Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ancienthibby

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:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaSaikouKujabi

Exclusive footage has emerged of Craig Whyte this evening.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/...826/murrw3.gif

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wembley67

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

He's denying any interest according to SSN.

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/inde...owtopic=211225

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/inde...owtopic=211225

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottB

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

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

---

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

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

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

Here's a few tasters:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deluded hun

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

---

Yes, thats why you're in administration

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the same deluded hun

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

---

Oh just paperwork. That's alright then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spectacularly dim hun

Why did Ticketus not make the cheque out to Rangers? Then it would show

---

Quick! Someone tell the administrators just to check who the cheque is made to! That'll help them find where that cash has gone. Maybe Ticketus can just show the stub

And they wonder why we laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

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

---

No reading it then ... :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwoCarpets

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwoCarpets

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwoCarpets

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

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

---

Not sure that they do lose the lot.

1. they have insurance in place, apparently.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liberal Hibby

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

---

Could be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy74

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Not sure that they do lose the lot.

1. they have insurance in place, apparently.

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

---

1. No sane underwriter would write such a risk.

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

1. No sane underwriter would write such a risk.

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


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

---

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

They have paid for season tickets in advance.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

1. No sane underwriter would write such a risk.

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


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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim44

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

1. No sane underwriter would write such a risk.

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


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

---

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

There is no insurance policy, end of.

whyte to stand down.

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

And claims not to have taken a penny from Rangers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

whyte to stand dowm.

---

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Story So Far...

:confused:

---

twitter, man, twitter :greengrin:

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/footba...rticle/2614559

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

whyte to stand down.

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

And claims not to have taken a penny from Rangers.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carlsberg

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

---

Hokey Cokey folk ken whits gon oa

:offski:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/footba...rticle/2614559



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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

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

---

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

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

OK, thinking aloud here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

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

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

---

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

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zMGEYVIHOv...llowfollow.jpg

http://macleodcartoons.blogspot.com/...5ZrmTY.twitter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

whyte to stand down.

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

And claims not to have taken a penny from Rangers.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenPJ

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

---

He never took a single penny.

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

Vatican also to pay taxes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-6988938.html

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

SFA to launch investigation.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...11&newsID=9344

Quote:

---

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

---

Wont hold breath.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottB

He never took a single penny.

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

---

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

The man's a sociopath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

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

---

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

From the SFA statement..

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

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

Ibrox is now apparently a sell out for tomorrow.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smidge

OK, thinking aloud here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

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

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

---

... which is why there are no accounts.

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

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

Part of statement from Scottishfa.co.uk

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

More hot air or a genuine attempt at creating fairness?

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

Part of statement from Scottishfa.co.uk

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

More hot air or a genuine attempt at creating fairness?

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soupy

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

---

The bizzies will a chapping his door soon methinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soupy

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

---

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

i thought it was probably the cleaners myself ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mca

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

i thought it was probably the cleaners myself ???

---

Was Super Ally in one if the bags

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldenhibby

Was Super Ally in one if the bags

---

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



id still do her tho.. :agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mca

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



id still do her tho.. :agree:

---

What's the story about those two

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mca

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

i thought it was probably the cleaners myself ???

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldenhibby

What's the story about those two

---

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...it-affair.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mca

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

i thought it was probably the cleaners myself ???

---

so thats what happened to mad vlads planning application

:greengrin

Courtesy of Desperate Dan

:lolrangers:

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

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

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

---

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

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

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

Just saying likes! :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

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

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

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

---

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

I have my doubts though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TornadoHibby

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

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

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

Just saying likes! :wink:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TornadoHibby

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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

---

Floating an idea here ....

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

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

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


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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyrie

Floating an idea here ....

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

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

---

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

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


No charge is registered at Companies House.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyrie

Floating an idea here ....

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

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

---

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

Just saying likes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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


No charge is registered at Companies House.

---

It still could be though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TornadoHibby

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

Just saying likes!

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TornadoHibby

It still could be though!

---

Should've been registered months ago.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TornadoHibby

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

I have my doubts though.

---

South coast club

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TornadoHibby

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

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

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

Just saying likes! :wink:

---

The Ticketus statement (see post#1117) clearly lays out the nature of the deal. Regardless of the detailed terms it looks rather foolish IMHO

Quote:

---

As I already said
'if taken at face vale'.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Just saying likes. :na na:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

South coast club

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs13681

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

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

Just saying likes. :na na:

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TornadoHibby

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:greengrin

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TornadoHibby

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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


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



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


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

i still think it was cleaners btw..

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

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

http://willievass.photoshelter.com/g...000nNZibM6GU2o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mca

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

---

Here's hoping :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mca

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

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


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



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


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

i still think it was cleaners btw..

---

Well, they could be money launderers of course

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mca

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

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


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



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


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

i still think it was cleaners btw..

---

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