Printable View
You're right, not a bad read. As far as I can see it wrapped the history of Rangers' 'cheating' up pretty well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lofarl
I actually do agree that Celtc shouldn't be excluded from the meeting that the rest of the SPL clubs are having. Going forward, the SPL10 have all the cards stacked in their favour so it would seem petty to not show their hand to Celtc at this stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HibeeMG
Celtic can play Rangers or a new form of Rangers every week in that bubble they both live in for all I care ,we should do ourselves and favour, cut this financial umbilical cord the The Old Firm and Sky provide , only then Scottish football can live its own life .
AS for the future, a UEFA enquiry into the 3 governing bodies , dismantling of the 3 then a single new entity running Scottish football ,
the way both these clubs have manipulated the custodians in charge of our game is sickening , to even consider sitting at the same table should question your sanity .
Better off left well alone IMHO .
My sanity has been in question for a long time! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by cad
My point was that we shouldn't be skulking off to have our wee meetings. We should get the Celtc representative into the meeting, sit him at the end of the table and discuss how much TV and ticket money we're going to be taking off them, knowing that they can do feckall about it!
More hot air from Graham Spiers:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...rones.16986326
Quote:
Knights, a King and shadowy milieu underpinning game of thrones
The vast Rangers support, done in by weeks of negative headlines and the death sentences being passed on their club, at last have some respite this weekend. Paul Murray and his Blue Knights consortium, with their brazen intention to buy the club and avoid liquidation, have seen to that. But this Rangers saga, and the salvation of the club, may be a long way off yet.
The Blue Knights, with Murray and Dave King the figurehead and economic strength respectively, are pinning their hopes on striking a Company Voluntary Arrangement with Rangers' creditors. Yet until the tribunal's ruling on the big tax case is known – the club is threatened with a potential £49 million-plus back-taxes bill – how can that happen?
There are various theories currently doing the rounds about Rangers and HMRC. The most popular – and possibly believable – is that the revenue service has privately intimated it will strike a sympathetic deal with Rangers which will vouchsafe a CVA going through. Others, however, still believe that HMRC will prove no such pushover at all. One business analyst, who has studied the economic circus of Scottish football for the past 20 years, told me yesterday: "I've seen all the speculation about HMRC being 'accommodating', but I believe they will still want their pound of flesh from Rangers. The fact is the HMRC position remains the great unknown in this saga."
It is a tantalising situation for Paul Murray. In October last year, on the BBC Scotland programme which so impressively helped to skewer Craig Whyte, Murray himself sat before a camera and said he had been amazed that Whyte had gone ahead and taken on Rangers, given the potentially huge liability (the HMRC case) which still hung over the club. "I'd never seen that before anywhere in my 25 years of buying and selling companies – a guy taking on a historical tax liability like that," Murray said. Yet here we are 10 months down the line and, with the HMRC outcome still not known, Murray is himself in a near-identical situation. It has left some strongly believing that the ex-Rangers director knows more about HMRC's intentions than the rest of us.
The other focus this weekend shifts strongly on to King, the real economic power behind Murray and the Blue Knights' bid. If anyone seriously doubts how much money King has earned in his near 30-year sojourn in South Africa, then consider this: SARS, the South African revenue service, are still chasing him for around 900 million SA rand in alleged unpaid taxes. In sterling, that is around £75m. Just how much money do you have to earn in the first place to be asked to stump up such a tax bill? Blithely, two years ago, King was reported in Pretoria to be happy to pay back around £25m to SARS, which was rejected. Either way, it seems this exiled Glaswegian, as well as befriending Gary Player and regularly caddying for him at the Masters in Augusta, has accumulated serious wealth.
Yet King also brings "baggage", which is why Stewart Regan, the SFA chief executive, has been happy to tip off the press in the past 24 hours that King would not pass the governing body's belaboured "fit and proper persons" test if he tried to become an Ibrox director under any new club ownership. It is well known that, in South Africa, King has been accused of tax evasion, money-laundering and even racketeering – all emotive allegations, many of which have yet to reach a courtroom.
Amidst all this, it is enough for Regan and the SFA to hurriedly point out that, purely on the basis of having been a board member of the last Ibrox regime which led to the club towards insolvency, King would not be allowed to become a Rangers director.
Yet, within the Blue Knights, King's power and influence could not be over-estimated. Indeed, they might well be viewed as essential. King's financial input is a primary factor in the Blue Knights' ability to restructure Rangers and rebuild the team. King is a key – if elusive – cog in this unfolding Rangers drama.
If I were either Regan or Neil Doncaster, the SPL chief exec-utive, I would be praying that this Murray/Blue Knights bid somehow comes off. Doncaster is currently in an impossible situation: on the one hand, if Rangers were liquid-ated and died, the SPL member clubs would be under enormous pressure to punish any 'newco' by means of banishment from the SPL, possibly even to the Irn-Bru Third Division.
Yet what could SPL chief Doncaster – or anyone else, for that matter – do without Rangers? The worth of the SPL in terms of TV rights is reduced to a relative pittance if either half of the Old Firm is taken away. Can you imagine the call Doncaster would have to make to Barney Francis, managing director of Sky Sports, with whom Doncaster has just struck a new deal? "Erm, Barney, bad news. We've had to punish Rangers over this bankruptcy bus-iness. They are now in the Third Division. "There will be no Old Firm derbies for three years - but Rangers should be back by 2015."
For all concerned – excepting crowing Celtic fans – it is best if Rangers emerge intact from administration.
One thing is clear: Craig Whyte is dead meat. Despite tech-nically owning around 90% of Rangers, it is striking the way the club's administrators, Duff & Phelps, speak about selling the club or doing this or that deal with scarcely a passing mention of Rangers' current owner. Whyte, almost certainly now denuded of his secured cred-itor status, appears to have as much sway at Ibrox these days as the stadium's cleaners. I don't know a single person who can fathom why he got into this mess. He has almost comically miscalculated the scrutiny he would come under while attempting his various shenanigans. I find Whyte a ludicrous, shambolic figure, almost to the point of pity.
Also from the Herald, but a totally different take on the Murray bid team. No mention of King's millions here, in this article the capital comes from Ticketus. I'd like to see them sell that idea to Ticketus investors. Clearly these Herald journalists don't talk to each other.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...ttest.16986438
Quote:
Survival of the fittest
There is an endless supply of intrigue coming out of Rangers as several groups play a role in this financial, legal and emotional epic, full of negotiations, stark warnings, progress and a slew of revelations. The coming week is likely to be the same.
Paul Murray, head of the Blue Knights consortium, will meet the administrators in the next 48 hours to hold further talks about his bid to buy the club. Murray's group, which includes all three major supporters' organisations, as well as the finance fund Ticketus, have positioned themselves at the forefront of a number of interested parties.
Receiving the backing of Ticketus is considered a smart move. They lent £24.4 million to Craig Whyte in return for profits from future season ticket sales, and Whyte used £18m of that to pay off Lloyds Bank when he bought Rangers from Sir David Murray. The mechanics of that deal have convinced the administrators that Whyte's status as a secured creditor is worthless – there is no evidence of him having invested any of his own cash – but it also leaves Ticketus vulnerable to losing their money. Yet some sources close to the situation are all but certain that Ticketus's arrangement would not hold with a new owner. The company may have decided their choice is to embark on lengthy and costly moves to challenge Whyte to try to get back some of their money, or to essentially write off their involvement with Whyte and strike a new deal with his successor, and they may see the Blue Knights as the best hope of recouping some of the money they face losing.
"Paul [Murray] has had some discussion about their position," said Andy Kerr, of the Rangers Supporters Assembly. "They're nervous they will end up severely burned in this deal if it goes wrong. We're talking about reducing the amount due to them, repaying over a longer period but, most important, getting capital up front if the takeover is successful."
Buying the club while it exits administration through a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) with the creditors would involve Whyte passing on his majority shareholding. The administrators are confident they can either take control of that – as his Wavetower company (now Rangers FC Group) owes the club money – or reduce the value of Wavetower's influence to such an extent that it becomes an irrelevance.
The administrators have set a deadline of Friday for indicative offers to be made. They insist other interested parties are also serious about bidding for the club. Although they stress they want to avoid selling the club to anybody who does not pass the Scottish Football Association's fit and proper persons criteria, as Whyte and Dave King, the second largest shareholder, now fail to do, they are only obliged to sell to the highest bidder. "Anybody who doesn't pass the fitness test won't necessarily be discarded there and then, but we have to treat them with extreme caution because the last thing that RFC needs is another Craig Whyte character," said Paul Clark, of the administrators Duff & Phelps. "We believe that a new owner will be installed before the end of the season. "We have one or two parties that talk to the media, and other parties who have been quietly and diligently getting on with their business outside the glare of the media, and we are taking them just as seriously. I am not ruling anybody out, I'm just saying that nobody should assume that the only serious bidders are the ones who are in the public domain."
Clark can raise a better return for creditors if there is a bidding contest for the club. There are still obstacles to Rangers exiting administration through a CVA, though, since the outcome of the tax tribunal into the club's use of employee benefit trusts could deliver a significant bill. This would have to be drawn into any CVA offer, which the creditors then vote to accept or reject, but Clark is confident that a sale can still be achieved. "We can't predict the size of the bill, if there is one," he said. "Whatever the debt, it just dilutes the amount available to the creditors. As a very significant stakeholder, HMRC shouldn't be looking to destroy value. They have never suggested they are going to be belligerent. They are not at all happy with the conduct of the people who have run RFC, particularly over the last few months."
Clark also confirmed that after agreeing to wage cuts "more than a handful" of senior players had clauses inserted into their contracts entitling them to free transfers in the event of Craig Whyte retaining or regaining control of the club. No commitment has been made to pay money owed to Dundee United after their William Hill Scottish Cup tie at Ibrox, but the administrators are in discussions with the SFA over the matter.
The situation, for every development, still contains many unresolved strands.
Is Speirs not one of the guys that was lauding Whyte at the time he took over?
If so how can anyone take him as a serious journalist?
I can't make up my mind about Speirs genet though I find him repugnant then again the same applies to Traynor
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Maybe a bit pedantic and clumsy but not a million miles off the mark.
Celtic were spared with 2 hours til doomsday if i recall correctly.
I don't see why it suitor be any different here.
It appears like a phoney war with people jockeying for position - smoke and Mirrors and brinkmanshipship.
Someone wake me up when it's over
As I understand it,yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I find this strange!!!!
Clark also confirmed the existence of a “Craig Whyte clause" in the contracts of some of the bigger-name players in the Rangers squad.
“I didn’t make it clear on Friday about this Craig Whyte clause. I should make it clear now. It’s not in everybody’s contract but there are a number of players who did want a clause that said something like, should Craig Whyte either retain or regain, control of the club then they would be entitled to a free transfer.
“That’s in there for a number of them. More than a handful have that in their contracts, the ones who have most likely got value.
“What the senior players are saying is that, if this football club moves into the hands of somebody we trust, then we want to remain at Rangers. It should not be seen as the players taking an opportunity to get themselves away on a free transfer in the summer. They’re saying: ‘Like everybody else here, we’ve been through a lot and we’re not happy with what’s gone on and what we don’t want is for this to continue and to be stuck in a club where we don’t want to be without break from our contract. You’re asking us to make a big contribution. Well, we need to have flexibility’. And, to me, that’s a fair compromise.” Clark is adamant that Whyte, above, has no future at Rangers and that, ideally, a new owner will be in place before the end of the current season.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...rones.16986326
Am i missing something here.:confused:
According to this dumb hack the SFA say Dave King would not pass the fit and proper test because he was involved in the last Rangers board that has lead the Club to the edge of insolvency.
The debts incurred are really minor compared to the £ 50 million plus liability racked up under the SDM regime when Paul Murray was also a director.
When the BTC case bill finally lands will Paul Murray join Dave King as persona -non - grata in Scottish Football circles ?
CWG - flaw in that is exactly because its football and not pastic widget plc...we all know that some form of huns 2012 will emerge if liquidation occurs...so HMRC will get the revenue stream from that vehicle :rolleyes: having got a biggish chunk from the buyers via liquidation....Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I did say "may".... but I accept it should be "probably won't".Quote:
Originally Posted by down-the-slope
Which is fine from a tax-payer's point of view. Some jam today, more jam tomorrow.
Again from the tax-payer's point of view, the ultimate jam scenario would be winning the BTC, and doing a deal with RFC whereby they paid everything by instalments.
Given the hammering that would give their ongoing finances, that wouldn't be too bad from a football perspective either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoHibby
Being disingenuous here tornado..how does anyone know when 'facts' are 'facts'...everyone with knows that winners write history....now that is a fact :wink:
Roddy Forsyth has just been on Radio 5Live saying that Duff & Phelps indicated to him that Rangers would not be paying Dundee United their share of the gate receipts from their Scottish Cup tie. According to him; this means that Rangers are in breach of SFA rules and would be excluded from next year's Scottish Cup.
If they still exist, of course. :greengrin
I read a statement from one of the adminstrators earlier, where he said that (without the bit about the Scottish Cup). Leaving aside the Cup, will that not affect their registration with the SFA??Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Ed
Now is it a fact, or just supposition put about by losers? :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by down-the-slope
Forsyth did go on to say that the administrator hoped to speak to the SFA next week: whatever that is meant to achieve. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by s.a.m
I've just had a look at the SFA website, and they have said this:
Finally, we have sent a letter to the Rangers administrators, Duff and Phelps, advising them that failure to pay monies owed to another member constitutes a breach of the Cup Competition Rules. Consequently, the club faces disciplinary action unless they make payments due to Dundee United from their recent William Hill Scottish Cup tie. A Notice of Complaint has been issued to that effect."
[The final column is the maximum punishment for non-compliance with the issue raised in column 3.]
The
Scottish Cup Rules
325
45(b)
Division of Receipts and Payment of Expenses - Clubs shall observe the terms of Scottish Cup Rule 46.
Fine
Order to replay a match
Ejection from the Scottish Cup
Suspension
Clubs
Fine
Order to replay a match
Ejection from the Scottish Cup
Suspension
Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round
Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round plus £5,000
Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round plus £10,000
Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round plus £20,000 and ejection from the Scottish Cup and one year suspension from the Scottish Cup
Another headache for the Hun Hoards. :violin:Quote:
Originally Posted by s.a.m
What's the betting on it being this:
"Fine equivalent to loss of payment for round"
Given that they canny pay.....does that mean "well, let's chuck 'em out" or "we'll fine 'em, but they canny pay, so we'll effectively be letting 'em off." ?Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Surely that IS in the best interests of Tax payers. Unless a buyer appears who can prove to HMRC that they have the money to cover such a shedule of re-payments..but why would someone cripple the future business with this.
I cant see why anyone - unless they are of the mega rich ego types that have bought into EPL (and if they were that type whey not buy Everton :rolleyes:) - would not wait until Tax case was sorted or wait for Liquidation :confused: Now I realise that the potential of 3 years @ £15 + million from Champs league is the make weight in such an outcome...but that is only a potential, whereas any tax case loss amount is actual.
Still reckon that any £50 million plus tax case loss and they are liquidated
Also don't forget the £18 million debt to the bank that was all the focus at the start of this has not just dissappeared...it has just been rolled up into a bigger debt with Ticketas...any new owner has that 'cost' to bear.
25,000 seats at lets say £400 :rolleyes: £10 million..so suddenly its £30 million....thats quite a return for them and a hole in the next 3 years finances...
Also if we think that Hibs have a hard sell for ST's right now...anyone fancy being in Sales and Marketing at Rangers right now :cb
When I said "ultimate", I was speaking theoretically...it's the only way that all of the potential tax in the BTC could be recovered, and guarantee an ongoing tax take as well. I'm with you in thinking that it would take a real daftie to take on that debt, as well as the Ticketus hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by down-the-slope
As for that particular hole, I think it's probably more than £30m, but that will do fine for starters. :cb
Incidentally, the current Retail/Marketing manager at Arsenal, used to fulfil similar roles at Hearts and Rangers. :wink:
I'm a wee bit less optimistic about a good resolution now ie Rangers ceasing to exist or dropping a few divisions at least
There seems to be quite a bit of talk about interested parties, here's hoping it all still goes tits up for them
Courage, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by H18SVG
They're still looking at needing £80-£100m if the BTC goes against them.
I`m still trying to work out where all these big money buyers were a year ago or when Murray first put them up for sale. He couldnae give that club away. Now they`re up to their necks in it, suddenly RFC are an attractive purchase.........doesn`t make sense to me..:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by H18SVG
The admins have said that there are some potential buyers who don't want to be known at this stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by RossHibs
Call me an old cynic, but the surest way to push the sale of something is to suggest that there are others interested.
Especially when you try to conjure up images of a middle eastern sheik with billions to burn.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The reason why the Administrators have avoided a cull of players is that the prospective bidders have indicated that they do not want to buy a club shorn of its major playing assets. I beleive that the Blue Knights are a load of time wasters without anthing near the resources to mount a serious bid.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I am not really convinced that there is much value in this. Self-evidently the club cannot afford the current playing staff so it will come down to those with any real transfer value come the next window. I do not see that many players that could generate much money as they would have been sold in the last window. You never good good prices in what amounts to a fire sale.
Also will the 75% or 50% pay cuts give any entitlement to a free transfer on account of breach of contract? Any player who wished could probably engineer a free transfer. The wage cut will end after three months and any player who refused transfers lined up and insisted on a return to full wages might be able to get a better deal elsewhere as a free agent.
... cue the gags about Sheik Ma Haun.Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah