at-ibrox/

Interesting to see his follow up today. VAT due and no CEO at his desk. But no MSM coverage!? I will be very interested to see how this pans out.


No one can open their mouth or put pen to paper in such a cringy self-important manner as a Celtic fan....

Ok, there's no question that he's baiting ra peepl here, and clearly revelling in it (gratuitous reference to Sinn Fein included). I've previously expressed doubt about how well placed he is to pick up gossip from inside Rangers.

His evidence that Rangers are teetering on the brink of admin 2 seem to be that the CEO is away (hmm), the VAT bill may or may not be late (hmm) and Craig Mather has paid too much money for some catering equipment (seriously??)

BUT... he's been like a dog with a bone with this and maybe he really does have the scoop.

[The_Todd]

No one can open their mouth or put pen to paper in such a cringy self-important manner as a Celtic fan....

:agree:

Yup. He's just the polar opposite to the Rangers-lovers in the media. What I'd give for some balanced reporting from someone with no agenda.

[CropleyWasGod]

Ok, there's no question that he's baiting ra peepl here, and clearly revelling in it (gratuitous reference to Sinn Fein included). I've previously expressed doubt about how well placed he is to pick up gossip from inside Rangers.

His evidence that Rangers are teetering on the brink of admin 2 seem to be that the CEO is away (hmm), the VAT bill may or may not be late (hmm) and Craig Mather has paid too much money for some catering equipment (seriously??)

BUT... he's been like a dog with a bone with this and maybe he really does have the scoop.

Couple of minor points, which may or may not be important.

1. if their VAT quarter is the end of December, then today is the day the payment is due.

2. the catering equipment. Some of the veterans of this thread might remember the "pie loan", which IIRC was the only security that existed in the club. It was secured over the catering equipment. Sounds as if the pie company took all their ovens away in payment of that loan, and TRFC had to buy new wans. Shame.

[AndyM_1875]

Ok, there's no question that he's baiting ra peepl here, and clearly revelling in it (gratuitous reference to Sinn Fein included). I've previously expressed doubt about how well placed he is to pick up gossip from inside Rangers.

His evidence that Rangers are teetering on the brink of admin 2 seem to be that the CEO is away (hmm), the VAT bill may or may not be late (hmm) and Craig Mather has paid too much money for some catering equipment (seriously??)

BUT... he's been like a dog with a bone with this and maybe he really does have the scoop.

It's more poop than scoop jacomoseven.
What was it Tom English & Spiers called him? "Poor Demented Phil". They were spot on.
Phil seems to have grabbed a few points and come up with a 2+3 = 17 scenario and it's not for he first time. He has no insider knowledge of the goings on at Ibrox , he's throwing crap at the walls and hoping some of it will stick.

There may be a story in there but it's usually smothered in his bile, hysteria and pathetic ingratiating drivel about the "Celtic Family" with enough hot button wordings & references to make the Plastic Rebels jump up and down with glee. For a supposedly "dead club" Phil does little else except talk about Rangers.

If Rangers have an impending VAT bill (as CWG suggests they might and I'd defer to him on all matters taxation) then it's worth noting that they have a home Scottish Cup tie tonight which they will get revenue for and strangely enough its being screened live on TV (not that I'll be watching) so they'll get additional revenue for that too.
Can anyone honestly see Rangers being given leniency or credit by anyone?
Their CEO recently gave an interview to Tom English where he said Rangers were bang up to date with all their bills. No wonder. If they owed me money I'd call out the dogs the moment they breached a payment date.

[weonlywon6-2]

See McCoist is at his snidey wee conspiracy remarks again which will undoubtedly rouse the Ibrox brown shirts in to action again........

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/263136-ally-mccoist-id-have-bet-on-ibrox-not-being-picked-for-league-cup-final/


I see McCoist as one of those wee weasly men happy to load the bullets but let others fire the gun. Despicable wee man.


theyre getting two scottish cup semis so why is he complaining ?????

[stokesmessiah]

theyre getting two scottish cup semis so why is he complaining ?????

He has to feed the Orcs with a "it's us against the world line" every now and then to keep them happy.

Like feeding a tamagotchi.

[Hibs Class]

theyre getting two scottish cup semis so why is he complaining ?????

Because he's a cock and they're broke.

[AndyM_1875]

Official statement from Mordor in response to Mad Phil's ravings....

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/6273-club-statement

If you don't want to click


THE Club has received many calls in recent days from fans, shareholders and other interested parties with regard to the contents of an Irish-based internet blog which has published numerous allegations about the business affairs of Rangers Football Club.

The Club wishes to make clear that these allegations are totally inaccurate and that the Chief Executive and Board of Directors are fully focussed on the restructuring and rebuilding of Rangers Football Club as previously announced.
The Club has decided to make this statement as unchallenged, ill-informed and inaccurate comments are damaging to the reputation of Rangers Football Club.
Graham Wallace
Chief Executive Officer

[Jack]

Official statement from Mordor in response to Mad Phil's ravings....

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/6273-club-statement

If you don't want to click


THE Club has received many calls in recent days from fans, shareholders and other interested parties with regard to the contents of an Irish-based internet blog which has published numerous allegations about the business affairs of Rangers Football Club.

The Club wishes to make clear that these allegations are totally inaccurate and that the Chief Executive and Board of Directors are fully focussed on the restructuring and rebuilding of Rangers Football Club as previously announced.
The Club has decided to make this statement as unchallenged, ill-informed and inaccurate comments are damaging to the reputation of Rangers Football Club.
Graham Wallace
Chief Executive Officer

Its all true then. lol

[joe breezy]

Anyone else seen the rumours that Sevco are again on the verge of liquidation. Possible date of 27th Feb when they might not be able to pay the players…

Charlotte2Weeks ‏@Charlotte2Weeks 19h
Gazette notice ready. An Ibrox Insolvency event will take place before March. Voluntary Liquidation and asset sale 100%.

Charlotte2Weeks ‏@Charlotte2Weeks 18h
If they can't afford this months players salary they will Liquidated before payday which is the 27th.

[Saorsa]

Anyone else seen the rumours that Sevco are again on the verge of liquidation. Possible date of 27th Feb when they might not be able to pay the players…

Charlotte2Weeks ‏@Charlotte2Weeks 19h
Gazette notice ready. An Ibrox Insolvency event will take place before March. Voluntary Liquidation and asset sale 100%.

Charlotte2Weeks ‏@Charlotte2Weeks 18h
If they can't afford this months players salary they will Liquidated before payday which is the 27th.That makes great reading, hope it's true. Then they'll have tae start at the bottom again :greengrin Wonder what they'll come back as next time if this happens.

The New The Rongers or The The Rongers

[Weststandwanab]

The The Rangers !

[SurferRosa]

Anyone else seen the rumours that Sevco are again on the verge of liquidation. Possible date of 27th Feb when they might not be able to pay the players…

Charlotte2Weeks ‏@Charlotte2Weeks 19h
Gazette notice ready. An Ibrox Insolvency event will take place before March. Voluntary Liquidation and asset sale 100%.

Charlotte2Weeks ‏@Charlotte2Weeks 18h
If they can't afford this months players salary they will Liquidated before payday which is the 27th.

That cant possibly be right.
Richard Foster was in the paper this morning saying this is a great time to be at SevCo, Sally`s just prepared his scouting blueprint and Lee McCulloch is aiming for 'the treble'.....:coffee:


:faf:

[Keith_M]

Anyone else seen the rumours that Sevco are again on the verge of liquidation. Possible date of 27th Feb when they might not be able to pay the players…

Charlotte2Weeks ‏@Charlotte2Weeks 19h
Gazette notice ready. An Ibrox Insolvency event will take place before March. Voluntary Liquidation and asset sale 100%.

Charlotte2Weeks ‏@Charlotte2Weeks 18h
If they can't afford this months players salary they will Liquidated before payday which is the 27th.



There are so many rumours going about but they probably all originate with Phil MahGobbin. I'll take all of them with a large dose of salt.

[CropleyWasGod]

I would be surprised if they went straight to liquidation. Admin would be the first step.
I also reckon they have cash for a few months yet.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Saorsa]

I would be surprised if they went straight to liquidation. Admin would be the first step.
I also reckon they have cash for a few months yet.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalkspoilsport :greengrin

[Weststandwanab]

That cant possibly be right.
Richard Foster was in the paper this morning saying this is a great time to be at SevCo, Sally`s just prepared his scouting blueprint and Lee McCulloch is aiming for 'the treble'.....:coffee:


:faf: I did not realise he played darts.

[green glory]

In the Collyer Bristow case in court today the judge ruled the Charlotte material as admissible in court.

All those emails and recorded conversations involving the asset transfer.

This could be nuclear.

[CropleyWasGod]

In the Collyer Bristow case in court today the judge ruled the Charlotte material as admissible in court.

All those emails and recorded conversations involving the asset transfer.

This could be nuclear.

Remind me what the case is about. Is this CB being sued by BDO?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Jack Hackett]

I would be surprised if they went straight to liquidation. Admin would be the first step.
I also reckon they have cash for a few months yet.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Well done Crops.....that's me reduced to a semi now :grr:

[CropleyWasGod]

Well done Crops.....that's me reduced to a semi now :grr:

Patience is everything. :-)

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

Remind me what the case is about. Is this CB being sued by BDO?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/secret-tapes-former-rangers-owners-3156806

BDO suing Whyte's lawyers because they feel their negligence cost Rangers 1872 creditors a lot of dosh.

Case to be heard next January according to the Record. :confused:


My question is who sues BDO for costing the Yam creditors a lot of dosh ? :greengrin

[GreenLake]

They should be called Saint Ranger's. New to everybody in the lowland league but no StRangers to cheating.

[Weststandwanab]

They should be called Saint Ranger's. New to everybody in the lowland league but no StRangers to cheating. That is brilliant.

[southsider]

Heard at the weekend that admin 2 is a real threat. Was the SFA's decision to knock back automatic relegation for clubs going into admin when it all seemed done and dusted a sign of things to come ?

[AndyM_1875]

There are so many rumours going about but they probably all originate with Phil MahGobbin. I'll take all of them with a large dose of salt.

Agreed.:agree:

My interpretation is that Sellik hysterics are wetting their pants because they're getting mixed up with Craig Whyte's ongoing court troubles with Rangers as they are now. In short they're mixing Oldco with Newco. It doesn't help when you have bitter bigots like Phil McBonkers and mischief makers like CharlotteFakes being quoted verbatim as seekers of truth (Ha!) as you're always going to find yourself being manipulated by someone's agenda.

Whilst Rangers are in a mess as regards their cash burn and various spivs taking money out of the club, all this straight to liquidation mince is straight out of a bitter Sellik fans wet dream. Rangers have some guaranteed revenue streams coming in the form of a cup quarter final which will be televised and with no disrespect to Albion Rovers, a likely cup Semi Final (at home)in front of 50,000 plus a Ramsdens Cup Final in front of 20,000.

They also have this Dave King character lurking in the background looking to take over the club. He's an arrogant, obnoxious, unpleasant crook of a man but he does appear to have the resources to take over the club.

[CropleyWasGod]

Heard at the weekend that admin 2 is a real threat. Was the SFA's decision to knock back automatic relegation for clubs going into admin when it all seemed done and dusted a sign of things to come ?

Wouldn't have been the SFAs decision. The SFL might have had that view, but they don't exist any more.


Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[StevieC]

Heard at the weekend that admin 2 is a real threat. Was the SFA's decision to knock back automatic relegation for clubs going into admin when it all seemed done and dusted a sign of things to come ?

I doubt it. It was a common sense approach to a problem that could affect a lot more teams than Sevco.

[CropleyWasGod]

Agreed.:agree:

My interpretation is that Sellik hysterics are wetting their pants because they're getting mixed up with Craig Whyte's ongoing court troubles with Rangers as they are now. In short they're mixing Oldco with Newco. It doesn't help when you have bitter bigots like Phil McBonkers and mischief makers like CharlotteFakes being quoted verbatim as seekers of truth (Ha!) as you're always going to find yourself being manipulated by someone's agenda.

Whilst Rangers are in a mess as regards their cash burn and various spivs taking money out of the club, all this straight to liquidation mince is straight out of a bitter Sellik fans wet dream. Rangers have some guaranteed revenue streams coming in the form of a cup quarter final which will be televised and with no disrespect to Albion Rovers, a likely cup Semi Final (at home)in front of 50,000 plus a Ramsdens Cup Final in front of 20,000.

They also have this Dave King character lurking in the background looking to take over the club. He's an arrogant, obnoxious, unpleasant crook of a man but he does appear to have the resources to take over the club.

Agree with everything, except I think it highly unlikely that King will be allowed to take them over.

[Spike Mandela]

I doubt it. It was a common sense approach to a problem that could affect a lot more teams than Sevco.

Except it was the wrong decision. The authorities should be doing everything to make sure that administration isn't the easy business tool it is just now for cheating clubs to use to shed millions of debt. A points deduction, no matter how much you shaft people for, is pathetic as a punishment frankly, especially if it's your second insolvency event in a few years.

Financial fair play my arse.

[StevieC]

Except it was the wrong decision. The authorities should be doing everything to make sure that administration isn't the easy business tool it is just now for cheating clubs to use to shed millions of debt. A points deduction, no matter how much you shaft people for, is pathetic as a punishment frankly, especially if it's your second insolvency event in a few years.

Governing bodies are there for the benefit of their members and their first priority should be to help and assist in times of need. So it could be argued that it was the right decision.

Of course if one of their members is being wreckless then there are avenues open to them to punish, but teams with genuine troubles shouldn't be dragged down in a "one size fits all" punishment because of the behaviour of others.

[jacomo]

Agreed.:agree:

My interpretation is that Sellik hysterics are wetting their pants because they're getting mixed up with Craig Whyte's ongoing court troubles with Rangers as they are now. In short they're mixing Oldco with Newco. It doesn't help when you have bitter bigots like Phil McBonkers and mischief makers like CharlotteFakes being quoted verbatim as seekers of truth (Ha!) as you're always going to find yourself being manipulated by someone's agenda.

Whilst Rangers are in a mess as regards their cash burn and various spivs taking money out of the club, all this straight to liquidation mince is straight out of a bitter Sellik fans wet dream. Rangers have some guaranteed revenue streams coming in the form of a cup quarter final which will be televised and with no disrespect to Albion Rovers, a likely cup Semi Final (at home)in front of 50,000 plus a Ramsdens Cup Final in front of 20,000.

They also have this Dave King character lurking in the background looking to take over the club. He's an arrogant, obnoxious, unpleasant crook of a man but he does appear to have the resources to take over the club.

The question is, what's stopping him? As Tom English wrote a few weeks ago, Dave King has been very vocal in the media about Rangers but is yet to step up to the plate.

I agree with you about Sellick hysteria making it hard to take these claims of imminent liquidation or administration seriously. But I do wonder if Mr King is waiting to see if another insolvency event happens so he can pick up the pieces for less money and clear out the Board while he's about it.

[CropleyWasGod]

The question is, what's stopping him? As Tom English wrote a few weeks ago, Dave King has been very vocal in the media about Rangers but is yet to step up to the plate.

I agree with you about Sellick hysteria making it hard to take these claims of imminent liquidation or administration seriously. But I do wonder if Mr King is waiting to see if another insolvency event happens so he can pick up the pieces for less money and clear out the Board while he's about it.

IMO, he wouldn't get past first base in the "fit and proper" test.

However, you make a fair point about waiting for another insolvency. There will be a few vultures hanging round.... Murray (both), Green, Whyte, Kennedy....Massone :greengrin

[jacomo]

IMO, he wouldn't get past first base in the "fit and proper" test.

However, you make a fair point about waiting for another insolvency. There will be a few vultures hanging round.... Murray (both), Green, Whyte, Kennedy....Massone :greengrin

That would be absolutely delicious!

[Ronniekirk]

Heard at the weekend that admin 2 is a real threat. Was the SFA's decision to knock back automatic relegation for clubs going into admin when it all seemed done and dusted a sign of things to come ?
You wouldn't be surprised as everything has been predicated on Rangers and that's what they will be called you won't hear media calling them anything else. Getting back to top flight as soon as possible The fact they have bought there way back without having the means is just being accepted and they have made sure they they are so far in front that going into admin may even allow them to raise more money from new investors the following season which is what they need to buy there way out of that league .

[AndyM_1875]

IMO, he wouldn't get past first base in the "fit and proper" test.

However, you make a fair point about waiting for another insolvency. There will be a few vultures hanging round.... Murray (both), Green, Whyte, Kennedy....Massone :greengrin

I see what you did there....:devil:

[ballengeich]

The question is, what's stopping him? As Tom English wrote a few weeks ago, Dave King has been very vocal in the media about Rangers but is yet to step up to the plate.

I agree with you about Sellick hysteria making it hard to take these claims of imminent liquidation or administration seriously. But I do wonder if Mr King is waiting to see if another insolvency event happens so he can pick up the pieces for less money and clear out the Board while he's about it.

I think that King doesn't want to offer anything to the existing shareholders, but intends that anything he puts in will go to the club, presumably via a further share issue. He's been talking about putting in money to ensure a strong premier league team, while Wallace has stated that costs are too high even for the premier and is planning cuts. That's a total divergence in business plans so I doubt whether the existing board will want King to get shares.

There's also a question as to how much money King actually has access to at present. South Africa has controls on how much capital individuals can shift out of the country, so a lot of his fortune might be stuck there for some years.

It's going to get interesting when Wallace produces his recommendations for the future. With the income an Ibrox club can expect once it's in the premier it shouldn't be too difficult to cut spending so they don't operate at a loss from then. Setting spending at a rate that will produce a team that keeps the supporters turning up after the first season, while servicing any debt accrued beforehand and producing a profit that provides a dividend for the shareholders who mainly don't care about football is more tricky.

The condition of Ibrox could be a problem. Visitors have been commenting on how clarty it is, and there are suggestions that prolonged neglect of maintenance has created problems that are more than surface-deep. The cost of refurbishment might make any plan to let the stadium to a separate football company unprofitable.

It's questionable whether Glasgow can sustain three 50,000 capacity sports stadiums. Rangers, Queen's Park and the SFA could all cut their costs considerably if they operated from the same ground. Just a suggestion.

[Spike Mandela]

Governing bodies are there for the benefit of their members and their first priority should be to help and assist in times of need. So it could be argued that it was the right decision.



Bollocks imo. Governing bodies are there to govern and to apply rules fairly and equally. UEFA's financial fair play rules are there for all FA's to adhere to and not bail out clubs who are cheating by overspending or as you call it in times of need.

Why not go the whole hog and have governing bodies run classes in "how to compete in a league and not pay tax"' " why pay the wages you signed up to in a contract if you don't have to" , " how to make a bank debt not a debt at all" and of course "how to get rid of those pesky creditors whilst keeping all your assets":greengrin

[StevieC]

Bollocks imo.

Clearly we are not going to agree on the role of the governing body then.


Governing bodies are there to govern and to apply rules fairly and equally

Exactly. The governing bodies are voted in by their members, the rules are decided by their members, everything is put in place to benefit those self same members. Disciplinary procedures for the members (the minority in most cases) are just a small part of the overall work involved with running an association, and one with as many varieties of members as the SFA would not benefit from a "one size fits all" type of governing. There has to be a certain amount of flexibility in punishments in order to accomodate the varying levels of "crime" that might have been involved. If the irresponsible actions of one club resulted in another club going into administartion, through a debt for example, should both clubs be treated the same way and the injured club be punished further because of the inflexability of one of the punishments?


Why not go the whole hog and have governing bodies run classes in "how to compete in a league and not pay tax"

Because that would just be silly.

[Dashing Bob S]

Would love to see the Sticky Buns go into admin on the same day the Jambos were liquidated. Media wise, nobody would notice what had actually happened to Hearts till they were buying groceries in the new Iceland on Gorgie round.

[Spike Mandela]

Clearly we are not going to agree


Because that would just be silly.

:agree::wink:

[AndyM_1875]

IMO, he wouldn't get past first base in the "fit and proper" test.

However, you make a fair point about waiting for another insolvency. There will be a few vultures hanging round.... Murray (both), Green, Whyte, Kennedy....Massone :greengrin

He might not get to be Chief Executive under SFA rules but he could still own the club.
There is nothing to stop him completing the purchase of a controlling stake.

Tom English called it right on King though as he has done pretty much throughout the whole Rangers shambles unlike certain hysterical axe grinding Irish based bloggers.
The basic fact is that King had the chance to pick up Rangers in 2010 and in 2012 and didn't. He just blethered to the press.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/tom-english-dave-king-s-rangers-talk-is-cheap-1-3281687

[CropleyWasGod]

He might not get to be Chief Executive under SFA rules but he could still own the club.
There is nothing to stop him completing the purchase of a controlling stake.

Tom English called it right on King though as he has done pretty much throughout the whole Rangers shambles unlike certain hysterical axe grinding Irish based bloggers.
The basic fact is that King had the chance to pick up Rangers in 2010 and in 2012 and didn't. He just blethered to the press.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/tom-english-dave-king-s-rangers-talk-is-cheap-1-3281687

S'troo. But I can't see someone like him putting up a lot of money (and it needs a LOT!) without wanting some sort of executive power.

[Seveno]

If, or when, they go into Administration again - how much will it cost to negotiate a CVA ? My first thought is that no-one will get the same sort of deal as Green but then it may well be regarded as such a basket case that it might be hard to get a buyer. It will clearly need deep pockets to get them anywhere near the top of the SPFL. Swally has said £30m and that is just for players, never mind the cost of getting Castle Greyskull into a decent state.

[AndyM_1875]

If, or when, they go into Administration again - how much will it cost to negotiate a CVA ? My first thought is that no-one will get the same sort of deal as Green but then it may well be regarded as such a basket case that it might be hard to get a buyer. It will clearly need deep pockets to get them anywhere near the top of the SPFL. Swally has said £30m and that is just for players, never mind the cost of getting Castle Greyskull into a decent state.

Ibrox is one of two UEFA Elite stadiums in Scotland, the other is Hampden. Despite the horrible team who play there its a top class facility.

[ScottB]

Ibrox is one of two UEFA Elite stadiums in Scotland, the other is Hampden. Despite the horrible team who play there its a top class facility.

There's been rumours that it needs extensive maintenance work done.

[SurferRosa]

Apparently, SevCo are to get loans from Laxey Partners and the Easedales for around 1.5 million to see them to the end of the season. This`ll cheer Keith Jackson up a bit.

[offshorehibby]

Apparently, SevCo are to get loans from Laxey Partners and the Easedales for around 1.5 million to see them to the end of the season. This`ll cheer Keith Jackson up a bit.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26269789?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Onion]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26269789?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The Rangers buying lower division titles, living way beyond their means and mismanaging their finances (again) tells you everything you need to know about that small minded club. We don't need or want clubs like that in Scotland. Maybe they can apply to join the Iceland League.

[green glory]

The Rangers buying lower division titles, living way beyond their means and mismanaging their finances (again) tells you everything you need to know about that small minded club. We don't need or want clubs like that in Scotland. Maybe they can apply to join the Iceland League.

My preference would complete obliteration. Never to be seen again. But that's just me. :-)

[TrinityHibs]

My preference would complete obliteration. Never to be seen again. But that's just me. :-)

Don't think its just you:wink:

[jacomo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26269789?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

This news is absolutely laughable. What on earth are these people up to?

Less than 2 years on from going out of business and the club is having to borrow money just to meet its commitments through until the end of the season. What a joke.

[Weststandwanab]

Don't think its just you:wink: Me 3

[weonlywon6-2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26269789?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



You would have thought they would have learned their lesson.Clearly they are struggling again.

If they cant get it right in the lower leagues then they haven't got a hope back in the premier league

[AndyM_1875]

This news is absolutely laughable. What on earth are these people up to?

Less than 2 years on from going out of business and the club is having to borrow money just to meet its commitments through until the end of the season. What a joke.

Quite unbelievable that most of that IPO money has basically been frittered away. It's not the players wage bill that has done it though as the wages to turnover ratio is healthy. It's the boardroom spivs and various Directors 'wetting their beaks" on their way out the door that's done it.

Stupid people, stupid club with ideas way above it's station right now.

[PatHead]

Not unbelievable at all. Anyone could see what was happening. The titles don't come cheap you know.


Quite unbelievable that most of that IPO money has basically been frittered away. It's not the players wage bill that has done it though as the wages to turnover ratio is healthy. It's the boardroom spivs and various Directors 'wetting their beaks" on their way out the door that's done it.

Stupid people, stupid club with ideas way above it's station right now.

[southsider]

Think i will go place a nice wee double.....admin 2 at ibrox and death at pbs. Will give all winnings to K F K. What a day that would be.

[andrew70]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26269789?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I don't see how £1.5million will help them in the long term? Surely the wages this month and the general up keep of Castle Greyskull etc will amount to a figure close to that of which they are borrowing.

Perhaps CWG etc could help me here but could they use this money to fulfill an insolvency process and cut costs this way?

[Deansy]

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rumour-mill-rangers-georgios-samaras-skacel-1-3313053

'It is expected that the loans will not be repaid'


Wow - same arrangement as their famous 'EBT' scheme !!


And still the media will pander to these low-life, cheating filth - like their 'Wee Team' at the PBS, they've existed the last 30 years with money outwith their capabilities.

[green glory]

I don't see how £1.5million will help them in the long term? Surely the wages this month and the general up keep of Castle Greyskull etc will amount to a figure close to that of which they are borrowing. Perhaps CWG etc could help me here but could they use this money to fulfill an insolvency process and cut costs this way?

Post of the week.

My guess is that's exactly what's happening.

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rumour-mill-rangers-georgios-samaras-skacel-1-3313053

'It is expected that the loans will not be repaid'


Wow - same arrangement as their famous 'EBT' scheme !!


And still the media will pander to these low-life, cheating filth - like their 'Wee Team' at the PBS, they've existed the last 30 years with money outwith their capabilities.

Not the same arrangement at all.

It is expected that the loans will not be repaid and instead converted into shares That's a fairly common situation, and there's nothing illegal about it.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't see how £1.5million will help them in the long term? Surely the wages this month and the general up keep of Castle Greyskull etc will amount to a figure close to that of which they are borrowing.

Perhaps CWG etc could help me here but could they use this money to fulfill an insolvency process and cut costs this way?

I am surprised that they need the cash now. I reckoned they had enough to keep them going for the rest of the season.

That said, it does sound like they are buying time to enable them to source some long-term cash elsewhere, or (as has been suggested) to do a sale-and-lease-back deal.

[Spike Mandela]

I am surprised that they need the cash now. I reckoned they had enough to keep them going for the rest of the season.

That said, it does sound like they are buying time to enable them to source some long-term cash elsewhere, or (as has been suggested) to do a sale-and-lease-back deal.

Is it ridiculous CWG to suggest this money is to actually fund an insolvency event?..............

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/blown-off-course/

[andrew70]

I am surprised that they need the cash now. I reckoned they had enough to keep them going for the rest of the season.

That said, it does sound like they are buying time to enable them to source some long-term cash elsewhere, or (as has been suggested) to do a sale-and-lease-back deal.

In general, I doubt the board admitting they have been seeking outside finance or indeed financial help in return for shares will help to appease the Rangers fans. Their ST's will be due to go on sale soon, I'd imagine with a huge increase(my bro is one of them and has been paying a low amount since their demotion). If they had cash to last til the end of season would it not have been better to wait and sell the STs etc?

I think there must be a more serious problem...or maybe that's just me wishing....

[greenginger]

Not the same arrangement at all.

It is expected that the loans will not be repaid and instead converted into shares That's a fairly common situation, and there's nothing illegal about it.

Is there a set formula for working out how many shares they will get for their £ 1.5 million.

Could this be a way of the Easedales getting overall control. Penny shares, 1.5 million x 100 is a lot of shares.

[Keith_M]

If, or when, they go into Administration again - how much will it cost to negotiate a CVA ? My first thought is that no-one will get the same sort of deal as Green but then it may well be regarded as such a basket case that it might be hard to get a buyer. It will clearly need deep pockets to get them anywhere near the top of the SPFL. Swally has said £30m and that is just for players, never mind the cost of getting Castle Greyskull into a decent state.


Do you mean to pay off the debt? AFAIK, they actually aren't in any debt yet.


Administration doesn't necessarily mean a change of ownership. Companies can quite legally go into Admin, make a deal with creditors, then come back out again. It doesn't always have to end in the Big L or a case like Hearts.

[CropleyWasGod]

Is it ridiculous CWG to suggest this money is to actually fund an insolvency event?..............

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/blown-off-course/

I'm confused by the phrase "fund an insolvency event".
That, to me, would mean the money put up for a CVA. It doesn't sound like that is what is happening here.
If anything, they are DELAYING an insolvency event. Even that sounds a daft idea to me....if insolvency is inevitable, why put cash in now?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Weststandwanab]

Is there a set formula for working out how many shares they will get for their £ 1.5 million.

Could this be a way of the Easedales getting overall control. Penny shares, 1.5 million x 100 is a lot of shares. There is not.


I'm confused by the phrase "fund an insolvency event".
That, to me, would mean the money put up for a CVA. It doesn't sound like that is what is happening here.
If anything, they are DELAYING an insolvency event. Even that sounds a daft idea to me....if insolvency is inevitable, why put cash in now?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk I wonder if the deal is put cash I now in exchange for x, y and z if there is a subsequent insolvency event.


http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rumour-mill-rangers-georgios-samaras-skacel-1-3313053

'It is expected that the loans will not be repaid'


Wow - same arrangement as their famous 'EBT' scheme !!


And still the media will pander to these low-life, cheating filth - like their 'Wee Team' at the PBS, they've existed the last 30 years with money outwith their capabilities. This is not an EBT.

[ballengeich]

Is there another possibility? Income in the championship will be higher. Provided they get promoted again next season income will rise again in the premier. Could Wallace's business review be sufficiently far advanced to have persuaded the Easdales and Laxey that the cuts that will be made will allow them to stop further losses from next season and all that is needed is a relatively small sum to see them through a possible absence of cash in the next month or two?

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic and they are truly near the end.

[JAY-ESS GREEN]

Anyone else get the email asking to complete a survey on how to take the the rangers forward worth completing,serious mischief potential

[Hibernia&Alba]

Scotland's shame once again being required to public explain its humiliating lack of funds. I see Chief Exec Graham Wallace even came out with "there is no threat of people walking away" in his statement. You've borrowed that line from another prick, ye prick. Shameless organization; I despise that club much more than I do Hearts.

[AndyM_1875]

I'm confused by the phrase "fund an insolvency event".
That, to me, would mean the money put up for a CVA. It doesn't sound like that is what is happening here.
If anything, they are DELAYING an insolvency event. Even that sounds a daft idea to me....if insolvency is inevitable, why put cash in now?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Indeed. It sounds like Phil is howling at the moon.... Again.

The Easdale brothers & one of the Institutional investors are getting shares/share options worth £1.5m. The money they pay is going to the club. They're not going into Administration.

[Spike Mandela]

Indeed. It sounds like Phil is howling at the moon.... Again.

The Easdale brothers & one of the Institutional investors are getting shares/share options worth £1.5m. The money they pay is going to the club. They're not going into Administration.

£1.5m though.:confused: Ain't gonna last long is it?

[AndyM_1875]

£1.5m though.:confused: Ain't gonna last long is it?

Guess it depends if any Directors leave! :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

£1.5m though.:confused: Ain't gonna last long is it?

For me, it's about buying time until they can get something more substantial, and longer term, arranged.

If one can believe Phil Magubbin, they are having trouble getting finance from anyone, and this latest move bears that out.

[Ozyhibby]

Phil is a pr... But he has been spot on again regarding the new Rangers. They have run out of cash almost to the week that he predicted.

[CropleyWasGod]

I wonder if the deal is put cash I now in exchange for x, y and z if there is a subsequent insolvency event.

.

That's the only reasonable explanation.... otherwise, WTF would one put in more money?

[AndyM_1875]

Phil is a pr... But he has been spot on again regarding the new Rangers. They have run out of cash almost to the week that he predicted.

Nah, he was bumping his gums about Admin2 as early as last September saying it was "imminent".

Guys a roaster.

[Deansy]

Not the same arrangement at all.

It is expected that the loans will not be repaid and instead converted into shares That's a fairly common situation, and there's nothing illegal about it.

I was being sarcastic - the EBT so-called 'Loans' were never in any danger of being repaid either as, IMHO, they were just tax-free bungs. My point still stands - 2 of our 'bigger' clubs have existed the past 30 years on levels way above their means.

[Ozyhibby]

@BBCDouglasF: #Rangers announces it’s secured £1.5m working capital from director Sandy Easdale and Laxey Partners. Repayable by 1 Sept.

RNS Number : 7355A
Rangers Int. Football Club PLC
23 February 2014



Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers”, “RIFC” or the “Company”)

Credit Facility of £1.5 million

The Board of Rangers is pleased to announce that it has entered into two secured short term credit facilities for an aggregate of up to £1.5m. The credit facilities are being provided by Alexander Easdale, a shareholder in the Company and director of The Rangers Football Club Limited, the wholly owned subsidiary of RIFC, and Laxey Partners Ltd (“Laxey”), a substantial shareholder in the Company. These credit facilities will be used by the Company for general working capital purposes over the next few months.

Alexander Easdale will make available to the Company up to £500,000 on a fee and interest free basis (the “Easdale Facility”).

Laxey will make available to the Company up to £1 million, with a premium payment equal to 15% of the nominal amount of the facility (the “Laxey Facility”).

The Easdale Facility and the Laxey Facility (together the “Facilities”) are both secured against the Company’s Edmiston House and Albion car park properties. The principal amounts of the Facilities are repayable no later than 1 September 2014 from a variety of potential sources.

The premium on the Laxey Facility is payable in cash or, at Laxey’s discretion, in ordinary shares of 1p each, at any point between the date of the facility agreement and the first anniversary of the date of the facility agreement. The number of ordinary shares of 1p each which may be issued will be calculated using the lower of either 26.5 pence, being the mid-market closing price of the Company’s shares on 21 February 2014, or the lowest price at which any equity fundraising is carried out prior to the first anniversary of the date of the Laxey Facility agreement. The issue of any ordinary shares of 1p each in payment of the premium is subject to the Company obtaining authority from its shareholders at a general meeting of the Company.

Under the AIM Rules for Companies, the Laxey Facility is a related party transaction under Rule 13 of the AIM Rules. The Directors of Rangers, having taken advice from their nominated adviser, Daniel Stewart & Company plc, believe that the terms of the Laxey Facility are fair and reasonable as far as shareholders are concerned.

For further information please contact:

Rangers International Football Club plc

Graham Wallace
Tel: 0141 580 8647
Daniel Stewart & Company plc
Tel: 020 7776 6550
Paul Shackleton / James Thomas

Newgate Threadneedle
Tel: 020 7148 6143
Graham Herring / Roddy Watt / John Coles

Media House International Ltd
Tel: 020 7710 0020
Jack Irvine

This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange

[jacomo]

Well, that's the threat of an imminent Admin 2 eased off now. But the fact that Der Hun have had to arrange these short term loans speaks volumes about how badly run they are.

Will they need to cut costs this summer? Will Wallace try to cut the squad? Expect Swally to go greeting to Dave King if he does.

[greenginger]

Laxey get paid 15% , £ 150,000 for providing the £ 1 million loan until 1st September.

I make that about 35% per annum.

That's nearly Wonga rates ! :greengrin

[Weststandwanab]

Love the "Laxley facility" fee. That covers ten percent of both facilities.

[CropleyWasGod]

Laxey get paid 15% , £ 150,000 for providing the £ 1 million loan until 1st September.

I make that about 35% per annum.

That's nearly Wonga rates ! :greengrin

It's not actually a loan, if I read it properly. It's a "facility", ie an overdraft, to be used if they need it.

Still... 15%... pretty horrible rate :greengrin

[GreenLake]

It's not actually a loan, if I read it properly. It's a "facility", ie an overdraft, to be used if they need it.

Still... 15%... pretty horrible rate :greengrin

7% would be considered high yield for junk bonds

[ballengeich]

It's not actually a loan, if I read it properly. It's a "facility", ie an overdraft, to be used if they need it.

Still... 15%... pretty horrible rate :greengrin

I think you're right about the "facility". The 15% rate is for 6 months so the APR is about 32% - better than I get from the building society.

What's not clear is whether this is part of, or in addition to, the £2.5 million facility that was declared as available in the accounts. Whichever it is, a substantial proportion of next year's income will have been spent before the season starts. There's nothing left from the IPO, the original working capital put in during the summer of 2012 is long gone, and this season's income will not last till the accounting date of 30th June.

[grunt]

Quite a lot happening on the Rangers front today.

We have the Big Tax Case appeal starting today, covered by Alex Thomson's blog here http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-court-battle/7273

It seems that not all Rangers fans are happy with the £1.5m loan


Fan groups statement regarding loans from Easdale and Laxey

Rangers Supporters Association, Assembly & Trust Statement

The Rangers Supporters Association, Assembly and Trust have been contacted by a number of Rangers supporters, who are also current shareholders, indicating they would have provided a secured loan of £1.5m on more favourable terms than the combined Laxey Partners/ Easdale loans. The terms of the Laxey loan in particular seem unduly onerous.

We are concerned that not all shareholders are being treated equally. Fans and shareholders both deserve an explanation as to why other shareholders were not approached to provide this loan.

The 3 groups call on Rangers, or the NOMAD Daniel Stewart, to clarify the matter. Either in public or through a direct meeting with fan representatives. We have contacted both companies with our concerns.

[jacomo]

Quite a lot happening on the Rangers front today.

We have the Big Tax Case appeal starting today, covered by Alex Thomson's blog here http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-court-battle/7273

It seems that not all Rangers fans are happy with the £1.5m loan

SDM's crowing is going to look pretty stupid if this comes back to bite him.

As Alex Thomson sets it out, it seems inconceivable that Rangers won the Big Tax Case first time out. Read the report and it's obvious that it was the narrowest of victories - and may yet be overturned.

[Caversham Green]

It's not actually a loan, if I read it properly. It's a "facility", ie an overdraft, to be used if they need it.

Still... 15%... pretty horrible rate :greengrin

As I read it, it's not a rate it's a flat charge - '15% of the nominal amount of the facility'. That means they're paying £150k whether they use the overdraft or not.

[SurferRosa]

Apparently, Alex McCleish had a flat bought for him through an EBT. Wonder how he, or anyone else, will explain this as a 'loan'..?

[yeezus.]

I just walked into my local for a can of coke and bag of crisps for Faisal with my Hibs jacket on. One Sevco fan said "there's the taig united supporter there".

God I hope Stranraer do them dirty huns tomorrow night.

[Sylar]

Wonder who's to blame for their latest inability to balance the books... :rolleyes:

They've hosed away money since getting dumped into the third division to ensure they saved face and got back ASAP, paying single player salaries that eclipse entire team budgets in the same divisions.

Despite the fact that their fans have continued to turn up in decent numbers, that alone can't sustain the levels of excess they've been spending and they'll still need to seek out major investment or this dance will pick up in the summer again, particularly as the fans are on the whole getting sick of this (though not many are complaining at their meteoric rise 'back to their rightful place').

The fans will demand to know what's happening before they buy their STs and yet on the other hand, will demand the club be buying players/strengthening for the Championship assault.

Would be bloody hilarious if neither them, nor Hearts get out of that division next season - will also be interesting if Dundee don't go up to the Premiership as the Championship will be a who's who of financial mismanagement with Dundee, Hearts, Rangers, Livingston and probably Dunfermline all in the same league :greengrin

[AndyM_1875]

I was talking about the non payment of tax that caused HMRC to put them into administration, not the EBTs.

That was the 9 million or so in PAYE & NI that Craig Whyte never paid from the moment he took over from Murray. What a cheeky lad he was.,,:greengrin

That was just blatant. The EBTs were much more of a shade of grey. Mishandled by Rangers stupid Board probably, but a legal loophole that the Murray group amongst other companies exploited

This whole appeal has absolutely no impact on Rangers now irrespective of the verdict. It's basically HMRC looking to get a precedent that they can use to go round bashing other organisations for backdated taxes they feel were evaded rather than avoided.

[Billy Whizz]

This whole appeal has absolutely no impact on Rangers now irrespective of the verdict. It's basically HMRC looking to get a precedent that they can use to go round bashing other organisations for backdated taxes they feel were evaded rather than avoided.

Might have no impact, but when Fat Sally's asked to substantially trim his budget for the new season, it will be interesting to see what the ave Rangers fan will say.
I think most of their players are on decent term contract's. Will be interesting to see how they arrange to shed these players/pay them off

[CropleyWasGod]

As I read it, it's not a rate it's a flat charge - '15% of the nominal amount of the facility'. That means they're paying £150k whether they use the overdraft or not.

Yup. Tis too. :agree:

A bit like the £150 RBS charge me every year for "renewing" my overdraft. ie pushing a button.

Times 1,000.

:cb

[CropleyWasGod]

SDM's crowing is going to look pretty stupid if this comes back to bite him.

As Alex Thomson sets it out, it seems inconceivable that Rangers won the Big Tax Case first time out. Read the report and it's obvious that it was the narrowest of victories - and may yet be overturned.

It's a common misapprehension that they "won". The FTTT found in their favour on most of the issues, but against them on others. HMRC are appealling against the former; I am not sure about RFC's position on the latter.

[Weststandwanab]

For me, it's about buying time until they can get something more substantial, and longer term, arranged.

If one can believe Phil Magubbin, they are having trouble getting finance from anyone, and this latest move bears that out. Just noticed the pun there, how apt.


That was the 9 million or so in PAYE & NI that Craig Whyte never paid from the moment he took over from Murray. What a cheeky lad he was.,,:greengrin

That was just blatant. The EBTs were much more of a shade of grey. Mishandled by Rangers stupid Board probably, but a legal loophole that the Murray group amongst other companies exploited

This whole appeal has absolutely no impact on Rangers now irrespective of the verdict. It's basically HMRC looking to get a precedent that they can use to go round bashing other organisations for backdated taxes they feel were evaded rather than avoided. And so they should chase these scoundrels


Might have no impact, but when Fat Sally's asked to substantially trim his budget for the new season, it will be interesting to see what the ave Rangers fan will say.
I think most of their players are on decent term contract's. Will be interesting to see how they arrange to shed these players/pay them off Sell them probably.

[Eyrie]

SDM's crowing is going to look pretty stupid if this comes back to bite him.

As Alex Thomson sets it out, it seems inconceivable that Rangers won the Big Tax Case first time out. Read the report and it's obvious that it was the narrowest of victories - and may yet be overturned.

If I remember correctly, it was a split decision with the two lawyers finding in favour of Huns RIP on narrow legal grounds and the tax expert not only agreed with HMRC on the reality of the transactions but wrote half the report explaining why the other two tribunal members were wrong.

[ballengeich]

As I read it, it's not a rate it's a flat charge - '15% of the nominal amount of the facility'. That means they're paying £150k whether they use the overdraft or not.

That's brilliant. An interest rate of over 30% if they loan the full amount for the full period, with the rate even higher and less risk if they loan a smaller amount for a shorter period.

[HFC 0-7]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26333152

[Steven_Hibs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26333152

So that's why they needed the money :greengrin

[mjhibby]

They are seriously challenging the yams as the most deluded fans on the planet. Every neutral observer who follows the saga knows they are in the deepest poo and just like our friends from Gorgie they just assume because they are the sevco rangers it will all be fine. Sally mccoist is possibly the most deluded of all as he thinks he can just keep on spending millions he and the club don't have. At least the yams have made some attempt to cutback. Complete roasters the lot of them.

[adhibs]

Good luck Imran!

[Bill Milne]

SDM's crowing is going to look pretty stupid if this comes back to bite him.

As Alex Thomson sets it out, it seems inconceivable that Rangers won the Big Tax Case first time out. Read the report and it's obvious that it was the narrowest of victories - and may yet be overturned.

I may be wrong (not unusual) but my understanding of the original case was that two blokes, basically Huns, rubber stamped the case in their teams favour with the dissenting female member of the tribunal producing a very detailed rationale for her rejection of the Huns arguments. Sounds to me like this could very well be overturned in favour of HMRC!!

[CropleyWasGod]

I may be wrong (not unusual) but my understanding of the original case was that two blokes, basically Huns, rubber stamped the case in their teams favour with the dissenting female member of the tribunal producing a very detailed rationale for her rejection of the Huns arguments. Sounds to me like this could very well be overturned in favour of HMRC!!

I don't think there was any serious suggestion that the two who were in favour of the parts of the finding that favoured RFC were Huns.

However, the type of arguments put forward by the dissenter will form a key part of HMRC's case, I'm sure.

[Keith_M]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26333152


I have a new hero



:greengrin

[ACLeith]

I don't think there was any serious suggestion that the two who were in favour of the parts of the finding that favoured RFC were Huns.

However, the type of arguments put forward by the dissenter will form a key part of HMRC's case, I'm sure.
Seems a long time since the verdict, what's the possible timescale for the appeal? And if HMRC win, are there implications for TRFC? Or is it all to the old club?

[jacomo]

Poor Swally!

He doesn't know what his budget for next season will be and he doesn't have any scouts. However, he HAS spoken to a player about joining in the summer, so he's working VERY hard, even though he's now being paid LESS than half a million!

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-finance-review-leaves-mccoist-in-limbo-1-3318486

[CropleyWasGod]

Seems a long time since the verdict, what's the possible timescale for the appeal? And if HMRC win, are there implications for TRFC? Or is it all to the old club?

It's starting today, but I don't know how long it will last.

There shouldn't be any implications for the new club. Principally, it's about HMRC establishing a precedent to enable them to deal with other companies in the same situation. The old club has no money, so there is nothing financial in it for HMRC.

The only thing which, although unlikely, might happen, is that HMRC (if they get the result they want) might instigate criminal proceedings against the individuals concerned. Which would be nice.:cb

[Scorrie]

But I thought the new club was the old club or something. Didn't somebody rule that the new club was a continuation of the old club? If for example the new club went into admin, would be the first or second offence? Or is it the old club when it suits the Huns but the new one when it doesn't?

[jacomo]

But I thought the new club was the old club or something. Didn't somebody rule that the new club was a continuation of the old club? If for example the new club went into admin, would be the first or second offence? Or is it the old club when it suits the Huns but the new one when it doesn't?

:agree:

It's quite straightforward really. This is the same club, with all its history, and no one walked away... except from the debts, possible tax evasion, and anything else which the current peepul want to forget about.

[CropleyWasGod]

But I thought the new club was the old club or something. Didn't somebody rule that the new club was a continuation of the old club? If for example the new club went into admin, would be the first or second offence? Or is it the old club when it suits the Huns but the new one when it doesn't?

The new club took over the old club. (lights blue touch paper, and retires)

However, this is about the old company. It's nothing to do with the company that bought the assets of the old company.

[Tynie01011973]

It's starting today, but I don't know how long it will last.

There shouldn't be any implications for the new club. Principally, it's about HMRC establishing a precedent to enable them to deal with other companies in the same situation. The old club has no money, so there is nothing financial in it for HMRC.

The only thing which, although unlikely, might happen, is that HMRC (if they get the result they want) might instigate criminal proceedings against the individuals concerned. Which would be nice.:cb

It started yesterday, and is scheduled to run for 4 weeks.

No witnesses will be called as it is merely HMRC challenging the legal reasons given by the two 'majority' judges in the FTT case.

[nribs]

I may be wrong (not unusual) but my understanding of the original case was that two blokes, basically Huns, rubber stamped the case in their teams favour with the dissenting female member of the tribunal producing a very detailed rationale for her rejection of the Huns arguments. Sounds to me like this could very well be overturned in favour of HMRC!!

This rubber stamp has been busy :greengrin

[s.a.m]

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 2m (https://twitter.com/STVGrant/status/438298263075422208) Imran Ahmad had failed in his attempt at court to arrest £620,000 of money from Rangers he contests is owed to him in bonuses.

[jonty]

Grant Russell @STVGrant
Lord Tyre satisfied case to answer but says insufficient evidence that Rangers' finances have deteriorated to point of near insolvency.

Clearly Lord Tyre needs to start reading hibs.net :greengrin

[s.a.m]

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 5m (https://twitter.com/STVGrant/status/438299028565270528) Ahmad v The Rangers FC Ltd will be heard in April. Lord Tyre says no evidence to suggest any debt arising from that wouldn't be satisfied.

[Ozyhibby]

Correct decision. Their assets far exceed their liabilities so even if they went into admin, then Ahmed would still get paid.
What they have is a massive cash flow problem and they are trading at a loss. Both fixable.

[AndyM_1875]

:agree:

It's quite straightforward really. This is the same club, with all its history, and no one walked away... except from the debts, possible tax evasion, and anything else which the current peepul want to forget about.

Yep.
As I found out when taking a train to Glasgow one Saturday mid-morning for work purposes and it was populated by currant buns. They're not dead, they are in fact the same if not worse and ever so paranoid.
A truly horrendous bunch of troglodytes.

Apparently their troubles are all he work of Scotland's "fenian team conspiracy" comprising of Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs and Dundee United. That was news to me too.

[Alan62]

My recollection on the 'big tax case' was that the two in the 2-1 decision made their choice on very technical legal points rather than the spirit of the law. I think everyone knows that the whole thing was a scam to avoid tax, it's just that the two lawyers who weren't tax experts felt that RFC acted within the letter of the law.

It is entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that the next tier will not agree with that positioning. Where it could get most amusing would be if the 'loans' were recalled. Man, that would almost be as funny as The (New) Rangers entering administration once the Easdale/Laxey Facility has been burned on pre-match luxury hotels ...

[ehf]

It's starting today, but I don't know how long it will last.

There shouldn't be any implications for the new club. Principally, it's about HMRC establishing a precedent to enable them to deal with other companies in the same situation. The old club has no money, so there is nothing financial in it for HMRC.

The only thing which, although unlikely, might happen, is that HMRC (if they get the result they want) might instigate criminal proceedings against the individuals concerned. Which would be nice.:cb

If HMRC win, won't they go about collecting the unpaid tax from the "beneficiaries" of the EBT (Billy Dodds et al)?

[green glory]

Yep. As I found out when taking a train to Glasgow one Saturday mid-morning for work purposes and it was populated by currant buns. They're not dead, they are in fact the same if not worse and ever so paranoid. A truly horrendous bunch of troglodytes. Apparently their troubles are all he work of Scotland's "fenian team conspiracy" comprising of Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs and Dundee United. That was news to me too.

In connivance with the 'hidden fenian hand' of Peter Lawwell with the backing of the Vatican, father Dougal McGuire and Bono out of U2?

[ACLeith]

It's starting today, but I don't know how long it will last.

There shouldn't be any implications for the new club. Principally, it's about HMRC establishing a precedent to enable them to deal with other companies in the same situation. The old club has no money, so there is nothing financial in it for HMRC.

The only thing which, although unlikely, might happen, is that HMRC (if they get the result they want) might instigate criminal proceedings against the individuals concerned. Which would be nice.:cb

Thanks for clarifying. I kind of thought that there were no direct implications for the current shower. Probably being greedy, but this summer promises to be fun for TRFC and I hoped for a "double whammy" - or "triple" if we include HMFC :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

If HMRC win, won't they go about collecting the unpaid tax from the "beneficiaries" of the EBT (Billy Dodds et al)?

No, sadly.

It's an established practice of HMRC that, in instances where a payroll scheme has been operated incorrectly, it always falls on the employer/operator to make good any tax lost; that's even when the employee has benefited.

The only way that HMRC would go after the beneficiaries would be if they thought there was collusion between RFC/the Trusts/ the beneficiaries to evade tax.

That would be very difficult to prove. The basis of the defence would be "Billy Dodds colluding in a tax avoidance scheme? He's thick as pigsht, m'lud. I rest my case."

[ehf]

No, sadly.

It's an established practice of HMRC that, in instances where a payroll scheme has been operated incorrectly, it always falls on the employer/operator to make good any tax lost; that's even when the employee has benefited.

The only way that HMRC would go after the beneficiaries would be if they thought there was collusion between RFC/the Trusts/ the beneficiaries to evade tax.

That would be very difficult to prove. The basis of the defence would be "Billy Dodds colluding in a tax avoidance scheme? He's thick as pigsht, m'lud. I rest my case."

OK, thanks - shame. Take your point re Dodds, though :greengrin

[O'Rourke3]

No, sadly.

It's an established practice of HMRC that, in instances where a payroll scheme has been operated incorrectly, it always falls on the employer/operator to make good any tax lost; that's even when the employee has benefited.

The only way that HMRC would go after the beneficiaries would be if they thought there was collusion between RFC/the Trusts/ the beneficiaries to evade tax.

That would be very difficult to prove. The basis of the defence would be "Billy Dodds colluding in a tax avoidance scheme? He's thick as pigsht, m'lud. I rest my case."

Crops, I thought ignorance of the law was no defence. I'm sure under cross examination the answer to "Did you collude on a tax avoidance scheme?" Would be answered by "I didnae collude on anything your worshipfull, aw I did was signed a contract after they explained I widnae need to pay so much tax, sorted eh?"

[JeMeSouviens]

In connivance with the 'hidden fenian hand' of Peter Lawwell with the backing of the Vatican, father Dougal McGuire and Bono out of U2?

He's a prod. :wink:

[Weststandwanab]

OK, thanks - shame. Take your point re Dodds, though :greengrin Apart from Dodds saying "it was part of my salary" before he was gagged - if you see what I mean.

[CropleyWasGod]

Crops, I thought ignorance of the law was no defence. I'm sure under cross examination the answer to "Did you collude on a tax avoidance scheme?" Would be answered by "I didnae collude on anything your worshipfull, aw I did was signed a contract after they explained I widnae need to pay so much tax, sorted eh?"

In some cases, ignorance itself should be a hanging offence. :cb

[Just Alf]

Re that EBT money

If it was a loan, then it still requires repaid?

Would it not be in order for the liquidators to go after it to help repay creditors and, of course, their own fees?

[Stonewall]

No, sadly.

It's an established practice of HMRC that, in instances where a payroll scheme has been operated incorrectly, it always falls on the employer/operator to make good any tax lost; that's even when the employee has benefited.

The only way that HMRC would go after the beneficiaries would be if they thought there was collusion between RFC/the Trusts/ the beneficiaries to evade tax.

That would be very difficult to prove. The basis of the defence would be "Billy Dodds colluding in a tax avoidance scheme? He's thick as pigsht, m'lud. I rest my case."

An established legal principle in football circles known as the Redknapp defence.

[CropleyWasGod]

Re that EBT money

If it was a loan, then it still requires repaid?

Would it not be in order for the liquidators to go after it to help repay creditors and, of course, their own fees?

This is where it gets messy.

The money paid by RFC was a contribution to the Trust(s). In other words, an expense, not a loan, and not recoverable.

The money paid by the Trust(s) to the players etc. was a loan. If there was any recovery in those situations, it would be by the Trustees of each individual Trust.

[Tynie01011973]

Transcript from TSFM of today's proceedings of the UTTT

John Clarke TSFM

ohn clarke says:
February 24, 2014 at 7:32 pm
9 0 Rate This

Nothing of any great substance to report from today’s UTTT hearing.
I was there for 9.30 , but the kick-off wasn’t till 10.00. That gave time for a little bit of socialising: I didn’t meet the Grant Russell chap from STV, but only a chap from the ‘Sun’, and a director from Murray Group, and Mr Thornhill (QC for the respondents,i.e the MG),who came to make himself known to me and another TSFM person.
A big surprise to me was that it was not Lord Bishopp presiding, but Lord Docherty ( which, of course, kept the business within the Scottish house)
Apparently, the respondents had appealed against the time allocation set by Judge Bishopp, and it was reduced from 20 to 10 days, and Judge Bishopp stood down for some reason.
At kick-off, there were ,besides Judge Docherty and the clerical officer, there were 15 persons in the Tribunal room.
On the left, Roderick Thomson QC for HMRC,supported by 6 other lawyers(none of whom actually sat beside him,but behind).
On the right, Andrew Thornhill QC for the respondents, supported by 2 other lawyers (one of whom sat beside him, the other one behind). Behind them was the Finance Director of the Murray group, the chap from the ‘Sun’, and me and a lurker.
On my left were two young women one of whom was there, she told me, as part of her training, as newly qualified and in her first job in a solicitor’s office as a qualified solicitor.
The other took copious notes and was probably a lawyer as well. (Mind you, so did I take copious notes,and I’m no lawyer!) She did not turn up for the second half.
The 17th person must have been Russell of STV, but he was sitting beside the lawyers behind Thomson,QC, so I had clocked him as a lawyer.

Lord Docherty reminded counsel that the names of the HMRC officers who gave evidence at the FTTT should not be disclosed, nor should the names of 3 witnesses who had given evidence on the basis of anonymity. Mr Thomson said he would try to remember that if or when he had occasion to mention their testimony in the course of the hearing.

Mr Thomson invited His lordship
- to overturn the decision of the First Tier Tax Tribunal and uphold HMRC’s assessments. He added that he would later have something to say about ‘unreasonable comments’ made by the FTTT.
or, if His Lordship was not minded to make any additional findings of fact, then to remit the case to a fresh Tribunal.
He gave a very short summary of the background. To wit, that the FTTT had heard evidence for 17 days,
and that the evidence bundles shows that much of the documentation was provided by the MG, and that there had been extensive reference to that documentation.
Put very simply, the MG had argued a) that for earnings to be taxable, there had to be ABSOLUTE legal title to
them, and that under the EBT Trust scheme there was no such absolute title. Payments made under them were something other than bonuses or emoluments and that the recipients of loans had had been no ‘unreserved disposal’ of the money that was on offer as loans.
and b) that the Trust scheme had not been shown to be a sham.
Mr Thomson said that HMRC’s view was that the evidence showed that there had been an underlying tacit agreement between the parties involved that loans would not ever be recalled, that interest due would be rolled up, until death, when the interest and repayment would be able to be offset against inheritance tax.
He said that the idea that the idea that payments under the Trust arrangements were something ‘other’ than taxable earnings was merely an assertion by the MG that did not reflect reality.
The rest of the day was spent by Mr Thomson ripping the FTTT’s whole approach to their hearing apart, and using quite harsh words their failure of duty to examine the evidence, make complete findings of fact, and apply the principles of the Ramsay case and a couple of other relevant cases properly, if at all.
he referred to the minority report of DR Poon as showing how many findings of fact were there to be made, which the majority had missed, and how their understanding and application of the Ramsay and other relevant cases had been erroneous and actually missed the very point of those cases.
He went on to say that the FTTT majority had failed to address the submissions made by HMRC, and that a pattern emerged of the FTTT simply accepting the MG’s submission, and of failing to make findings of fact to support arguments
There was not merely understandable error in law, but deeply flawed submissions by the Majority, wholesale faiure to exercise their judicial duty.

And so on all day till 4.00 pm, with frequent references to the legal authorities and the true interpretation of the case which is, that while there may be all the legal documentation to show that there was a proper, valid Trust, it was necessary to look at whether people in fact worked the Trust properly.
The Trust may be perfectly legal and not a sham, but the Trustees could ( and in this case, did, act beyond their powers) by making loans to people who were not entitled to such under the trust, making loans without requiring evidence of security or requiring repayment or interest payments -and all involved knew this to be the case. And, of course, the Trustees who began to ask for security etc were dismissed and another more compliant lot were brought in.
—–
That all sounds as dry as dust, but I actually quite enjoyed the day, And I’ll be back tomorrow. I still have 18 pages of notes to decipher: I can write legibly, and I can write fast: but not both at the same time!

'Mon the HMRC

:greengrin

[Jack Hackett]

Transcript from TSFM of today's proceedings of the UTTT

John Clarke TSFM

ohn clarke says:
February 24, 2014 at 7:32 pm
9 0 Rate This

Nothing of any great substance to report from today’s UTTT hearing.......

(Edited for brevity)

.........I can write legibly, and I can write fast: but not both at the same time!

'Mon the HMRC

:greengrin


That was a good read. Look forward to some more :thumbsup:

[grunt]

Interesting!

Who's TSFM?

[CropleyWasGod]

Interesting!

Who's TSFM?

http://www.tsfm.org.uk/

[CentreLine]

http://www.tsfm.org.uk/

Tried to visit the site but looks like they have been subject of a cyber attack. Wonder who that was????

[Bill Milne]

I don't think there was any serious suggestion that the two who were in favour of the parts of the finding that favoured RFC were Huns.

However, the type of arguments put forward by the dissenter will form a key part of HMRC's case, I'm sure.

No, CWG, I have no idea if they were but this is Scotland and the vested interests of the Huns are, generally looked after by those in power, giving a reasonable possibility that they were of that ilk. You only have to look at the number of Jambos entrenched in senior positions within Edinburgh Council to realise how likely it is that their counterparts in the West are likely to have similarly vast numbers in HMRC and the judiciary.

[AndyM_1875]

No, CWG, I have no idea if they were but this is Scotland and the vested interests of the Huns are, generally looked after by those in power, giving a reasonable possibility that they were of that ilk. You only have to look at the number of Jambos entrenched in senior positions within Edinburgh Council to realise how likely it is that their counterparts in the West are likely to have similarly vast numbers in HMRC and the judiciary.

Bill, no just no.
It's not 1955 and he Rangers are generally looked on with disdain and contempt by those in power in 21st Century Scotland.

Societal and social change over the last few decades has affected Rangers badly. Their inability to tackle the bigotry in their support left Celtic as the trendy establishment club back in the 90s. Without a shadow of a doubt Celtic are the club of the Labour controlled Glasgow City Council, and have benefitted allegedly from both State Aid and definitely from soft loans from the Co-Operative Bank, the Labour Party's bank of choice. BBC Scotland's Sports Department isn't jokingly referred to as PacificQuayCSC#1 for nothing. Rangers are viewed as a stupid anachronism followed by Neanderthals who are presently getting their just desserts.

To try and say that the FTTT went 2:1 against HMRC because of some Rangers influence is frankly ridiculous. HMRC didn't make a good enough case to win outright, plain and simple.

[Jack Hackett]

Bill, no just no.
It's not 1955 and he Rangers are generally looked on with disdain and contempt by those in power in 21st Century Scotland.

Societal and social change over the last few decades has affected Rangers badly. Their inability to tackle the bigotry in their support left Celtic as the trendy establishment club back in the 90s. Without a shadow of a doubt Celtic are the club of the Labour controlled Glasgow City Council, and have benefitted allegedly from both State Aid and definitely from soft loans from the Co-Operative Bank, the Labour Party's bank of choice. BBC Scotland's Sports Department isn't jokingly referred to as PacificQuayCSC#1 for nothing. Rangers are viewed as a stupid anachronism followed by Neanderthals who are presently getting their just desserts.

To try and say that the FTTT went 2:1 against HMRC because of some Rangers influence is frankly ridiculous. HMRC didn't make a good enough case to win outright, plain and simple.

Good post. I think the only ones who sympathise with der hun these days, are those who've had their snouts buried in the Rangers trough

[CropleyWasGod]

No, CWG, I have no idea if they were but this is Scotland and the vested interests of the Huns are, generally looked after by those in power, giving a reasonable possibility that they were of that ilk. You only have to look at the number of Jambos entrenched in senior positions within Edinburgh Council to realise how likely it is that their counterparts in the West are likely to have similarly vast numbers in HMRC and the judiciary.

So you "have no idea if they were", yet you still assume that they are?

Even if they are, you then make the assumption that their football allegiances come before their professional responsibilities. That's quite an accusation.

[Dan Sarf]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/26/rangers-hmrc

:yawn:

[Weststandwanab]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/26/rangers-hmrc

:yawn: But more importantly !

Dave King Statement as per the Herald:

Because of my ongoing interest in the future direction of the club I have deliberately avoided immersing myself in the day-to-day "noise level" that is being played out in the media. By doing this I had hoped to serve as a bridge between non-aligned stakeholders and the club, as well as seeking a way forward that could accommodate all interests. I no longer believe that I can achieve this with the board that is presently in place. I consequently wish to update the fans on my current position.

Late last year I travelled to Scotland in an attempt to find a way forward that would accommodate all parties and ensure sound corporate governance and sound financial planning for the club. Unfortunately, my efforts were in vain. During this period I made it clear to the board that I am a potential source of funding by way of a new capital injection. My prime condition is that any funds introduced by me would go into the club for the benefit of the team and the dilapidating infrastructure.

For the avoidance of doubt, I appreciate that the Rangers board has no obligation to engage with me or to agree with my vision for the future of Rangers. My assessment is that the business is not commercially sustainable in the short term and hence requires a level of soft investment. The board is focusing on right-sizing the business ie. cutting costs to match the income. It is correct that anyclub must, over the long term, operate within its means but in the short term Rangers needs a significant once-off financial boost that cannot be met from the current revenue stream. Without this we will not get back to where we should be. If we cut our costs to suit our present income we will remain a small club and Celtic will shoot through 10 in a row - and beyond - while we slug it out for the minor places. That is not the Rangers that I grew up with and not the Rangers that we should be passing down to our children and grandchildren.

Such a soft investment will only come from a fan based group that regard their return as winning trophies in the top flight. I have been such an investor and want to be so again. I would like to lead a fan-based initiative to acquire an influential shareholding in the club.

I hope that the board will belatedly recognise the importance ofcommunicating with fans on the true state of the club's finances.Financial transparency should now be a non-negotiable requirement of the fans prior to investing in season tickets. It is an easy deflection for the board to suggest that it has had insufficient time or that it is restricted by AIM regulations. That is simply not true. Legitimate concerns about the club's financial position have been voiced for a long time. It should have been the board's number one priority to provide the comfort that the fans need - if it is able to do so. Craig Whyte employed exactly the same reasons for avoiding disclosure of the true financial state of the club during his ill-fated period of ownership.

The board has previously dealt with queries around the club's finances by giving categoric assurances that there was sufficientfunding until the end of the season. We now know that these assurances were untrue and that emergency financing has been put in place on terms that are not commercial and that indicate the desperate financial position that the club is in. This lack of transparency on the present and projected funding position isextremely worrying. The Craig Whyte purchase would never have happened if the true source of "his" funds had been known. Similarly, the fans would not have purchased season tickets at that time if they had known that their funds were going out of the club. The fans lost their cash and almost lost their club. So now, at this critical time, I remind fellow supporters of the old adage - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

The fans have no proper insight into the owners of the club and who represents which shareholders on the board. The board has strenuously resisted any attempt by the fans to find out who key shareholders are. What is known is that the current board members have a very minor stake in the club. Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own". It is not in Rangers culture to have spin-doctors that feed information to the media in an attempt to damage our own players, management, potential investors, and supporters. Much of what has been fed to the media is clearly untrue or exaggerated.

Ultimately, it is in the hands of the existing shareholders (through the board) to decide to issue new shares to investors. There is a clear reluctance to do this at the present time and the reasons for this can only be speculated upon. Undoubtedly, the club requires a significant injection of new equity from existing or new shareholders but this will take some time to put in place. A proper financial evaluation will have to be undertaken and all the necessary AIM requirements etc. complied with. Clearly, by not having acted sooner the board is making it clear that it has decided to rely on the fans' cash once again.

The big question is- "What can fans do to protect themselves but still assist the team and management"? Fans must remember that the purchase of a season ticket is essentially an individual loan from the fan to the company until such time as all games are played. No banker would lend money to a company without knowing its true financial position. Unless the board departs from its present stance of opacity the fans will be asked to lend money to the company with no security and with no comfort that the loan advance is not going into a financial black-hole. It must be stressed that the board was happy to give security to Laxey Partners for the recent facility as well as a massive return on this short-term loan. It seems wrong that, if the board gets its way, these new loans will be repaid from interest free and unsecured loans provided by long suffering fans.

If the board does not provide disclosure to the fans then it is time to draw a line in the sand. I propose that the fans buy the season tickets only on one of the two following bases;

1. The fans pay the season ticket money into a trust and the funds are released to the club on a "pay-as-they-play" basis.

2. The fans pay the season ticket money into a trust and the funds are released in full to the club but against security of the club property until such time as all games are played. In that way the fans will have some protection from a future event of failure if the board cannot bridge the funding gap that clearly exists.

Additionally, the fans should insist on a board appointee prior to renewing their season tickets, to look after their interests.

I also suggest that the following questions be put to the board on condition that satisfactory answers must be given prior to fans agreeing to make cash from season ticket sales available to the club.

1. Will the board provide legally binding assurances that the club is a going concern and has sufficient funds and/or facilities in place for the 2014/2015 season.

2. Will the board undertake that none of the proceeds from season ticket sales will be used to settle any financial obligation that arose prior to receipt of the season ticket monies by the club.

3. Will the board confirm that the club assets continue to be unencumbered.

4. Will the board explain its previous statements that the club had sufficient cash resources to last until the end of the season.

I previously invested 20 million pounds in the club and lost it all.Like all Rangers fans I continue to loyally support the team and the manager. I am willing to provide funding again but I do not believe that Rangers should be under the control of one owner/benefactor. We have already seen the damage that has been caused at Rangers (and many other clubs) when the club becomes a hostage to thefluctuating whims and wealth of a single owner. I see my role as being the lead investor of a like-minded consortium that will invest in the club, along with the supporters, without the "short-sightidness" of an immediate return on investment. An immediate return on investment will guarantee a non-immediate return of the team to the top flight.

The fact that it believes it can proceed as it is doing without financial transparency makes two major statements about the board's thinking. First, they have correctly understood the fierce and unbending loyalty that Rangers fans display towards the club and the team at a time of common difficulty. Secondly, they have seriously misunderstood this loyalty as being something they can take for granted and offer nothing in return. We shouldn't allow that to continue. At this critical juncture, the fans control the funding that the board is relying on. How we proceed will determine our club's future.

[CropleyWasGod]

But more importantly !

Dave King Statement as per the Herald:

Because of my ongoing interest in the future direction of the club I have deliberately avoided immersing myself in the day-to-day "noise level" that is being played out in the media. By doing this I had hoped to serve as a bridge between non-aligned stakeholders and the club, as well as seeking a way forward that could accommodate all interests. I no longer believe that I can achieve this with the board that is presently in place. I consequently wish to update the fans on my current position.

Late last year I travelled to Scotland in an attempt to find a way forward that would accommodate all parties and ensure sound corporate governance and sound financial planning for the club. Unfortunately, my efforts were in vain. During this period I made it clear to the board that I am a potential source of funding by way of a new capital injection. My prime condition is that any funds introduced by me would go into the club for the benefit of the team and the dilapidating infrastructure.

For the avoidance of doubt, I appreciate that the Rangers board has no obligation to engage with me or to agree with my vision for the future of Rangers. My assessment is that the business is not commercially sustainable in the short term and hence requires a level of soft investment. The board is focusing on right-sizing the business ie. cutting costs to match the income. It is correct that anyclub must, over the long term, operate within its means but in the short term Rangers needs a significant once-off financial boost that cannot be met from the current revenue stream. Without this we will not get back to where we should be. If we cut our costs to suit our present income we will remain a small club and Celtic will shoot through 10 in a row - and beyond - while we slug it out for the minor places. That is not the Rangers that I grew up with and not the Rangers that we should be passing down to our children and grandchildren.

Such a soft investment will only come from a fan based group that regard their return as winning trophies in the top flight. I have been such an investor and want to be so again. I would like to lead a fan-based initiative to acquire an influential shareholding in the club.

I hope that the board will belatedly recognise the importance ofcommunicating with fans on the true state of the club's finances.Financial transparency should now be a non-negotiable requirement of the fans prior to investing in season tickets. It is an easy deflection for the board to suggest that it has had insufficient time or that it is restricted by AIM regulations. That is simply not true. Legitimate concerns about the club's financial position have been voiced for a long time. It should have been the board's number one priority to provide the comfort that the fans need - if it is able to do so. Craig Whyte employed exactly the same reasons for avoiding disclosure of the true financial state of the club during his ill-fated period of ownership.

The board has previously dealt with queries around the club's finances by giving categoric assurances that there was sufficientfunding until the end of the season. We now know that these assurances were untrue and that emergency financing has been put in place on terms that are not commercial and that indicate the desperate financial position that the club is in. This lack of transparency on the present and projected funding position isextremely worrying. The Craig Whyte purchase would never have happened if the true source of "his" funds had been known. Similarly, the fans would not have purchased season tickets at that time if they had known that their funds were going out of the club. The fans lost their cash and almost lost their club. So now, at this critical time, I remind fellow supporters of the old adage - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

The fans have no proper insight into the owners of the club and who represents which shareholders on the board. The board has strenuously resisted any attempt by the fans to find out who key shareholders are. What is known is that the current board members have a very minor stake in the club. Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own". It is not in Rangers culture to have spin-doctors that feed information to the media in an attempt to damage our own players, management, potential investors, and supporters. Much of what has been fed to the media is clearly untrue or exaggerated.

Ultimately, it is in the hands of the existing shareholders (through the board) to decide to issue new shares to investors. There is a clear reluctance to do this at the present time and the reasons for this can only be speculated upon. Undoubtedly, the club requires a significant injection of new equity from existing or new shareholders but this will take some time to put in place. A proper financial evaluation will have to be undertaken and all the necessary AIM requirements etc. complied with. Clearly, by not having acted sooner the board is making it clear that it has decided to rely on the fans' cash once again.

The big question is- "What can fans do to protect themselves but still assist the team and management"? Fans must remember that the purchase of a season ticket is essentially an individual loan from the fan to the company until such time as all games are played. No banker would lend money to a company without knowing its true financial position. Unless the board departs from its present stance of opacity the fans will be asked to lend money to the company with no security and with no comfort that the loan advance is not going into a financial black-hole. It must be stressed that the board was happy to give security to Laxey Partners for the recent facility as well as a massive return on this short-term loan. It seems wrong that, if the board gets its way, these new loans will be repaid from interest free and unsecured loans provided by long suffering fans.

If the board does not provide disclosure to the fans then it is time to draw a line in the sand. I propose that the fans buy the season tickets only on one of the two following bases;

1. The fans pay the season ticket money into a trust and the funds are released to the club on a "pay-as-they-play" basis.

2. The fans pay the season ticket money into a trust and the funds are released in full to the club but against security of the club property until such time as all games are played. In that way the fans will have some protection from a future event of failure if the board cannot bridge the funding gap that clearly exists.

Additionally, the fans should insist on a board appointee prior to renewing their season tickets, to look after their interests.

I also suggest that the following questions be put to the board on condition that satisfactory answers must be given prior to fans agreeing to make cash from season ticket sales available to the club.

1. Will the board provide legally binding assurances that the club is a going concern and has sufficient funds and/or facilities in place for the 2014/2015 season.

2. Will the board undertake that none of the proceeds from season ticket sales will be used to settle any financial obligation that arose prior to receipt of the season ticket monies by the club.

3. Will the board confirm that the club assets continue to be unencumbered.

4. Will the board explain its previous statements that the club had sufficient cash resources to last until the end of the season.

I previously invested 20 million pounds in the club and lost it all.Like all Rangers fans I continue to loyally support the team and the manager. I am willing to provide funding again but I do not believe that Rangers should be under the control of one owner/benefactor. We have already seen the damage that has been caused at Rangers (and many other clubs) when the club becomes a hostage to thefluctuating whims and wealth of a single owner. I see my role as being the lead investor of a like-minded consortium that will invest in the club, along with the supporters, without the "short-sightidness" of an immediate return on investment. An immediate return on investment will guarantee a non-immediate return of the team to the top flight.

The fact that it believes it can proceed as it is doing without financial transparency makes two major statements about the board's thinking. First, they have correctly understood the fierce and unbending loyalty that Rangers fans display towards the club and the team at a time of common difficulty. Secondly, they have seriously misunderstood this loyalty as being something they can take for granted and offer nothing in return. We shouldn't allow that to continue. At this critical juncture, the fans control the funding that the board is relying on. How we proceed will determine our club's future.

A lot of good points in there. However, just a tad hypocritical to say "Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own"." He is doing exactly that.

I have no doubt that this will whip up the masses, and there will be another round of protests ,fringe-meetings, public statements and the likes. It will not help TRFC in raising capital... as if anything could just now... and can only contribute negatively (or positively, depending on how one looks at it :greengrin) to the soap-opera.

I note that nowhere does he put himself up for the Board. I think he knows that will never happen. Instead he mentions "the fans should insist on a board appointee".... the best he can get there is someone to be his puppet.

Love it.

[Weststandwanab]

A lot of good points in there. However, just a tad hypocritical to say "Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own"." He is doing exactly that.

I have no doubt that this will whip up the masses, and there will be another round of protests ,fringe-meetings, public statements and the likes. It will not help TRFC in raising capital... as if anything could just now... and can only contribute negatively (or positively, depending on how one looks at it :greengrin) to the soap-opera.

I note that nowhere does he put himself up for the Board. I think he knows that will never happen. Instead he mentions "the fans should insist on a board appointee".... the best he can get there is someone to be his puppet.

Love it.

CWG between that and the Jambos I am loving it too so much so I have just extracted a bottle of 2004 Amarone from the cellar which should be ready to quaff about the time Sportsound starts.

[jacomo]

Don't understand what Dave King is up to. He's had opportunities to invest before but didn't take them, he worries about the financial health of the club but criticises their recent efforts to balance the books, and he doesn't trust the Board but he doesn't want to be on the Board.

He seems to be offering jam today to the supporters and is advocating a season ticket boycott unless certain conditions are met... I can't see the Board of any football club agreeing to those conditions.

Whatever he's up to, this will stir up the hornets' nest. Notice that he doesn't mention 'the manager' by name, either... in the murky world of the Rangers this will be seen as a snub.

[AndyM_1875]

A lot of good points in there. However, just a tad hypocritical to say "Rangers has also developed an extremely un-Rangers like culture of "turning on its own"." He is doing exactly that.

I have no doubt that this will whip up the masses, and there will be another round of protests ,fringe-meetings, public statements and the likes. It will not help TRFC in raising capital... as if anything could just now... and can only contribute negatively (or positively, depending on how one looks at it :greengrin) to the soap-opera.

I note that nowhere does he put himself up for the Board. I think he knows that will never happen. Instead he mentions "the fans should insist on a board appointee".... the best he can get there is someone to be his puppet.

Love it.

As Tom English noted. Dave King went and talked to the media.
He's still talking to the media......

Ho hum.

[AndyM_1875]

Don't understand what Dave King is up to. He's had opportunities to invest before but didn't take them, he worries about the financial health of the club but criticises their recent efforts to balance the books, and he doesn't trust the Board but he doesn't want to be on the Board.

He seems to be offering jam today to the supporters and is advocating a season ticket boycott unless certain conditions are met... I can't see the Board of any football club agreeing to those conditions.

Whatever he's up to, this will stir up the hornets' nest. Notice that he doesn't mention 'the manager' by name, either... in the murky world of the Rangers this will be seen as a snub.

King could have picked up Rangers in 2010 and also in 2012. On both occasions he could have got the club for a song and whilst due to his SARS Tax convictions he might not be ok to be installed as Chairman he could have put his own people in to run the club.

But he didn't. He just as Tom English said went and blabbed away in the papers.
He's all fart and nae *****! :devil:

[Mr White]

"If we cut our costs to suit our present income we will remain a small club"

I think it's fair to say that some lessons will never be learned over there.

[Spike Mandela]

Dave King wants Rangers. The Rangers fans want his money whether he is a convicted tax cheat or not. The MSM want Dave King at Rangers. The propaganda won't stop until this is acheived.

[jacomo]

"If we cut our costs to suit our present income we will remain a small club"

I think it's fair to say that some lessons will never be learned over there.

This is what I don't understand. Why spend more money now when - even with Swally at the helm - they are cruising back up through the divisions? Surely the time to spend is the season after next?

[Iggy Pope]

So you "have no idea if they were", yet you still assume that they are?

Even if they are, you then make the assumption that their football allegiances come before their professional responsibilities. That's quite an accusation.

I think Bill's allusion goes beyond mere football allegiances and perhaps suggests social and religious bias. Undeniable, 1955 or not!

[Seveno]

Isn't wonderful to see a man trying to claim the moral high ground when he is a convicted criminal.

It could only happen at Castle Greyskull. No, wait a minute, it could happen somewhere in the west of Edinburgh

[AndyM_1875]

I think Bill's allusion goes beyond mere football allegiances and perhaps suggests social and religious bias. Undeniable, 1955 or not!

What's undeniable? That 2 QCs, Practising members of the faculty of Advocates, who have built their career & reputations on their abilities to forensically examine cases having studied for degrees and Diplomas In legal practise and then gone through Deviling and passed assessment for entry to the Scots Bar are suddenly going to compromise their professional integrity over a relatively minor tax case because it involves a football team.
Really ?

Or perhaps the truth was it was just that HMRC didn't produce a good enough case and too much of it was based around "we didnae think this was right" which isn't going to impress anyone.

Just a thought.

[Weststandwanab]

What's undeniable? That 2 QCs, Practising members of the faculty of Advocates, who have built their career & reputations on their abilities to forensically examine cases having studied for degrees and Diplomas In legal practise and then gone through Deviling and passed assessment for entry to the Scots Bar are suddenly going to compromise their professional integrity over a relatively minor tax case because it involves a football team.
Really ?

Or perhaps the truth was it was just that HMRC didn't produce a good enough case and too much of it was based around "we didnae think this was right" which isn't going to impress anyone.

Just a thought.Distinctly possible ! Deviling now that takes me back but do not under estimate the Friday G & T brigade.

[AndyM_1875]

Distinctly possible ! Deviling now that takes me back but do not under estimate the Friday G & T brigade.

:greengrin

This is still one conspiracy theory I wouldn't touch with a barge pole. :wink:

[ancient hibee]

Is this Dave King fellow by any chance related to the Dave King who sat on the Rangers Board while they went spectacularly bust after he was busy committing financial crimes in South Africa thus raising enough money to give Rangers £20million.Or is he the reincarnation of Dave King a dreadful comic of 30 years ago who was on the box every Saturday night.

[JeMeSouviens]

What's undeniable? That 2 QCs, Practising members of the faculty of Advocates, who have built their career & reputations on their abilities to forensically examine cases having studied for degrees and Diplomas In legal practise and then gone through Deviling and passed assessment for entry to the Scots Bar are suddenly going to compromise their professional integrity over a relatively minor tax case because it involves a football team.
Really ?

Or perhaps the truth was it was just that HMRC didn't produce a good enough case and too much of it was based around "we didnae think this was right" which isn't going to impress anyone.

Just a thought.

Have you read the minority opinion? Dr Poon (the tax expert of the 3 on the FTT) was impressed. I don't think the majority acted out of some sense of Hunnery btw, EBTs were always playing on the difficult edge of aggressive avoidance so it was a pretty grey area. My totally non-expert hunch is HMRC will win their appeal though.

[banchoryhibs]

Have you read the minority opinion? Dr Poon (the tax expert of the 3 on the FTT) was impressed. I don't think the majority acted out of some sense of Hunnery btw, EBTs were always playing on the difficult edge of aggressive avoidance so it was a pretty grey area. My totally non-expert hunch is HMRC will win their appeal though.

I agree. The First Tier Tribunal decision was remarkable in as much as the two judges who found in favour of Der Hun arrived at their decision by taking a very narrow and restricted view of the case presented before them. They were indirectly criticised for this by Lord Bishopp when he was asked to rule on what was, and was not, admissible to be brought before the Upper Tier Tribunal and, I would say, directly criticised by Heidi Poon in her dissenting decision.

There may have been many reasons to take such a narrow view, one of which could have been an acknowledgement that a ruling over the tax treatment of EBT payments / loans should be taken by a higher Court. What is significant is that the facts are being allowed to be re-presented to the Upper Tier Tribunal, normally only points of law are allowed to be discussed.

Tax cases are ultimately decided in the Supreme Court and along the way the decision can come down on one side in one Court then the other in the next hearing so HMRC losing the first round is not in any way decisive. It's not called the FIRST Tier Tribunal by accident.

This issue has a long way to go, not because it's The Rangers but because tax avoidance via EBTs was marketed to a very large number of people and there is a huge amount of money at stake across the UK. Other cases have gone through various levels of hearings but, for one reason or another, none have made it to the ultimate arbitrator, The Supreme Court.

[CropleyWasGod]

Have you read the minority opinion? Dr Poon (the tax expert of the 3 on the FTT) was impressed. I don't think the majority acted out of some sense of Hunnery btw, EBTs were always playing on the difficult edge of aggressive avoidance so it was a pretty grey area. My totally non-expert hunch is HMRC will win their appeal though.

I'm one of the sad individuals who read it all. I still found stuff to disagree with on both sides, and there was a lot that was over my head. It doesn't surprise me that there was disagreement between the three, but nowhere was there any sense of bias.

Except on page 16, paragraph 90, where the guy in the sash said "Suck the rope"..... which I think was a typo.

[Weststandwanab]

:greengrin

This is still one conspiracy theory I wouldn't touch with a barge pole. :wink: It still exits today !


Is this Dave King fellow by any chance related to the Dave King who sat on the Rangers Board while they went spectacularly bust after he was busy committing financial crimes in South Africa thus raising enough money to give Rangers £20million.Or is he the reincarnation of Dave King a dreadful comic of 30 years ago who was on the box every Saturday night. One and the same.

[AndyM_1875]

Have you read the minority opinion? Dr Poon (the tax expert of the 3 on the FTT) was impressed. I don't think the majority acted out of some sense of Hunnery btw, EBTs were always playing on the difficult edge of aggressive avoidance so it was a pretty grey area. My totally non-expert hunch is HMRC will win their appeal though.

I did read the report and I won't pretend to follow or understand all of it. Much of it i couldn't get into at all and I've read some dry heavy legal stuff in my time. The QCs would be working on the absolute legal definitions & interpretations just as Dr Poon thought there was a case of Evasion going on. Talking to a couple of lawyer mates recently, they're still far from certain that the entire verdict of the FTTT will be overturned.

My own hunch is that we might all be left scratching our heads again after the appeal finishes as we may not get a straight yes/no answer.

[CropleyWasGod]

I did read the report and I won't pretend to follow or understand all of it. Much of it i couldn't get into at all and I've read some dry heavy legal stuff in my time. The QCs would be working on the absolute legal definitions & interpretations just as Dr Poon thought there was a case of Evasion going on. Talking to a couple of lawyer mates recently, they're still far from certain that the entire verdict of the FTTT will be overturned.

My own hunch is that we might all be left scratching our heads again after the appeal finishes as we may not get a straight yes/no answer.

We didn't get one in the FTTT either, despite how it was reported in the MSM.

[Bill Milne]

So you "have no idea if they were", yet you still assume that they are?

Even if they are, you then make the assumption that their football allegiances come before their professional responsibilities. That's quite an accusation.

Might, however, explain why two so-called professionals wafted through the appeal without making any real attempt at justifying their decision while the dissenting female gave a detailed rebuttal. The evidence being led in the current tribunal implies some bias on the part of the two blokes allowing the appeal. Yes, my supposition may be fanciful but the prescence of, lets say, Donald Finlay QC in legal circles may give rise to a reasonable suspicion that there are more like him buried in legal ranks.

[greenginger]

Was there not something omitted in the submissions by the HMRC legal team that seemed really stupid, and that allowed the two parties who rejected the HMRC claims enough wriggle room to justify their findings ?

[AndyM_1875]

Might, however, explain why two so-called professionals wafted through the appeal without making any real attempt at justifying their decision while the dissenting female gave a detailed rebuttal. The evidence being led in the current tribunal implies some bias on the part of the two blokes allowing the appeal. Yes, my supposition may be fanciful but the prescence of, lets say, Donald Finlay QC in legal circles may give rise to a reasonable suspicion that there are more like him buried in legal ranks.

Doesn't explain anything and nobody "wafted" through the appeal.
Your supposition is both fanciful and misplaced. If you read the report you will see that both MIH and HMRC are criticized at points.

As for Donald Findlay, he is a Defence Advocate specialising in court work in high profile criminal cases usually involving violent crime and has absolutely nothing to do with this relatively minor tax case.

[Bill Milne]

Doesn't explain anything and nobody "wafted" through the appeal.
Your supposition is both fanciful and misplaced. If you read the report you will see that both MIH and HMRC are criticized at points.

As for Donald Findlay, he is a Defence Advocate specialising in court work in high profile criminal cases usually involving violent crime and has absolutely nothing to do with this relatively minor tax case.

Well, since I actually said my supposition may be fanciful, it puts my argument in the position of being my own personal opinion. I note nobody took issue with my comments about the number of highly placed Jambos in Edinburgh Council. Why should HMRC and our judiciary be any different?

[CropleyWasGod]

Well, since I actually said my supposition may be fanciful, it puts my argument in the position of being my own personal opinion. I note nobody took issue with my comments about the number of highly placed Jambos in Edinburgh Council. Why should HMRC and our judiciary be any different?

Do these highly-placed Jambos put their football allegiances before their professional duties?

And, you have now introduced HMRC into your argument. If, as you suggest, they are Rangers-friendly, why would they be pursuing this particular case with such vigour?

[greenginger]

Do these highly-placed Jambos put their football allegiances before their professional duties?

And, you have also introduced HMRC into your argument. If, as you suggest, they are Rangers-friendly, why would they be pursuing this particular case with such vigour?


I think the HMRC case is now being controlled by the head honchos down south who want a test case to knock all the other EBT operators with.

Thinking back to Rangers CVA voting back in 2012, I think the Duffers and commentators were getting signals from the local HMRC offices that killing off Rangers was not their preferred option but then the decision was taken out of their hands.

As for our local council, the Main Stand at the PBS is still open 12 years after they were given notice by the Council that the safety certificate would not be renewed indefinitely.

[CropleyWasGod]

I think the HMRC case is now being controlled by the head honchos down south who want a test case to knock all the other EBT operators with.

Thinking back to Rangers CVA voting back in 2012, I think the Duffers and commentators were getting signals from the local HMRC offices that killing off Rangers was not their preferred option but then the decision was taken out of their hands.

As for our local council, the Main Stand at the PBS is still open 12 years after they were given notice by the Council that the safety certificate would not be renewed indefinitely.

Killing off companies is very rarely HMRC's preferred option. It hasn't been that way for at least 10 years, when they started to understand the commercial aspects.

[greenginger]

Killing off companies is very rarely HMRC's preferred option. It hasn't been that way for at least 10 years, when they started to understand the commercial aspects.


They must take a different view with football clubs.

They voted against the CVA proposals at Rangers, Hearts, Portsmouth and I'm sure a couple of others.

[CropleyWasGod]

They must take a different view with football clubs.

They voted against the CVA proposals at Rangers, Hearts, Portsmouth and I'm sure a couple of others.

They do have a policy of voting against CVA's for football clubs.

I was meaning earlier in the process. They generally are less inclined to put a business under whilst there is still a chance of recovering their debts, and of saving (tax-payers') jobs. That is the approach they adopted at Hearts. They could have put them under long before it actually happened; as it turned out, they actually recovered more tax than they would have otherwise.

[greenginger]

They do have a policy of voting against CVA's for football clubs.

I was meaning earlier in the process. They generally are less inclined to put a business under whilst there is still a chance of recovering their debts, and of saving (tax-payers') jobs. That is the approach they adopted at Hearts. They could have put them under long before it actually happened; as it turned out, they actually recovered more tax than they would have otherwise.


That's not the way I count it.

They got the November 2012 PAYE payment and may'be the next quarter too, but they got nothing for the £ 1.5 million Tribunal agreement for the Kaunus loan player scam.

Then in the November 2013 CVA document, when the final creditor list was produced, a sum of £ 646,851.66 of VAT due was added to the original list from the previous July.
This I guess was the VAT due on season tickets sold before admin. If the hearts had been forced into admin. at the beginning of 2013 the administrator would have ensured the Revenue got their money for this item.

[CropleyWasGod]

That's not the way I count it.

They got the November 2012 PAYE payment and may'be the next quarter too, but they got nothing for the £ 1.5 million Tribunal agreement for the Kaunus loan player scam.

Then in the November 2013 CVA document, when the final creditor list was produced, a sum of £ 646,851.66 of VAT due was added to the original list from the previous July.
This I guess was the VAT due on season tickets sold before admin. If the hearts had been forced into admin. at the beginning of 2013 the administrator would have ensured the Revenue got their money for this item.

There were a couple of instances, well before administration, where HMFC paid their debt very late. Had HMRC put them under before that, as they were entitled to do, they would have got nothing. I said at the time that I thought HMRC were playing a blinder in squeeezing the last drop of blood out of the stone.

Had they put them under much earlier in the process, I think they would have been justifiably criticised for taking an uncommercial stance.

[CropleyWasGod]

The latest from Phil:-

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/dave-king-makes-his-move/#more-4414

Watch out for the incisive interview with King Dave.

[Jack Hackett]

I'm thinking this whole sorry affair could have been avoided if the SFL had just told them to GTF 18 months ago. What a missed opportunity that was.

[Pete]

I'm thinking this whole sorry affair could have been avoided if the SFL had just told them to GTF 18 months ago. What a missed opportunity that was.

There would have been social unrest.

[CentreLine]

There would have been social unrest.

What on earth for? It is football we are discussing here. There might have been a number of very angry supporters venting their frustration but social unrest is taking the whole thing too far IMO

[Hank Schrader]

What on earth for? It is football we are discussing here. There might have been a number of very angry supporters venting their frustration but social unrest is taking the whole thing too far IMO

I think Peter Douglas was making a tongue in cheek reference to this. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9376852/Rangers-in-crisis-Stewart-Regan-warns-of-social-unrest-if-Ibrox-fans-have-no-club-to-support-next-season.html) Which was of course a ridiculous comment to make by that idiot Regan.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm thinking this whole sorry affair could have been avoided if the SFL had just told them to GTF 18 months ago. What a missed opportunity that was.

I'm thinking that the clubs in the bottom 2 divisions would disagree with you.

[CentreLine]

I think Peter Douglas was making a tongue in cheek reference to this. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9376852/Rangers-in-crisis-Stewart-Regan-warns-of-social-unrest-if-Ibrox-fans-have-no-club-to-support-next-season.html) Which was of course a ridiculous comment to make by that idiot Regan.

My bad. Sorry Peter

[green glory]

There would have been social unrest.

Armageddon dontcha know?

[green glory]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/game-on-2/#more-4429

[grunt]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/game-on-2/#more-4429
I guess we don't need to wait very long to find out if he's right.

[Www1875hfc]

What is a controlled insolvency?

[CropleyWasGod]

What is a controlled insolvency?

It's where there is already a buyer lined up for the shares in the company, and where the shareholders and major creditors are in agreement with the proposed deal.

[Www1875hfc]

It's where there is already a buyer lined up for the shares in the company, and where the shareholders and major creditors are in agreement with the proposed CVA deal.

Thanks CWG :aok:

Hearing that a controlled insolvency and administration will happen this week.

[PatHead]

On a lighter note I saw a car coming over the Forth Road Bridge with The Rangers scarves hanging out the windows. Good to see supporters of new clubs getting excited.

[Billy Whizz]

Thanks CWG :aok:

Hearing that a controlled insolvency and administration will happen this week.

What's the points penalty for this, if it were to happen

[jonty]

What's the points penalty for this, if it were to happen
Will be interesting to see.
25pts if it's their second admin within 5 years.
15pts if they're a different club :cb

[Eyrie]

There was talk of the SPFL deciding when to apply the points penalty but I'm not sure if that was brought in. It would make sense for Sevco Huns to take the penalty this season as it won't affect their chances of wining Division One, but equally it would be a far stronger punishment if the penalty can be delayed until next season when it could stop them winning the "Championship".

[CropleyWasGod]

That's one of the reasons they would have to do it sooner rather than later. I still have my doubts about whether it's going to happen though.

[Twiglet]

Will be interesting to see.
25pts if it's their second admin within 5 years.
15pts if they're a different club :cb

Is it not 15 points, or 1/3 of the previous season points, or has that been done away with?

[grunt]

alex thomson ‏@alextomo 9m (https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/440188079367004160) Rangers to go into Administration on Wednesday? At least one senior Glasgow accountant is saying so tonight.

[Steve20]

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.

[Billy Whizz]

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.

There's is never enough punishment for SEVCO

[GreenCastle]

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.

Was just thinking how this would affect Hearts and them being in the same league..

[Billy Whizz]

Was just thinking how this would affect Hearts and them being in the same league..

Hearts could be in a league a lot lower

[Ozyhibby]

I hated the old Rangers more than anything I can muster for Hearts. Hearts are just rivals. The old and the new Rangers are disgusting bigoted organisations and I will not shed a tear for them no matter what benefit it may bring the yams.

[Keith_M]

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.


I think you do the other clubs a big dis-service and are possibly overrating the quality of team Hearts will have. Also, Hearts could still be in Adminstration themselves.


Wouldn't that be funny, Hearts start the season on -15 and The Rangers on -15/-25 (depending on how they then decide the status of their club)


:greengrin

[HoboHarry]

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.
Hearts will not win the league next year regardless of Rangers problems. They have a mountain to climb and I doubt that the level of their playing staff will be much different to what it is this year.

[Jack Hackett]

I think you do the other clubs a big dis-service and are possibly overrating the quality of team Hearts will have. Also, Hearts could still be in Adminstration themselves.


Wouldn't that be funny, Hearts start the season on -15 and The Rangers on -15/-25 (depending on how they then decide the status of their club)


:greengrin

Regardless of whether it's 15 or 25, they'll win the league. They've made damn sure the automatic relegation rule was scrapped before they've embarked on this (probable) course. Everything lined up and a quick in and out of admin before the season's anywhere near finished

Cheats then. Cheats now. Cheats forever.

Loathsome from top to bottom

[Ozyhibby]

Regardless of whether it's 15 or 25, they'll win the league. They've made damn sure the automatic relegation rule was scrapped before they've embarked on this (probable) course. Everything lined up and a quick in and out of admin before the season's anywhere near finished

Cheats then. Cheats now. Cheats forever.

Loathsome from top to bottom

Maybe not. The whole purpose of this admin is to get out of expensive player contracts. They will release everyone who is earning too much and have to go with youngsters the rest of the season.

[HoboHarry]

Maybe not. The whole purpose of this admin is to get out of expensive player contracts. They will release everyone who is earning too much and have to go with youngsters the rest of the season.
I imagine that Black, Daly, Sheils, Law, Bell, McCulloch, Templeton and Foster are all on decent money. How many will they shed? Whatever, if they shed even half of them it would give the other teams an opportunity and belief I would have thought.

[Newry Hibs]

So if there is a 2nd controlled admin - does anyone in the real world get stiffed (i.e. HMRC, newsagents ....)?

Seems to be a way of cancelling contracts of players they don't want or are too expensive.

15 or 25 points is irrelevant this season, so no punishment there.

Other than the embarassment (yeah, I know) is there any down side for The Rangers?

[HoboHarry]

So if there is a 2nd controlled admin - does anyone in the real world get stiffed (i.e. HMRC, newsagents ....)?

Seems to be a way of cancelling contracts of players they don't want or are too expensive.

15 or 25 points is irrelevant this season, so no punishment there.

Other than the embarassment (yeah, I know) is there any down side for The Rangers?
How can it be irrelevant? If it is 25 points (and I don't know that for sure) they will be back to close to equal with Dunfermline but with potentially all of their high earners gone. You don't think Dunfermline will see an opportunity there?

[Ozyhibby]

How can it be irrelevant? If it is 25 points (and I don't know that for sure) they will be back to close to equal with Dunfermline but with potentially all of their high earners gone. You don't think Dunfermline will see an opportunity there?

Exactly

[Newry Hibs]

How can it be irrelevant? If it is 25 points (and I don't know that for sure) they will be back to close to equal with Dunfermline but with potentially all of their high earners gone. You don't think Dunfermline will see an opportunity there?

Hmmm - I see 25 points would put them 1 behind Dunfy, however I think would still have enough to get them top. MAybe these high earners will be re-signed on not so high earnings for the rest of the season - or face having no income and publicly branded traitors.

[BH Hibs]

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.

No I don't I want both the cheating *******s in the lowland league

[johnbc70]

They should be totally hammered if they go into admin again. A blind man could see it was coming with players on thousands a week and a manager earning £800,000 a year FFS. We all knew it was happening but the authorities sat by and watched it all happen, although saying that they were probably powerless.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Talking to a, and I quote, a dyed in the wool blue nose from my toes to the top of my head and feckn hate kafflix, last night who is funnily enough the first person I have ever heard say they had sympathy for the small businesses that lost money. Gobsmacked was i.

[Hermit Crab]

Hearts will not win the league next year regardless of Rangers problems. They have a mountain to climb and I doubt that the level of their playing staff will be much different to what it is this year.

Agreed. In a league full of hatchet men their poor wee lambs couldn't handle that. Tattoo mans level though.

[Hermit Crab]

Hmmm - I see 25 points would put them 1 behind Dunfy, however I think would still have enough to get them top. MAybe these high earners will be re-signed on not so high earnings for the rest of the season - or face having no income and publicly branded traitors.

Dunfermline play the rangers on the last day of the season. Iirc

[Hermit Crab]

They should be totally hammered if they go into admin again. A blind man could see it was coming with players on thousands a week and a manager earning £800,000 a year FFS. We all knew it was happening but the authorities sat by and watched it all happen, although saying that they were probably powerless.

Hammer them again? They are a new club/company.

[Hermit Crab]

I imagine that Black, Daly, Sheils, Law, Bell, McCulloch, Templeton and Foster are all on decent money. How many will they shed? Whatever, if they shed even half of them it would give the other teams an opportunity and belief I would have thought.

Start tapping Shiels up now ;)

[Matty_Jack04]

@alextomo: Some more questions for Rangers tonight - questions note - not statements ?

@alextomo: Why is Jack Irvine contacting journos quite unsolicited tonight to deny possible imminent Admin to people who hadn't asked about it?

@alextomo: Will Rangers deny that Nash and Wallace have met 2 potential Administrators in the past 48 hours? #c4news

[jdships]

alex thomson ‏@alextomo 9m (https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/440188079367004160) Rangers to go into Administration on Wednesday? At least one senior Glasgow accountant is saying so tonight.

Speaking , today, with an accountant friend whose firm was involved in the last IBROX "problem" and he made the comment
" .....it is highly likely that Sevco/Rangers, whatever you want to call them, will be in administration this week. All the signs are there !!
You can't run a football business like a market stall and expect to succeed "

:rolleyes:

[SteveHFC]

Gifs at the ready :greengrin

[Pretty Boy]

alex thomson ‏@alextomo 9m (https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/440188079367004160) Rangers to go into Administration on Wednesday? At least one senior Glasgow accountant is saying so tonight.

Shame.

[Eyrie]

I imagine that Black, Daly, Sheils, Law, Bell, McCulloch, Templeton and Foster are all on decent money. How many will they shed? Whatever, if they shed even half of them it would give the other teams an opportunity and belief I would have thought.

Add McCoist to that list of overpaid duds they should look to empty (but hopefully won't).

[Hank Schrader]

If you want Rangers in administration, you want Hearts to win the championship next season.

Who says Hearts will definitely be in the Championship? :confused:

[Ronniekirk]

Speaking , today, with an accountant friend whose firm was involved in the last IBROX "problem" and he made the comment
" .....it is highly likely that Sevco/Rangers, whatever you want to call them, will be in administration this week. All the signs are there !!
You can't run a football business like a market stall and expect to succeed "

:rolleyes:
If they do this has been planned and they have brought in players on wages they knew they couldn't afford but in effect knew they could win the league comfortably and take the minus whatever points and still come up .They really need a bigger punishment than that .They seem to think they were hard done by before and now they think there isn't the on going stomach in new set up to take them on again It would be the arrogance of the club if they did do this that I find hard to accept Sporting Integrity ? it's greed and they won't stop till back in top flight ,they really don't care .The current civil war and board room Politicking are deplorable just now .Its everyone wanting a share of the potential money pot further down the line so positioning themselves to try and take over the club before they get back into top flight again .

[#FromTheCapital]

At least the old rangers had a good innings. The zombie rangers are too young to die but just like their ancestors I'm struggling to give a ****.

[Haymaker]

Gifs at the ready :greengrin

Can always rely on you steve!

[Boyle89]

There really should have been a rule put in place to stop them going into admin for at least a few seasons. They were always going to spend big to make sure they got into the top league as fast as possible. A new team enters the league and maybe going into administration in under 2 years. This must be a record?

[Weststandwanab]

There really should have been a rule put in place to stop them going into admin for at least a few seasons. They were always going to spend big to make sure they got into the top league as fast as possible. A new team enters the league and maybe going into administration in under 2 years. This must be a record? Portsmouth entered Administration for the second time in two years on 17th February 2011.

[MKHIBEE]

Portsmouth entered Administration for the second time in two years on 17th February 2011.

Rotherham went into administration after the 2005/6 season and again in March 2008

[lord bunberry]

Portsmouth and Rotherham weren't new teams, this incarnation of rangers has only existed for 2 years, if they're allowed to go into administration and still be promoted then I would say the rules need to be changed.

[CropleyWasGod]

Portsmouth and Rotherham weren't new teams, this incarnation of rangers has only existed for 2 years, if they're allowed to go into administration and still be promoted then I would say the rules need to be changed.

I don't know much about the Rotherham story, but there's little difference between Portsmouth and Rangers. Both clubs had their business taken over by Newco's. The major difference, though, is that Portsmouth were allowed to remain in the same League. That's because the SFA and FA view such events differently.

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't know much about the Rotherham story, but there's little difference between Portsmouth and Rangers. Both clubs had their business taken over by Newco's. The major difference, though, is that Portsmouth were allowed to remain in the same League. That's because the SFA and FA view such events differently.

The FA and SFA do take a different view but in this instance it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

The FA are willing to accept a newco in the same division if the creditors of the oldco are satisfied, as Portsmouth's were (this is what Trevor Birch was alluding to when he said things are different up here, ie. Hearts need to transfer shares, not just agree a CVA):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8746162.stm

However, if creditors are unsatisfied, the FA treats the newco quite differently, as per Darlington:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlington_1883

Sevco are a newco following a refused CVA, so wouldn't have been allowed to "stay" in the SPL even under FA rules.