Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Take it they require money in December until half seasons go on sale which will then give them breathing space until Feb/March.

BTW Nice to see that we could kill them by denying them promotion though. Their business plan is scuppered then.

Does look a real hand to mouth existence and the accounts state a similar sized squad so don't expect lots (not even 3) signings in January unless players go out.

---

If we can overtake them in the League there might be reduced take up of their half season tickets too. Pleasing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newry Hibs

What's this one? I've read 99.9% of posts on here, but must have glazed over here.

---

New this week. Fat Mike trying to bang up King for Jim White interview in South Africa. Breaks confidentiality clause/gagging order over commercial deals.
Charges against White for journalistic standards are unclear at this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Would the fact that they have said that the costs related to the court cases are 'impossible to quantify' indicate that no sum has yet been allowed for this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

There are 2 separate issues here.

1. the accounts, and what has been allowed for in them as debts. We do know that they have allowed for the SPFL fine, as they say that. They also say that the Court case costs are unquantifiable. All of that is fine IMO.

2. the forecasts, which are much more important in establishing whether they are a Going Concern. It's those that we don't have access to, and no clear view as to what is included in the £2.5m. If I were preparing forecasts, I would have a few "what-if" scenarios. Whether RFC have done that, whether the auditors have demanded that they do.... we don't know.

I suspect that the auditors have asked for, and received, written undertakings from the Board saying that they will continue to support the company for the next 12 months (without quantifying that support). That will cover their backs, and allows them to sign the accounts off on the Going Concern basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There are 2 separate issues here.

1. the accounts, and what has been allowed for in them as debts. We do know that they have allowed for the SPFL fine, as they say that. They also say that the Court case costs are unquantifiable. All of that is fine IMO.

2. the forecasts, which are much more important in establishing whether they are a Going Concern. It's those that we don't have access to, and no clear view as to what is included in the £2.5m. If I were preparing forecasts, I would have a few "what-if" scenarios. Whether RFC have done that, whether the auditors have demanded that they do.... we don't know.

I suspect that the auditors have asked for, and received, written undertakings from the Board saying that they will continue to support the company for the next 12 months (without quantifying that support). That will cover their backs, and allows them to sign the accounts off on the Going Concern basis.

---

Auditors Mmmm !

I seem to recall the Yam Auditors signing off their Accounts in March 2013 without as much as a " Going Concern " warning.

Three months later despite being self-sufficient and being told by the EEN that AllisBarry, they collapsed totally unsustainable debts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There are 2 separate issues here.

1. the accounts, and what has been allowed for in them as debts. We do know that they have allowed for the SPFL fine, as they say that. They also say that the Court case costs are unquantifiable. All of that is fine IMO.

2. the forecasts, which are much more important in establishing whether they are a Going Concern. It's those that we don't have access to, and no clear view as to what is included in the £2.5m. If I were preparing forecasts, I would have a few "what-if" scenarios. Whether RFC have done that, whether the auditors have demanded that they do.... we don't know.

I suspect that the auditors have asked for, and received, written undertakings from the Board saying that they will continue to support the company for the next 12 months (without quantifying that support). That will cover their backs, and allows them to sign the accounts off on the Going Concern basis.

---

I would imagine that auditors receive these assurances from Directors a lot and then watch as the business goes into admin?
Is there anything legally binding on directors who give this sort of commitment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I would imagine that auditors receive these assurances from Directors a lot and then watch as the business goes into admin?
Is there anything legally binding on directors who give this sort of commitment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Would you accept assurances from Dave King?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I would imagine that auditors receive these assurances from Directors a lot and then watch as the business goes into admin?
Is there anything legally binding on directors who give this sort of commitment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Man, you're such a cynic. :greengrin

But you are right.

Not sure there is anything that legally binds the directors. After all, they're giving undertakings to the auditor, that's all. Cav would be the man to answer that, but he's AWOL just now.

However, if the company then goes pop, the liquidator might move for a Disqualification if s/he thought the directors were lying.

https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/

Any pressure to apply to the club re: redressing titles won during Ranger's cheatmode seasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I think it the spfl that appointed Nimmo Smith but the Sfa are responsible for the Scottish cup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Could we see a further fine being added on to the one already hanging over them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Man, you're such a cynic. :greengrin

But you are right.

Not sure there is anything that legally binds the directors. After all, they're giving undertakings to the auditor, that's all. Cav would be the man to answer that, but he's AWOL just now.

However, if the company then goes pop, the liquidator might move for a Disqualification if s/he thought the directors were lying.

---

A good defence for the directors might be that the circumstances of the business changed (i.e. They lost a couple of massive court cases) and the sums involved were no longer within their capabilities?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

A good defence for the directors might be that the circumstances of the business changed (i.e. They lost a couple of massive court cases) and the sums involved were no longer within their capabilities?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Or,

They simply resign from the Board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steakbake

https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/

Any pressure to apply to the club re: redressing titles won during Ranger's cheatmode seasons?

---

The thing about that is, once you start pulling on the thread, who knows where it would lead?

We've had this discussion before, probably when they first lost the BTC. Once the SFA and SPFL start stripping titles, other clubs (here and abroad) would have a case for compensation.

And who would they sue? OldCo, NewCo, the SFA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

A good defence for the directors might be that the circumstances of the business changed (i.e. They lost a couple of massive court cases) and the sums involved were no longer within their capabilities?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Are any of the 3 bears even on the board? I don't think they are. I could be wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Are any of the 3 bears even on the board? I don't think they are. I could be wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Directors are:-

David King
Paul Murray
John Gilligan
John Bennett
Graeme Park

Isn't Rangers' and SDM's defence on this quite simply that at the time they thought they were using a legal loophole for avoiding tax which has subsequntly been proven to not be legit?

The only cloud over that would be the use of side letters to players not disclosed to authorities which would suggest they knew they had something to hide.

Either way Rangers fans should know that SDM is more culpable for their demise than whyte.

DM should be made to repay all the Tax "stolen" from you and I. It is my opinion he is guilty of fraud and a lie in at the Big L should be his plight. Oh and be made to hand over all his assets leaving him with, as in the old days, "the clathes on his back and the tools o' his trade".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Isn't Rangers' and SDM's defence on this quite simply that at the time they thought they were using a legal loophole for avoiding tax which has subsequntly been proven to not be legit?

The only cloud over that would be the use of side letters to players not disclosed to authorities which would suggest they knew they had something to hide.

Either way Rangers fans should know that SDM is more culpable for their demise than whyte.

---

Can I ask a question about the EBTs? Apologies if it was explained on page 2.

I keep see that it was a way of them having players they couldn't otherwise afford, and so cheat their way to titles. What I don't understand is this.

Tore Andre Flo for example got something like £2.5m from an EBT, but where did the money for the EBT come from? Rangers? MIM? or where. OK I get that tax wasn't paid so it didn't cost as much as it might have, but then somebody had to pay the mney in the first place, so in effect they could afford these players, maybe not all of them.

Sorry for being thick. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Are any of the 3 bears even on the board? I don't think they are. I could be wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The three bears are Douglas Park, George Letham, and George Taylor. Only Douglas Park was on the board, but has since resigned for health reasons and replaced by son Graeme.

I don't think any of the current board members have any significant funds to loan to RIFC.

Very good point raised by our Yam friends.
http://viewfromgorgie.co.uk/index.ph...14-strip-tease



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

Can I ask a question about the EBTs? Apologies if it was explained on page 2.

I keep see that it was a way of them having players they couldn't otherwise afford, and so cheat their way to titles. What I don't understand is this.

Tore Andre Flo for example got something like £2.5m from an EBT, but where did the money for the EBT come from? Rangers? MIM? or where. OK I get that tax wasn't paid so it didn't cost as much as it might have, but then somebody had to pay the mney in the first place, so in effect they could afford these players, maybe not all of them.

Sorry for being thick. :wink:

---

Basically we can pay you £50k in an EBT or £30k Net (after tax). If we all done that the UK would grind to a halt. Always been immoral and now illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Very good point raised by our Yam friends.
http://viewfromgorgie.co.uk/index.ph...14-strip-tease



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

An interesting piece but I still find it hard to accept that anyone from Gorgie can write an article on suitable punishment for financial doping that carries any credibility whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Very good point raised by our Yam friends.
http://viewfromgorgie.co.uk/index.ph...14-strip-tease

---

The irony of a yam talking about the repercussions of tax defaulting. You couldn't mark that brass neck with a blowtorch.

To be fair to them, they were hit with a points deduction for defaulting on their tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Isn't Rangers' and SDM's defence on this quite simply that at the time they thought they were using a legal loophole for avoiding tax which has subsequntly been proven to not be legit?

---

Ignorance isn't a basis defence in the eyes of the law.

Quote:

---

The only cloud over that would be the use of side letters to players not disclosed to authorities which would suggest they knew they had something to hide.

---

"We didn't know they were illegal, that's why we kept it secret." Wouldn't wash in any court (outside Scotland), it's why so many lawyers are employed in sport - to keep clubs on the right track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

The irony of a yam talking about the repercussions of tax defaulting. You couldn't mark that brass neck with a blowtorch.

---

I couldn't see the post as it's too lofty up there on it's moral high-ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

Can I ask a question about the EBTs? Apologies if it was explained on page 2.

I keep see that it was a way of them having players they couldn't otherwise afford, and so cheat their way to titles. What I don't understand is this.

Tore Andre Flo for example got something like £2.5m from an EBT, but where did the money for the EBT come from? Rangers? MIM? or where. OK I get that tax wasn't paid so it didn't cost as much as it might have, but then somebody had to pay the mney in the first place, so in effect they could afford these players, maybe not all of them.

Sorry for being thick. :wink:

---

Perhaps Tore Andre Flo wouldn't have gone anywhere near Rangers for £2.5 minus tax, whatever that amounts to. Tax takes a chunk out of your wage budget that you might otherwise use to employ players with higher earning potential. More players, as you say, or better ones.
Having more money at your disposal is probably the main way, as a football club, you can improve your lot / gain competitive advantage.

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/artic...-replay/592377


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Very good point raised by our Yam friends.
http://viewfromgorgie.co.uk/index.ph...14-strip-tease



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I don't really care if it's come from a yam, it's a good point in my opinion and I'd love to see any response to it from the SPFL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The thing about that is, once you start pulling on the thread, who knows where it would lead?

We've had this discussion before, probably when they first lost the BTC. Once the SFA and SPFL start stripping titles, other clubs (here and abroad) would have a case for compensation.

And who would they sue? OldCo, NewCo, the SFA?

---

other clubs(here and abroad)do have a case for compensation"
As I see it:greengrin
they could sue the SFA,unless they(SFA)abide by there rule book and punish oldco accordingly.
This scenario would pass the buck of compensation to oldco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

I don't really care if it's come from a yam, it's a good point in my opinion and I'd love to see any response to it from the SPFL.

---

Yup, it is a good point, there is a precedent for punishments for historic non payment of tax. I agree that stripping titles isn't going to happen and, although it would be nice, I'd prefer a points deduction this season to be honest (being totally selfish from a Hibs perspective....)

Was it Greenginger that had been in touch with Neil Doncaster before, perhaps he could get in touch again asking for comment?