What a bloody farce
i hope they get Shafted every way possible
Printable View
What a bloody farce
i hope they get Shafted every way possible
There's no need for Murray to be part of the deal, it could be done directly between Ticketus and Whyte, then held in escrow.
It sounds to me as though the money was held in escrow until the takeover is complete, but did not go direct to RFC to pay Lloyds but instead went to another group company and then Lloyds.
The trigger to release the funds could quite well have been on contract signature when Whyte took control of RFC.
The kicker could be, that Ticketus are not on the list of creditors for any CVA. Instead it is one of Whytes companies, so he can manipulate which way the vote on any CVA goes.
For those of you not familiar with the term. Escrow is where something is held by a third party until certain conditions are met, and then that item or part of the item is released. A bit like getting a trusted mate to hold your stakes when you bet on a game of pool down the pub.
Sorry if that's condescending, it's not meant to be.
Yours
aDONis
I'm lost and I now have no idea why they are in administration and who they owe money to and why?!
Also have no idea why this is being done now when the tax thing is imminent? Is this a way to avoid it?
I found the administrators completely incredible on the question of cash at the bank, which a number of reporters questioned them on.
Their standard answer was 'we have yet to conduct an examination of that', or words to that effect.
Surely that's about the first thing an administrator gets to grip with - the cash position, all transactions in the past week, month, etc, who authorises payments, what the cash flow is, etc??
On all these, they put up a huge deflect shield.
One thing we did learn was that only a down payment has been made for Jelavic.
No, RFC owe the £18m to Craig Whyte's company.
Also as I understand it, RFC are disputing the £9m figure and claim it's only about half of that (only a rumour mind).
So the potential CVA percentages could be closer than you and I think.
However, I think the fundamental problem is that RFC are losing money quicker than Whyte can plug the gaps, and the situation was begining to spiral. It certainly sounds as though things like the big tax case have moved from being a chance of happening to likely to happen.
From a business point of view and faced with all of that, you've got to try and clear the decks quickly and realise what you can.
What I'm not sure of, is how much of the big-tax liablilty would be used in any Creditors calculation. If the creditors percentages are tight, what discretion is there in only recognising a small percentage of the big-tax. (Not that I'm suggesting any sort of pre-pack a la Leeds United). :wink:
We're now in the incredible situation whereby the Administrators are business associates of CW, at the very least 'CW Friendly'.
How can anyone possibly trust that there will be any outcome other than what CW has planned all along, that of getting Rangers for nothing and magically removing all the debt?
As for the Ticketus money, and the fact that CW didn't actually have the money to takeover Rangers, it has been public knowledge since last summer. Quite how the mainstream press thought that it wasn't even worth investigating those calims until know is quite incredible.
He hasn't got it for nothing. He has paid £18m of RFC's cash.... cash which he will have to pay back, and more.
And there is debt... £24m to Ticketus.
As for the cosy-pals bit, I get the feeling that his erstwhile "pals" might be happy to ditch him, if only to stave off any criticism of their integrity. This may be too high-profile for any of the stunts they may have pulled in the past.
I am guessing... from what one of the administrators said, that the "intention" to go into administration was announced to force HMRC to come to an early negotiated settlement on all liabilities. HMRC then called CW's bluff, and went for it themselves. CW then tried to get control back by actually filing for it.
As for avoiding the BTC, I don't think that is likely either. That is clearly in the thoughts of the administrators. My gut feeling is that a negotiated settlement will be done there.
The entire opening gambit of their statement seemed to be aimed at distancing themselves from being his close acquaintances. However, I am sceptical as it has been suggested elsewhere that they advised him on the takeover itself, this being at odds from their claim to have been brought in the latter stages of 2011.
SOmeone today said tha the articles surrounding membership of the SPL declare that should a club go out of business, perhaps like rangers... then all they need do is re-apply to the SPL as it is not governed by the articles of association that govern leagues 1, 2 & 3...
If this is the case... dear oh dear..
Moreover, if they get a reduced rate of payment to HMRC, say 30p in the pound... what is the point of anyone paying tax if it can be bypassed
Alex Salmond intervention dragging Celtic into the mud is well dodgy too. For the first minister to declare publically that Scottish Football needs Rangers is appalling.
Me, I wont be voting for SNP or Independence given his biased remarks... keep in mind Salmond tried to drum up interest in Hertz on a state visit to Quatar...
Dreadful state of affairs...
And if there is a negotiated settlement, pressure needs to be put on ALL our elected representatives - Westminster and Holyrood - to ensure that HMRC do not settle for anything less than they should. This is entirely separate, in my view, from whatever long-lasting punishment the football authorities should levy for 14 years of financial doping.
(I say 14 years, because the EBT thing kicked in during the largesse of the Advocaat era, and he was appointed in 1998)
Agreed, but the words "blood" and "stone" come to mind.... and I have used them often in discussions with HMRC. What's the most that they could get here? Either:-
1. in a liquidation, a percentage share 75%??, (taking into account Ticketus and others) of the value of MP, Ibrox and the car park.
or 2. allowing them to trade on, and pay off the full whack over the next 10-20 years??? Ohhh, that would be sair!!
or 3. mortgaging the whole lot of the property. Is that feasible?
If that`s the case, then, as someone else on here suggested, all the other SPL clubs (bar Celtc and the other financially cheating club), should upsticks and leave the SPL - bring up Dundee, Ross County and one other for a truly competitive league
If they get away with this we should just bite the bullet, go out and sign Messi and Ronaldo, win the league and cup and then say sorry to everyone but we can't pay our way. It's a total joke if they not only get away with this but also come out of it at the other side smelling of roses and debt free.
Who owns Ticketus? Sounds like something some daft bank would operate .. It better no be RBS or Lloyds or the taxpayer is getting it up them left, right and centre!
lol.
Octopus :agree:
http://www.principlefirst.co.uk/inve.../octopus-vcts/
C'mon hibeeleicester... are you for real...
Salmond or any first minister would not give a monkey for the financial plight of Hibernian
Football is not a major part of the economy at all, its a bit part player in terms of turnover and tax comapred to other industries
Where was he when the fishing industry got rail roaded into EU quotas, where was he when other, more contributory areas towards the state coffers were in plight and headin down the tubes?
No where, he kept shtoom.
re celtic needing rangers... mebbes aye mebbes naw... but if push came to shove and one had to sink... do tesco need M&S, do sainsbury need Morrisons...
business is about driving your competitors out of business and taking them over... kinda like what mercer proposed years back
only this time its whyte trying to abscond from his fiscal responsability to the state via tax etc...
sordid little bunch that they are...
mon the tash and hibs...::wink:
I really don't understand all the ins and outs of the Rangers case but the more I hear and read about this £75 million odd figure, the more I start to believe they are only going to be paying about 10-15% back?
Spend millions of pounds over years whilst clearly not being able to afford tax bills and when the taxman really does come knocking shout......we're skint, let's go into administration!
Is it really that easy to in reality to make a mockery of the tax system? What's to stop any football club or any other business for that matter to spend money, with-hold taxes and then say we can't afford to pay said tax bill then in a nutshell come to an agreement to only pay a fraction of the original figure?
Shocking if this the way of it. I may have misunderstood mind!
GGTTH
Who are the directors left at Rangers??
I know Greig, the security guy (I kid you not! maybe Anderson?), Bain the MD and MacIntyre the FD, all exited.
Is wrongful trading about to catch all these directors out!?
I can not imagine that 'wrongful trading' is not wholly applicable right now!!:greengrin
had a quick scan of this = http://www.scotprem.com/content/medi...0(CURRENT).pdf but can't see anything to say what will or will not happen. maybe one of the more eagle eyes members will pick somthing up :confused:
Too be fair when the EU fishing quotas came in my recollection was the SNP did kick up a big fuss but they did not have a mandate or public support at the same levels as they have now.
Football is not about driving your competitors out of business its about beating them in a game. Football may not be a significant contributor to the economy but there is a lot of public interest in it and sadly there is a lot of Rangers supporters therefore the same clamour would be made by 'some' of the electorate if no government comment was made.
None of this detracts from Rangers should pay the price for firstly avoiding tax (assuming its proved) and secondly selling out to a conman (allegedly).
I'm really surprised anyone is taking what various politicians are saying too seriously. So far as I know, we've had one SNP and one Labour politician (and presumably others) make meaningless soundbites, saying what they feel they have to so as to sound like they actually care.
The SNP, for example, are scared to alienate any potential voters, as are most other parties. They've tried already to make the independence issue appeal to Unionists/Loyalists by stating that the Queen will still be head of state after Independence. IMHO, what Salmond is doing now is just a continuation of that attempt at vote winning.
Quite incredible:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-17067141
We are the administrators and we do not know where this money went!!
I am confused now, says that Ticketus lent the cash to a parent company (Rangers FC Group) and not the company in administration (i.e Rangers FC) but then goes on to mention that they will now become unsecured creditors and be part of the CVA?
He said the Ticketus debt was not secured against the assets of the football club.
It means the ticket firm is unlikely to be repaid in full should Rangers exit the administration process.
Instead, Ticketus and other creditors would be asked to agree to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) to receive a percentage of what they are due.
Rangers FC Group, a separate entity from the club itself, remains solvent.
Ticketus loaned Rangers the money in return for flows of future season ticket sale revenue, a primary source of the Ibrox club's income.
I imagine that they have a "pretty good" understanding of the financial position of RFC but have not yet had time to set that out to the eagerly listening World in a manner that deals "safely" with all of the other "issues" (nature and substance of relationship with CW etc) that may or not be "smouldering" at the same time! :wink:
The next few days will reveal more I suspect as constant pressure from the media, politicians and fans etc will provoke information release over and above the statutory requirements! :agree:
If ,as it has been suggested ,Whyte has moved Rangers assets ,ie the Stadium and the training ground from the football club to the holding company,Rangers Football Group, leaving the football club with virtually no assets and a massive tax liability.
The football club is then allowed to be liquidated with all its debts and the holding company emerges with the stadium etc and reforms the football club.
One spoke in the wheel of this plan is the HMRC legal right to override property and asset shifting if it can be shown to have been done for
" non commercial purposes "
In other words if the HMRC consider this asset shifting is for tax reasons alone they can set it aside and treat the property as a part of the football club.
Any of the accountancy people still on this thread please clarify.
If, as has been previously suggested, that the ticketus money was either in whytes sweaty little hands or in escrow prior to the deal being concluded then the little shyster has used an asset as collateral to finance the purchase of the huns. I'm sure the relevant authorities will be looking quite closely at that one :agree: won't be an FSA investigation it'll be the fraud squad :hilarious
"David Whitehouse, from administrators Duff and Phelps told a press conference: "Our understanding is that the funds from Ticketus didn't come through the company's account, they went through a parent company account so we haven't got visibility on that.
"Ticketus don't have security on the assets of the club."
Ticketus have refused to comment on the Rangers season ticket deal, citing client confidentiality."
I suspect it to be very unlikely that this ST cash has been lent in a manner which leaves it as Unsecured (similar to the HMRC debts) in a corporate environment that seems to have had "Administration" or similar associated with it since CW was associated with it. The ST cash lender will have some form of security for this cash which it was comfortable with at the time of lending it and I am sure that security would not have amounted to £Nil in value terms!
Ticketus may not be commenting as their client may not be the company in administration despite the "apparent" repayment method for the loan arising from future sales receipts of RFC ST's! :confused:
Not the full 24.4 million though, when the first payment was due Craig Whyte sold more tickets to ticketus to cover the first payment. I heard that he initially only sold about 16 million worth of ST but when the first repayment was due (about 9M) he sold more to bring the total money to 24.4M. As the second wave of ST sales was to pay for the first repayment, Whyte never actually had the 24.4M.
It does seem that the only bills Whyte has been paying since he came has been the salaries.
I haven't looked at the accounts of RFC or any other Group (and therefore related) company but it is the case that assets cannot be moved from one entity to another (particularly related) entity unless they are transferred at "fair market value". Directors of companies which may be, or are likely to become insolvent must be very careful not to permit such transactions or to behave recklessly! This may help people follow this more easily!
"(Fraudulent) preferences" or "transactions at undervalue" are things to look at particularly!
If they have loaned the money to another company does that not mean they are NOT effected by the administration? I believe the Ticketus deals mean that they basically sell their allocation of ST's first meaning they get their money back first. If Rangers exit administration will ticketus not just be looking to get their money when ST's for next year are on sale?
Its sounds to me like the parent company has taken out a loan that was due to be repaid via Rangers FC, if the loan was paid to the parent company, surely it was taken out by the parent company and therefore ticketus wont have to go accepting any administration deals?
Alastair Johnston has asked crown office to conduct a criminal fraud investigation into CW's takeover, as per bbc reporters twitter
Having sat back and observed for the past few days now the countless stories, the media frenzy and the hundreds of comments posted on here, I just thought I'd fling my tuppence worth in, for all it's worth.
Rangers have brought this misfortune on themselves entirely by their own doing and therefore should be held fully accountable. For one thing, as a UK taxpayer I am not happy at all that a company has diddled the Government out of at least £50 Million. It is in all our interests to see that this debt is paid back fully for our sakes.
Like many others who have expressed the same opinion here I believe that what Rangers have done over the past two decades, i.e. spending stupendous amounts of money that didn't exist and refusing to pay their appropriate dues with HMRC in order to gain footballing success is nothing short of a swindle. There is no doubt about it it is CHEATING. Cheats break the rules and therefore must be punished by the rules.
I have sat back and digested all of what the talking heads have to say - businessmen, lawyers, pundits, fans, idiot politicians - and I cannot reach any other conclusion that what we have here is undoubtedly an absolutely brilliant thing. For once, we have a fantastic opportunity to completely revamp Scottish football for the better. It is simply an opportunity we cannot and must not let pass us by.
We have an opportunity to destroy the old corrupt ways run by the Glasgow clubs and get back some real football. We have an opportunity to kick out a club which seems to think that it has divine rule in the SPL and has a right to cheat its way into victory and has some sort of right to be in the SPL. We have an opportunity to break an unfair duopoly which has destroyed any competition in the SPL and has hence damaged the game. We have a chance to level things both financially and in football terms. We have a chance to kick out the odious heathen bigotry which has decimated the reputation of our game.
We have a chance to have a fairer, livelier, more competative league, without the baggage of certain teams having an unfair political, financial and footballing upper hand, and without the disgusting ugly bigotry that seems to come with it.
I am furious that we have the likes of idiot Salmond mouthing that the game will be better with Rangers than without. Piffle! Our game is suffering *because* of Rangers. Speak to the fans. The only people who want Rangers to stay are Rangers themselves! Everyone else cannot wait to boot them out! All fans' forums of other clubs are bristling with the exact same sentiments being expressed here - and that sentiment is for goodness' sake, kick them out, and good riddance!
Now let's get that owed cash off them, get them liquidated, block any "phoenix" club from waltzing back in as if nothing has happened and let's get the rules, the cash and the league much fairer and look forward to good, entertaining, competitive football :agree:
Gene
Strathclyde polis confirm on their Facebook page that they have been passed information on current situation at rangers which they are examining but deem it inappropriate to comment further at this stage. :greengrin
What I am saying is the original deal between Whyte and Ticketus wasnt for 24.4 million, it was for about 16 million. The first repayment was due to ticketus and whyte couldnt pay it, so, he sold more tickets to ticketus to raise the cash for the first repayment, therefore Whyte only ever received 16 million or so from ticketus, the remainder was immediately given back to ticketus as per of the first repayment. He has basically taken out another loan secured against ST's to pay a repayment installment of a loan.
We're having this conversation on two threads now. Let's keep it here :agree:
So.. Wavetower/CW gets £24m, but gives £8m back as the first repayment, yeah?
So Ticketus are now owed £16m.
CW uses the £16m to partly pay Lloyds TSB, plus another £2m from somewhere.
RFC owes CW £18m now.
RFC also owe Ticketus £16m.
BUT.... Wavetower owe RFC £16m as well for the Ticketus money that they never got.
Yeah??
I get that :agree:
There has been so much talk about the properties being transferred out , and I was concerned that it may have happened .. albeit illegally, as you say. Therefore I was pleased that someone asked that question this afternoon, and that the admins nailed that particular myth.
No, apparently there was a deal with rangers and ticketus for a smaller amount prior to Whyte getting involved, around 8 million. Whyte came in and sold Future ST's and got 16 million from ticketus (Total debt to ticketus now 24 million). Rangers sold 15 million worth of ST's and the deal is meant to mean ticketus get their cash first before rangers, but when ticketus asked for their money rangers could only afford 3.5 million. Whyte agreed a deal with ticketus for an additional amount to cover the outstanding repayment. So at this point Rangers / whyte owe ticketus 24 million with Rangers having to pay 9 million as first installment. Rangers can only afford 3.5 million so they agree a deal with ticketus to sell more future ST's, at this point I am not sure whether rangers paid the 3,5 million or they just agreed that the outstanding repayment is added to the existing debt and secured against even more future ST sales. As I say this is what I have heard but its from a guy I know that used to work for Rangers and still has access to info and people in the know. What I would like to know though is if Rangers got 24 million from ticketus, how much do they actually owe them, I wonder what ticketus' interest is like.
Rangers didn't actually get the £24m though, that's the thing. The holding company maybe did, but not the football club.
As far as I can make out, RFC will owe them the full whack......whatever that is!! But Wavetower owe RFC the same amount.
This tells you all you need to know about the Ticketus model..... http://www.principlefirst.co.uk/inve.../octopus-vcts/
Their mood swing-o-meter on Rangers Media Bears Den has gone from 'Smug as F***' at around 4pm post media conference to 'In need of new underwear' since around 10pm and the criminal investigation information........they are already hawking ideas to save money.......probably along the lines of a hubcap amnesty or handing in as many Globe juice bottles as they can get there hands (or hauns) on (or oan).
An excellent post.
Unfortunately, there are cretins in charge of our game who will ensure that RFC ( in whatever form ) can carry on as normal.
There will be no radical shake-up of our game, despite opportunity knocking....politicians, SFA, media and SPL will endorse cheating and tax avoidance and the blatant criminal manoeuvering of Craig Whyte.
He even managed to get his pals appointed as administrators to ensure no creditor even comes close to getting what they are owed.
RFC will emerge out of this with a host of prospective buyers drooling at the prospect of getting their hands on the club for reletively little and debt free.
Utterly, utterly sickening.
I'd like to know if RFC have found money down the back of the settee to pay policing costs for this weekends fixture or if Strathclyde polis are taking an IOU.
RFC made assurances to SP that they would be able to cover their costs. They made those assurances on the basis of their expectation of the crowd size. SP obviously took that in good faith.
If it were anyone else, the police would assess the situation in the same way. The margins might well be tighter, though, and the police might be less convinced.
It's not about "understanding", it's about commercial realities.
The borrower is RFC.... that was made clear by the administrators today. CW has also confirmed it, although I wouldn't set great store on that.:rolleyes:
However, the Herald reported that the cash was paid over by Ticketus to CW's solicitor before the takeover took place. If that is true, it might suggest a few things:-
1. Ticketus thought that they were dealing with RFC, but were actually dealing with (I forget the name) RFC Group??... CW's holding company, formerly Wavetower. This is where fraud may have taken place.
2. David Murray may have known about CW's plan to use that money to fund the takeover, and turned a blind eye to it just to get the deal done.
These bits are speculation, of course, but the key is finding where the Ticketus money went.
whyte :chop: murray :chop: :gun: :cb
Exclusive footage has emerged of Craig Whyte this evening.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/...826/murrw3.gif
another excellent blog post setting bare the facts of this case......
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/
Maybe the have paid Hearts, Dunfermline, Dundee United and the rest of the teams????:confused:
Heard Traynor on 5Live this morning saying that the Ticketus money was with CW's corporate lawyer which suggests a) Ticketus have not suffered a loss and b) the release of the monies would have conditions attached and these have not been met, hence the lawyers are barred from releasing them to ERFC.
This would be the cause of extreme cash pressures at RFC and would suggest that players and staff and creditors have only been paid at the expense of HMRC.
Throw the book at them:greengrin
I think I'll have to lie down as for the first time in my life I support the views of Jambo, Stuart Bathgate who. in an article in the Scotsman this morning, has a real go at Whyte, Salmond and Cameron on the non payment of tax issue. Mind you. it's a pity he doesn't pursue the financial frailties of his beloved HOMFC so vehemently. :greengrin
Traynor is maybe getting confused. The Ticketus cash was with CW's corporate lawyers, as that's where it was originally transferred, but that doesn't mean it still is. Apart from anything else, if I was Ticketus, I wouldn't have left the cash there for so long, when they could probably just ask for it back!
A couple of other thoughts this morning:
- It's been suggested that the Ticketus deal could allegedly have been fraudulent because they thought they were dealing with the football club, but they were actually giving the money to the parent company. However, the name change from Wavetower to The Rangers FC Group Limited was not formalised until 12/05/11. If the Ticketus deal was done in April, as suggested, then the Group company didn't exist by that name. I think that rules out the old switcheroo trick.
- The administrators definitely said that the football club had the debt to Ticketus but hadn't seen the cash.
Roll on today's developments....
Looks like ***** attracts *****
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17072133
Milan Mandaric interested in buying crisis-hit club Rangers
Former Portsmouth and current Sheffield Wednesday chairman Milan Mandaric is interested in buying Rangers.
The administrators revealed on Thursday they had already heard from parties interested in the crisis-hit club.
And BBC Scotland has learned the Serbian - last week cleared of two counts of tax evasion - is one of those to have contacted Duff and Phelps.
Mandaric, who has also been in charge at Leicester, took over at Hillsborough 11 months ago .
Nice to see a journalist grow a pair of baws this morning:
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...nged_1_2122590
Of course, one might ask, why it took so long?
I must admit that I understand little about tax evasion, but his blog does make good reading.
Especially today, when it highlights the plight of another company, going into administration, losing 175 jobs and this was a profit making company.
Someone has also put together a corporate strcuture of CWs companies (not including the ones already wound up)
http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpr...-structure.pdf
I've not read through this whole thread so apologies if this has already been mentioned.
I am no lawyer but I thought that the duty of the Administrators was to look after the interests of the creditors (the main one by far HMRC).
From all the media reports yesterday it appears that the administrators appear to be working in the best interests of Rangers Football Club.
Any lawyers out there who might like to comment? Can the administrators be asked to justify their apparent bias?
I wouldn't necessarily rely on the media reports to get the correct emphasis here. After all, these are mainly sports journalists who are talking to fitba supporters. Fans want to know "what's happening to my team?"
The administrators started off the press conference by emphasising that they were 1. Officers of the Court, and answerable to them. and 2. appointed to act in the best interests of the creditors and shareholders.
I see no bias as yet. However, there will be close scrutiny of this case. If any bias becomes apparent, they will have to account for it to the Court.
Here's a wee story from 3 days ago about one of the Companies in the CW empire - Pritchard Stockbrokers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...iness-17021584
The CW empire is unravelling by the day.:devil: