They did make a (small) profit last year. The problem is that it was totally dependent on them qualifying for a CL group. Without that (or even a EL group) they are losing £10m+ in a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_the_angus_hibby
Printable View
They did make a (small) profit last year. The problem is that it was totally dependent on them qualifying for a CL group. Without that (or even a EL group) they are losing £10m+ in a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_the_angus_hibby
If Jimmy Krankie did Chick's job for a year, would we notice?Quote:
Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee
Re a p/£ deal. DM offered HMRC £10m before selling to CW. Bearing in mind the tax debt has increased by £14m during CW's tenure. Why would Hector accept less for more now?
£4.2m profit for 2009-2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
That said they lost £87.7m in the ten seasons up to and including that one. They have been profitable in 3 out the last ten seasons but, nonetheless, spent £139.1m more than they brought in during that period. Wages to turnover for the ten year period was a reasonably healthy 67.5%.
And from reading the report there appear to be all sorts of problems in respect of using the land owned by Rangers for other purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
eg1 Para 9.18 Albion Road Car Park is subject to a finance agreement and Rangers won't have full title until 2023.
eg2 Para 14.3 to 14.11 Kelvinside Academy had a security over Murray Park that meant they would cut of any sale or change of use, which lapsed in October 2009. The Sports Council also provided secured funding of £505K for Murray Park.
eg3 Para 14.14 to 14.17 PPG (a Murray company) has two standard securities over the land occupied by the away end at Ibrox.
:agree:..and that`s just the wages we know aboot.........:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
While I wouldn't go as far as calling it a load of tosh it does look like the good professor has been either very selectively quoted or recruited into the propaganda machine. To make these statements without any sort of caveat about HMRC's (and other creditors') attitude to a CVA strikes me as highly irresponsible. There's a growing anti-liquidation movement (which feels like it's being orchestrated by Duff & Phelps) that just ignores any inconvenient facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
I would say there's a possibilty of a CVA, but it requires the goodwill of HMRC and others so liquidation still looks the most likely outcome.
The double contract investigation appears to have gone very quiet, as has the apparent attempted buy-out of St. Mirren - I'm surprised Buddies fan Chic Young hasn't been all over that :fibber:.
Curiously, the SPL's articles of association seem to have mysteriously gone missing from their website. :confused:
Is it just me, can anyone else find them?
From the thread so far it sounds like the tickitus deal was all about inflating the amount of non HMRC debt to force a CVA prior to the big and small cases being settled... Relying on a lot of political pressure on Hector to stop the tax man 'destroying the club'... .... Interesting times
PLAIN and SIMPLE
They have been cheating the system for years.
Just spend whatever you want and don't pay yer dues. Incredible that they think that ain't cheating
Hope they get suitably punished by SFA and SPL
Cannae see it tho.... They will bottle it !!!!
There was a big bit about this on Sportsound the other night with St Mirren director Ken McGeough, the guy that was accused of cooking up a deal with CW. The whole thing about a ploy to buy St Mirren in case the Huns get liquidated was a piece of nonsence. It did sound a bit murky because he was using Collier & Bristow as his lawyers but there was nothing in it at all according to McGeough. His busainess partner , Paul Davies i think, was involved with Rangers though but that was something to do with building a community gym and a separate issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I think the media just put 2 + 2 and came up with some random number because it was a good story.
In fairness to Chick he was all over it.
You can listen to the podcast here ....http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series...t#playepisode3
Don't think so. There would be no point in agreeing a CVA, coming out of admin and just going straight back in when the BTC hits.Quote:
Originally Posted by ...WentToMowAnSPL
Personally, I think all the chat about a CVA is just posturing to be seen as the true saviours who heroically did all they could. Liquidation and an asset sale to a PhoenixHuns still seems by far the most likely option. The Blue Knights seem unlikely to be the highest bidders for the assets if an asset sale were held now, so it's in their interest to keep the CVA option alive as long as possible so they're seen as the only game in town.
I heard that as well. You're being too fair to Chick. He attempted to skate over it all and any mention of the elephantine Rangers in the room was glossed over before Jim Spence butted in and asked the bleeding obvious. Ken McGeough may have been an innocent party in it all, if not he's a damn good liar, but the meetings between his partner and Withey and Whyte of the Hun sounded distinctly dubious. The idea of Whyte spending on a community gym when he was hunkered down withholding the Huns' PAYE seems just a bit ludicrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
I missed that - don't get Sportsound in the depths of Berkshire. It wasn't just the media though, the link with Whyte was mentioned in the second club statement on the St Mirren site. I'll listen to the podcast when I get the chance (off for pre-match refreshments before Reading v Leeds shortly) but for the moment I remain cynical about the whole thing. As I said earlier in the thread, at the very least Gary Withey should have been nowhere near the deal because of his conflict if interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
Agree with most of what you say here and it definately appears dubious and underhand. I just think that the main crux of the story that St MIrren were being lined up for Rangers to take their place is one conspiracy theory too far.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I probably was being too fair on Chick Young but somebody's got to!! I know its not a fashionable position to hold on here but I like listening to most of the Sportsound team even when I might disagree with everything they are saying.
Interesting times:
http://www.saintmirren.net/pages/?p=11540
The boy sounds as white as Whyte! They'll have to punt him!Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSmith
The boy sounds as white as Whyte! They'll have to punt him!Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSmith
It was frankly embarrassing when the 'succulent lamb' issue was raised by Jim Spence. Chic more or less said he and Murray were hand in glove but it is no more than good media practice to have sources you can get a story from. No problem with that but when the stories are so obviously one sided it's going to come back to bite the journalist. Roddy Forsyth said how he'd been black-balled by Murray for raising the Joe Lewis/ENIC issue when Lewis cautioned Murray about overspending. Forsyth quoted Murray after speaking to him and Murray said he'd spoken off the record and took the hump.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_the_angus_hibby
Newsnight Scotland last night had an expert in insolvency on the program who reckoned 12p in the pound would probably be enough to satisfy HMRC. This would mean any prospective buyer would need £25m to bring the huns out of administration. This is before the money needed to buy Craig Whyte's shares presumably :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Shame I can't pay 12p in the £ on my credit card bill :grr:
Yip 12p in the pound to all creditors including the small businesses. Yet within weeks,nay, days the new owners will be negotiating million pound deals on wages and signings. Nothing is quite as corrupt as this legal corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
I would very much 'hae ma doots' on that, Mr. Spike!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
There is no bidder on the scene who has the resources to continue the overspending on wages and players that has got RFC into this state. I would foresee redundancies flowing very quickly. Wages will not go back to current levels for years to come and what other football club will now deal with RFC when their most recent dealings yielded 12p in the £?:cb
Remember this isn't the real business world we are talking about Mr Ancient. The fans will very quickly be demanding CL glory and with a blank slate to work from hitherto unseen wealth of the buyers will be discovered and duly invested. Business as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Like many people I see the possibility of a CVA as mere wishful thinking on the part of various pro-Hun figures. For one I don't think HMRC are likely to accept such a paltry settlement as the one on offer. Indeed, if they did it would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the system. Of course one would not expect such concerns to figure prominently amongst the concerns of the Laptop Loyal. Perhaps, if our media were to concentrate on serious investigative journalism instead of sycophantically pandering to what they perceive to be the sectarian majority in this country, we would have a country fit for the Twenty First century: as opposed to one stuck in the Seventeenth.
:top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by calmac12000
They are bigger than Rangers but not realistic targets as they run in a league which makes it worthwhile for a sale to go through if they get into difficulties. Liverpool (in the past) and Man United have dodgy business models and the likes of Chelsea and Man City have been spending prolifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
The Premier League cubs down south are insulated by TV money. The dangers comes if they are relegated and when the parachute payments run out. Hence most of the clubs that HMRC have targetted are a tier below, the likes of Leeds United, Portsmouth, etc plus the lesser teams such as Port Vale and Darlington.
Rangers are a big name. Why else would there be so much media coverage down south. Did Channel Four news cover the problems of Dundee and Livingston? If Rangers are liquidated it will be a big news item on national media.
I don't think HMRC have been working at this case for years, employing top legal advice and their own senior staff to walk away with 10p in the pound.
This case is all about establishing ground rules for EBT's which have been operated by approximately 5,000 UK companies and setting precedents for future dealings with those companies.
It would be crazy for them to accept a minimal settlement with Rangers which would set the bench-mark for all the other company settlements.
I'm sure they will force liquidation on Rangers as a big stick to wave at the other miscreants.
Craig Whyte interview
http://www.clyde1.com/news/local/jim...w-craig-whyte/
As a Contractor, I was offered a similar sounding scheme to this EBT business. I would be paid 60% of my fee directly and the other 40% would be paid as a loan, from somewhere in the Channel Islands. This would mean that the 40% would not be subject to taxation. My worries were along the lines of 1) How could I trust them to ever pay something that is described as "discretionary", or to never ask for repayment if it's legally a loan? 2) How could it possibly be legal to avoid tax for payment that is quite clearly provided for work that I'd undertaken, and would be given to me for no other reason?
My immediate thought was that it sounded dodgy and if something sounds too good to be true, it normally is, so I declined. Now, I don't claim to be any expert on these things so surely if someone as thick as pig sh*t like myself can see through this, how come nobody at Rangers ever questioned it?
In saying that, if a court in England can decide that a payment to a football manager's pet doesn't sound in the least bit suspicious, maybe I should have gone ahead and said yes.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Wow! That guy is unbelievable!
Having the day off, I decided to exercise my mind to see if I could come up with Duff & Duffer's master plan that doesn't involve THE MIGHTY GLASGOOOOO RRRRRRANGERS going into liquidation. Here's my wizard wheeze.
An American VC, let's call them SClub7, set up two companies - let's call these Towering Wave 1 and Towering Wave 2.
TW1 buys Rangers for £1.15. It then sells the Rangers brand, player contracts and physical assets for say £25m to TW2, leaving all liabilities including major creditors, Ticketless and Hector, in TW1. With this £25m, they liquidate TW1 giving all creditors about 25p in the pound. A better deal than they could get if there is immediate liquidation.
Meanwhile, TW2 change their name to Rangers Football Club Ltd and reach an agreement with the SPL, SFA and Uefa that they are essentially the same entity as the football club ( or cheating tax dodgers as we know them ) as before and that their existing licence, status and trophy record remain.
Now, you may ask ' How do they get Craigie to agree to this ? ' . Well, go on then, ask.
Okay, they have given him £1.15 which equates to a 15% return on his original investment. They also give him a one way airline ticket to a South American country that does not have an extradition treaty with the UK. For good measure, they also give him a change of identity kit and lessons in Spanish/ Portuguese.
With CWG gone AWOL, I invite CavG to pick holes in this. :cb