Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deeklipse

Never understood why Rangers weren't forced to sell off Ibrox and Murray Park.

---

Ibrox is worthless unless used as a football stadium. Murray Park was transferred to some other company before the s--- hit the fan.
The tax man should still have taken Ibrox though and leased it back to SEVCO. That way at least the taxpayer would have got some money back. The land at Tynie plus the school is currently worth about £8m but that would increase if the North British Distillery was to announce a move. This sale is Vlad's only way of getting out of Hearts without losing all of the £24m of debt (last accounts but probably more now).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LioNeilmessi

They did.. to CG for what, £5.5m? Why no-one challenged this tiny price tag is way beyond me. Sort of property should be worth in £20m plus I would of thought :confused:

---

It was actually £2.3m for Ibrox, the Car Park and the Training ground. The rest was for player registrations and any other assets.

I'm absolutely stumped how the figure has not been challenged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inglisavhibs

Ibrox is worthless unless used as a football stadium. Murray Park was transferred to some other company before the s--- hit the fan.
The tax man should still have taken Ibrox though and leased it back to SEVCO. That way at least the taxpayer would have got some money back. The land at Tynie plus the school is currently worth about £8m but that would increase if the North British Distillery was to announce a move. This sale is Vlad's only way of getting out of Hearts without losing all of the £24m of debt (last accounts but probably more now).

---

HMRC have no powers to do so. Indeed, that would have been discriminatory against all other creditors.

And, you're wrong about Murray Park. it was transferred to Sevco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winston Ingram

It was actually £2.3m for Ibrox, the Car Park and the Training ground. The rest was for player registrations and any other assets.

I'm absolutely stumped how the figure has not been challenged

---

We don't know whether it has been challenged. BDO will be working away and, if they think it appropriate, they will challenge it.

Notice that Octopus EIS tranche which involved Rangers ticket sales has matured and they have indicated a further payment may follow after outstanding court action

Noticed that Rangers released a statement today saying that any proceeds they do get from the Dundee Utd cup tie will be donated to charity.

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/...-cup-statement

CHARLES GREEN and the Board of Rangers Football Club has noted speculation regarding possible outcomes of gate distribution as a result of Rangers' decision not to take tickets for the Scottish Cup match against Dundee United at Tannadice.

The chief executive said: “The Club was contacted by Dundee United requesting us to waive our rights to the share of the gate under Cup Competition Rule 46(c), this was declined.

"It has been decided by the board that any proceeds from gate receipts due to the Club will be donated to the Prince and Princess of Wales Hospice Brick by Brick Appeal and Erskine charities via the Rangers Charity Foundation.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YehButNo But

Noticed that Rangers released a statement today saying that any proceeds they do get from the Dundee Utd cup tie will be donated to charity.

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/...-cup-statement

CHARLES GREEN and the Board of Rangers Football Club has noted speculation regarding possible outcomes of gate distribution as a result of Rangers' decision not to take tickets for the Scottish Cup match against Dundee United at Tannadice.

The chief executive said: “The Club was contacted by Dundee United requesting us to waive our rights to the share of the gate under Cup Competition Rule 46(c), this was declined.

"It has been decided by the board that any proceeds from gate receipts due to the Club will be donated to the Prince and Princess of Wales Hospice Brick by Brick Appeal and Erskine charities via the Rangers Charity Foundation.”

---

That's The Rangers, always keen to do the morally upstanding thing. :fibber:

Dont Rangers have history regarding charities?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee

That's The Rangers, always keen to do the morally upstanding thing. :fibber:

---

They even manage to make charitable donations look sleazy.

I hope United counter by saying 20% of match taking will go to charity if Sevco waive their share - at least I trust United to go through with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madabouthibs

Dont Rangers have history regarding charities?

---

The Rangers have no history. Fact :agree:

Are Dundee Utd not still due money from old Hun from a fixture last season and are refusing to pay it because Green has some letter from the SFA/SPL saying they were going to pay it out of sums due the bankrupt club. This never happened, and Green refuses to consider this sum as part of the SFA license transfer.

Now if the SFA instruct United to pay the money due out of Ranger's share of the gate, Green will scream long and loud about depriving Charities.

If they get through they should be kicked out of the competition, if they get beat they should be banned from next years.

I wonder what Green's plans are in event of a Draw and replay. Will they boycott this game too ? :confused:

For Green Ginger. Yes about £35k for cup game

Daily record had a big pullout today ,celebrating 140 years of rangers.i thought they died before their 140th year,whts that about or am i wrong:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nairn hibee

Daily record had a big pullout today ,celebrating 140 years of rangers.i thought they died before their 140th year,whts that about or am i wrong:confused:

---

They're deid tae everybody except their deluded selves and their lackies at daily bog roll. The corpse has been buried but the tramps stole the funeral suit and are wearing it.

You're really surprised that the Daily ****** are pandering to NewHun and it's fans?

Who cares about logic when there's print to sell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nairn hibee

Daily record had a big pullout today ,celebrating 140 years of rangers.i thought they died before their 140th year,whts that about or am i wrong:confused:

---

Obviously the Record has conveniently overlooked the fact that Oldco was liquidated, and a Newco was set up.........Totally expected from that weegie rag, massaging the hordes of huns...........

What they actually mean to say is:

"140 years of racism, sectarianism, satanism and any other forms of bile/bigotry that you could possibly think of".

They just say "Rangers" for short...

140 days surely?

They also had an 8 page pullout on Celtic yesterday so the natural balance must be restored. 8 pages for the smellies so there has to be 8 pages for SevCo. What one gets the other has to have as well. They pander to both sets of bigots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nairn hibee

Daily record had a big pullout today ,celebrating 140 years of rangers.i thought they died before their 140th year,whts that about or am i wrong:confused:

---

A lie's a lie for a' that.

The ****** is so shameless. Traynor is just changing offices and making his Sevco PR official, Keevins should do likewise - if he isn't on the payroll already. :rolleyes: As far as them being the same club.... :faf: If they are they owe 60m to creditors, and an EBT tax liability of 90m if justice is served by the appeal. Same club my ***e

horrid club with horrid traditions. 140 years of suffering for everyone else.

http://cdn1.screenrant.com/wp-conten...ead-zombie.jpg

I'm seriously struggling with the concept of a club that's been in existence for around 6 months celebrating their 140th annivesary.

Really baffling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalkirkHibee

I'm seriously struggling with the concept of a club that's been in existence for around 6 months celebrating their 140th annivesary.

Really baffling.

---

It's an extension of that concept, born in Gorgie, that we lovingly call Yamanomics. For once, the imitation is in reverse.....we can call it Hunanomics. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Notice that Octopus EIS tranche which involved Rangers ticket sales has matured and they have indicated a further payment may follow after outstanding court action

---

What do you mean by that mate?

The 'The Rangers' bandwagon gains momentum this morning with Smith supporting the proposed boycott and waxing lyrical about the injustice against his beloved club. Gough adds to it by demanding that The Rangers should be catapulted back to the top league in hurried reconstruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winston Ingram

It was actually £2.3m for Ibrox, the Car Park and the Training ground. The rest was for player registrations and any other assets.

I'm absolutely stumped how the figure has not been challenged

---

Apparently the Liquidator is considering challenging the sale in the Court of Sessions on the Grounds that Duff & Phelps did not get a fair price for the Creditors - good luck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim44

The 'The Rangers' bandwagon gains momentum this morning with Smith supporting the proposed boycott and waxing lyrical about the injustice against his beloved club. Gough adds to it by demanding that The Rangers should be catapulted back to the top league in hurried reconstruction.

---

I now dislike media hun apologists more even than the bigoted, knuckle-dragging peepul who belt out ditties about the pope. At least the peepul are largely confined to football grounds, lodges, and so on. You can't so easily isolate yourself from Smith, Gough, Traynor, Young, Dodds and the like. They're like a persistent disease, being given oxygen by way of BBC airtime and column inches in the joke press. Utterly disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bathhibby

Apparently the Liquidator is considering challenging the sale in the Court of Sessions on the Grounds that Duff & Phelps did not get a fair price for the Creditors - good luck

---

Presumably this action would be raised against duff and phelps liability insurance rather than against chuckles and his mysterious consortium though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by South Sub

Presumably this action would be raised against duff and phelps liability insurance rather than against chuckles and his mysterious consortium though?

---

That's a fair assumption.

Although what D&P'S insurers might have to say about their future premiums....... :rolleyes:

And that's before their professional regulators get involved......

I was looking at the " pledges " to chuckie Greens AIM share launch and Cazenove Capital Management Fund is in for 2,450,000 shares,4.25%.
Cazenove are part of Old Mutual, one of the pillars of sound money, and manage MY pension FFS. Did Chuckie not pay a visit to Northern Ireland to " Drum " up support for the Newco last summer. I wonder how much UDA/UVF or what ever they call themselves these days, cash was also pledged.

I wonder if Cazenove and the other respectable investors know who their fellow share holders are, and if they will enjoy sitting next to Mad Dog and the Shankhill Butchers at Sevco AGM.

I think they should be told ! :agree:
Checked my pension documents. it is Skandia who do the managing and are part of Old Mutual. Casenove provide the platform and manage several of the funds.
I don't have anything in the fund that is buying into Sevco. Pheww !

Craig Whyte's lawyers drop court action against ex-Rangers owner
STV 7 December 2012 12:06 GMT

FacebookTweetGoogle

http://nfs.stvfiles.com/imagebase/13...e-at-ibrox.jpgCraig Whyte: Bought 85% stake in Rangers for £1 in May 2011.SNS Group
<a href="http://oas.stv.tv/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/local.stv.tv/glasgow/204658-craig-whytes-lawyers-drop-court-action-against-ex-rangers-owner/11354882921@Frame1" target="_blank"> <img src="http://oas.stv.tv/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/local.stv.tv/glasgow/204658-craig-whytes-lawyers-drop-court-action-against-ex-rangers-owner/11354882921@Frame1" alt="" /> </a>

The lawyers for former Rangers owner Craig Whyte’s have dropped legal action against him.
Mr Whyte, who bought an 85% stake in the Ibrox club from Sir David Murray for £1 last May, had instructed Bannatyne Kirkwood France and Co to sue the BBC last November.
He had instructed the firm in an attempt to sue the corporation over a documentary about him that it broadcast in 2011. The case against Mr Whyte was scheduled to call at Glasgow Sheriff Court this month.
However, on Friday the civil office confirmed that Bannatyne Kirkwood France had requested in advance that the case be dismissed.
It is believed the action was dropped by the lawyers after they reached an out-of-court settlement with Mr Whyte.
The Glasgow-firm had been instructed to begin proceedings against BBC Scotland over the documentary, Rangers: The Inside Story, which was shown last October. The programme revealed Mr Whyte had previously been banned from being a director for seven years in 2000.
No action was formally raised in the Court of Session in Edinburgh against the corporation, although a writ was served on the BBC in February this year.
After the documentary was screened, the Ibrox club withdrew from cooperating with the BBC, accusing those behind the programme of "muck-raking". Mr Whyte initially instructed London defamation law specialists Carter Ruck to commence immediate proceedings against the corporation, but it was not able to represent him in Scotland.
In February, Rangers were plunged into administration with debts of up to £124m. Insolvency firm Duff and Phelps was appointed but was unable to secure the future of The Rangers Football Club plc through a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) in June, before the club’s assets were sold to a newco owned by a consortium led by Charles Green in a £5.5m deal.
The oldco has been placed into liquidation by neutral insolvency firm BDO, which was appointed at the insistence of the company’s largest creditor, HM Revenue and Customs.
In October this year, Mr Whyte gave the BBC an exclusive interview about his reign at Ibrox. He claimed that Duff and Phelps knew about his use of a £27m deal with Ticketus for season ticket sales to effectively fund his takeover and wipe out the club’s £18m Lloyds Banking Group debt. The administrators have denied this repeatedly, while they are also involved in legal action against Mr Whyte and his former lawyers Collyer Bristow in England.
Earlier this year Harper Macleod, the law firm Mr Whyte instructed in divorce proceedings from his estranged wife Kim, lodged a bankruptcy petition against him at Inverness Sheriff Court over non-payment of a bill. However, the petition was withdrawn after a deal was reached out of court

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That's a fair assumption.

Although what D&P'S insurers might have to say about their future premiums....... :rolleyes:

And that's before their professional regulators get involved......

---

As I am sure you are aware CWG, their Professional Indemnity Insurance will excludes Deliberate Acts i.e. where they knowingly carry out an action which they know is wrong.

Not that I am suggesting that this could have been the case. :cb

I see Bradford were booted from the FA cup for fielding one inelligible player vs Brentford. The huns had whole teams of inelligible players for years. Nimmo, do your job!

No doubt they left that workings out for this, to their wages department.


QUOTE=FalkirkHibee;3439472]I'm seriously
struggling with the concept of a club that's been in existence for around 6 months celebrating their 140th annivesary.

Really baffling.[/QUOTE]

http://thedemiseofrangersinpictures.....html?spref=tw

It does seem quite believable that Green is fronting for Ticketus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs0666

What do you mean by that mate?

---

EIS schemes are typically sold in tranches or lots. They will invest in around 6-12 new companies who are either on the Aim stockmarket or hope to get on it. These are high risk investments and at the end of the term it is likely some of these companies will have failed. The hope is that the "survivors" make more than thr losers. It is a high risk investment but theere are very good tax breaks.

This scheme has now finished and what normally happens is the provider will total up the winners and losers then hand out any value left to the policyholders or ask if they wish to reinvest. This time they have done this with a note saying they hope to get more once the lawsuit is over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

http://thedemiseofrangersinpictures.....html?spref=tw

It does seem quite believable that Green is fronting for Ticketus.

---

The problem with this article is a number of financial companies not shown on this list will have business relationships with Octopus.

They just posted this image on their Facebook page, they really make you boke.

Don't they know they have won eff all. :fuming:


‎54 Titles - We're Still Going Strong.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.n...97477331_n.jpg

Before I get peppered with accusations of spending my weekends at castle grayskull, or God forbid being a yam fud I'm just as unhappy about this as the next person but perhaps this is simply the stupidest thing that Chuckie could have done.

Yes, the financial company has gone bust but the SFA's QC confirmed that it was appropriate for the side letter / dual contract enquiry to continue as the "club" remained but with a different owner - just as many clubs change ownership from time to time. How many different companies have owned Hibs for example?

If you've read the Rangers Tax Case ruling (I have) the two judges who came down on Ranger's side did so on a very narrow interpretation of tax law set by a case that was not on all fours with the Rangers case. They did not say that there were no dual contracts but said that some were indeed taxable as earnings but the rest were not. Dr Heidi Poon, on the other hand, made it quite clear that there were dual contracts and indeed they were all earnings. All three agreed that there were some dual contracts.

Unlike most criminal not guilty verdicts tax court verdicts are very frequently appealed and the matter not decided until the argument has gone through various courts ending at the Supreme Court. They are certainly "not guilty" yet as HMRC has made it public that they will appeal.

Now for Chuckie's stupidity. He cannot claim that The Rangers can't be punished for the sins of the predecessor company as he is trumpeting it far and wide that "The Rangers" is actually "Rangers". The punishment will stick with the Club.

Given the uncertainty of the tax case - not uncertain at all if you read Poon's damning opinion, they can't say "Not guilty" "Not guilty" but they have to explain themselves. Now Mr Red did not do a very good job of this at the Tax Tribunal. :cb:cb

To quote Lord Hoffman,"Something may be real for one purpose but not for another."

Don't give up yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by banchoryhibs

Before I get peppered with accusations of spending my weekends at castle grayskull, or God forbid being a yam fud I'm just as unhappy about this as the next person but perhaps this is simply the stupidest thing that Chuckie could have done.

Yes, the financial company has gone bust but the SFA's QC confirmed that it was appropriate for the side letter / dual contract enquiry to continue as the "club" remained but with a different owner - just as many clubs change ownership from time to time. How many different companies have owned Hibs for example?

If you've read the Rangers Tax Case ruling (I have) the two judges who came down on Ranger's side did so on a very narrow interpretation of tax law set by a case that was not on all fours with the Rangers case. They did not say that there were no dual contracts but said that some were indeed taxable as earnings but the rest were not. Dr Heidi Poon, on the other hand, made it quite clear that there were dual contracts and indeed they were all earnings. All three agreed that there were some dual contracts.

Unlike most criminal not guilty verdicts tax court verdicts are very frequently appealed and the matter not decided until the argument has gone through various courts ending at the Supreme Court. They are certainly "not guilty" yet as HMRC has made it public that they will appeal.

Now for Chuckie's stupidity. He cannot claim that The Rangers can't be punished for the sins of the predecessor company as he is trumpeting it far and wide that "The Rangers" is actually "Rangers". The punishment will stick with the Club.

Given the uncertainty of the tax case - not uncertain at all if you read Poon's damning opinion, they can't say "Not guilty" "Not guilty" but they have to explain themselves. Now Mr Red did not do a very good job of this at the Tax Tribunal. :cb:cb

To quote Lord Hoffman,"Something may be real for one purpose but not for another."

Don't give up yet

---

I would echo most of what you say, with one slight disagreement.

This is not about "guilty" or "not guilty". It is about the amount of the assessments that HMRC issued to RFC. What the media have spectacularly missed is the fact that those assessments were reduced, not removed. As you say, there were some instances where they were found to have paid remuneration that should have been taxed. As a result, RFC still have some liability to HMRC.

HMRC's appeal is not to make them "guilty" again, but to have the assessments reinstated at their original level.

Their share prospectus is online now, any finance experts had a look to see if it is pure fantasy? www.rangersshareoffer.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I would echo most of what you say, with one slight disagreement.

This is not about "guilty" or "not guilty". It is about the amount of the assessments that HMRC issued to RFC. What the media have spectacularly missed is the fact that those assessments were reduced, not removed. As you say, there were some instances where they were found to have paid remuneration that should have been taxed. As a result, RFC still have some liability to HMRC.

HMRC's appeal is not to make them "guilty" again, but to have the assessments reinstated at their original level.

---

Is there a list of which assessments were ruled in favour of HMRC? There were a few "pay-off" payments to people that were not players, and I'm wondering if these are the ones that were in HMRC's favour?
If there was a single player that was deemed taxable then I can't understand why it's not all of them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by banchoryhibs

Before I get peppered with accusations of spending my weekends at castle grayskull, or God forbid being a yam fud I'm just as unhappy about this as the next person but perhaps this is simply the stupidest thing that Chuckie could have done.

Yes, the financial company has gone bust but the SFA's QC confirmed that it was appropriate for the side letter / dual contract enquiry to continue as the "club" remained but with a different owner - just as many clubs change ownership from time to time. How many different companies have owned Hibs for example?

If you've read the Rangers Tax Case ruling (I have) the two judges who came down on Ranger's side did so on a very narrow interpretation of tax law set by a case that was not on all fours with the Rangers case. They did not say that there were no dual contracts but said that some were indeed taxable as earnings but the rest were not. Dr Heidi Poon, on the other hand, made it quite clear that there were dual contracts and indeed they were all earnings. All three agreed that there were some dual contracts.

Unlike most criminal not guilty verdicts tax court verdicts are very frequently appealed and the matter not decided until the argument has gone through various courts ending at the Supreme Court. They are certainly "not guilty" yet as HMRC has made it public that they will appeal.

Now for Chuckie's stupidity. He cannot claim that The Rangers can't be punished for the sins of the predecessor company as he is trumpeting it far and wide that "The Rangers" is actually "Rangers". The punishment will stick with the Club.

Given the uncertainty of the tax case - not uncertain at all if you read Poon's damning opinion, they can't say "Not guilty" "Not guilty" but they have to explain themselves. Now Mr Red did not do a very good job of this at the Tax Tribunal. :cb:cb

To quote Lord Hoffman,"Something may be real for one purpose but not for another."

Don't give up yet

---

I agree with the gist of this, but as CWG says it's really a question of level of guilt rather than guilty or not guilty - we should try to make that clear as much as we can.

The point I want to make is about the bit in bold though. It really boils down to the philosophical question of what constitutes a club. As far as the law goes, the company that is now in liquidation was the club - that's the self-same law that they depended on to escape at least £55m worth of debt and the one that means they won't be liable for the final findings of the FTTT and HMRC's appeal. Comparing like with like, if you're talking about the defunct company owning Rangers rather than being Rangers, no other company has owned Hibs since 1903 and prior to that they were just incorporated under other legislation - they changed their legal structure in common with a large number of clubs around the UK at that time - probably a result of the 'modernisation' of company law in 1888.

In the eyes of the law Sevco Rangers are a brand new club - they would still owe all that money if they weren't and they must not be allowed to have it both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

Is there a list of which assessments were ruled in favour of HMRC? There were a few "pay-off" payments to people that were not players, and I'm wondering if these are the ones that were in HMRC's favour?
If there was a single player that was deemed taxable then I can't understand why it's not all of them?

---

You won't get such a list, unfortunately, due to HMRC's confidentiality duties. The assessments themselves are done year-by-year, rather than case-by-case, so they wouldn't of themselves be helpful.

The other problem is that the judgement was anonymised.... everybody involved was given a pseudonym, again for reasons of confidentiality. It's therefore difficult to be sure of which situations were deemed as loans and which not. That said, a few (on here and elsewhere) have made pretty good stabs at identification.... the general feeling is that some players were accepted (by both sides) to have received remuneration. (PTS is your bloodhound on this one... he'll be along in a minute....)

On your last point, one of the reasons that the case took so long was because every individual situation had to be reviewed by the FTTT. It seems, therefore, that not every case was the same..... hence the different conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

I agree with the gist of this, but as CWG says it's really a question of level of guilt rather than guilty or not guilty - we should try to make that clear as much as we can.

The point I want to make is about the bit in bold though. It really boils down to the philosophical question of what constitutes a club. As far as the law goes, the company that is now in liquidation was the club - that's the self-same law that they depended on to escape at least £55m worth of debt and the one that means they won't be liable for the final findings of the FTTT and HMRC's appeal. Comparing like with like, if you're talking about the defunct company owning Rangers rather than being Rangers, no other company has owned Hibs since 1903 and prior to that they were just incorporated under other legislation - they changed their legal structure in common with a large number of clubs around the UK at that time - probably a result of the 'modernisation' of company law in 1888.

In the eyes of the law Sevco Rangers are a brand new club - they would still owe all that money if they weren't and they must not be allowed to have it both ways.

---

:top marks Absolutely. Forget any of this they bought the history nonsense. How can you buy a history of another club? They bought the right to use the name. They bought the assets. That's it. You can't buy another team's history. Absolutely ludicrous. As you say, if it's the same club then they pay back that historical debt. Simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarneyK

:top marks Absolutely. Forget any of this they bought the history nonsense. How can you buy a history of another club? They bought the right to use the name. They bought the assets. That's it. You can't buy another team's history. Absolutely ludicrous. As you say, if it's the same club then they pay back that historical debt. Simple as that.

---

Being pedantic, one can buy another club's history. Had they bought the shares of OldCo, that history would have come with it.... but that history would also have included all of the liabilities.

As you say, though, only the assets were transferred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarneyK

:top marks Absolutely. Forget any of this they bought the history nonsense. How can you buy a history of another club? They bought the right to use the name. They bought the assets. That's it. You can't buy another team's history. Absolutely ludicrous. As you say, if it's the same club then they pay back that historical debt. Simple as that.

---

That's the legal argument. However a club exists in the heart of its support and there is no doubt that this is the same football team as far as they are concerned. It will be the same if the yams went under, and would be the same with Hibs too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Being pedantic, one can buy another club's history. Had they bought the shares of OldCo, that history would have come with it.... but that history would also have included all of the liabilities.

As you say, though, only the assets were transferred.

---

Indeed :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs0666

That's the legal argument. However a club exists in the heart of its support and there is no doubt that this is the same football team as far as they are concerned. It will be the same if the yams went under, and would be the same with Hibs too.

---

I am with this argument too. It's the clash between the law and emotion that has been one of the fascinations of the case for me. It's also one of the reasons why the argument about whether it's the same club will never be properly settled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbc70

Their share prospectus is online now, any finance experts had a look to see if it is pure fantasy? www.rangersshareoffer.com

---

They are having a right go at number crunching on the Sevco thread over on Kerrydale Street.

Some interesting numbers and facts coming out but I'll wait until the dust settles before trying to make heads or tails out of it.

Does look like Chuckie and co. are lining their pockets rather nicely. :agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs0666

That's the legal argument. However a club exists in the heart of its support and there is no doubt that this is the same football team as far as they are concerned. It will be the same if the yams went under, and would be the same with Hibs too.

---

Yep, wouldn't expect it to be any other way. In reality though, it's not the same club. Not a big deal, mind. They should just get on with supporting their club. It's an opportunity for them to look forward for a change instead of back. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarneyK

Yep, wouldn't expect it to be any other way. In reality though, it's not the same club. Not a big deal, mind. They should just get on with supporting their club. It's an opportunity for them to look forward for a change instead of back. :wink:

---

They should indeed however it ain't happening. It looks like they could come back even more horrible than before - didn't think it was possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalkirkHibee

I'm seriously struggling with the concept of a club that's been in existence for around 6 months celebrating their 140th annivesary.

Really baffling.

---

Is it any surprise that they want all the benefits/assets of the old club yet none of the responsibilities. Everything that has happened to the Huns is someone else's fault. Has ANYONE associated with RFC apologised for anything they have done? Nope. They are being allowed by the Scottish media to paint themselves as victims, for Christ's sake. They are trying to rewite history, and the press are allowing it to happen.

This is why, we as fans must never allow them to forget it, what that club has done, how they ripped honest people off, and their abhorrent behaviour throughout. Tba fans are the ONLY people who can come out of this with any credit and integrity. The rest are simply poisoned and driven by money or bigotry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs0666

They should indeed however it ain't happening. It looks like they could come back even more horrible than before - didn't think it was possible.

---

I wish folk would stop talking about the rangers as the same club as rangers who are no more, deid, buried and history.

This is a new club, its impossible for them to come back unless this new club go bust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs0666

That's the legal argument. However a club exists in the heart of its support and there is no doubt that this is the same football team as far as they are concerned. It will be the same if the yams went under, and would be the same with Hibs too.

---

The basis of my point is that they used the legal argument to escape their debts therefore they ought to accept the whole of that law (or at least we should keep reminding them of that law). You can't just cherry-pick which parts of the law you accept and reject the rest.

Likewise, the SFA and SFL rules are clear enough and The Rangers were granted a huge favour when those rules were overridden to allow them to start out where they are - as did the SPL by even having a vote on the matter. That makes their consistent ingratitude and spite all the more galling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarneyK

:top marks Absolutely. Forget any of this they bought the history nonsense. How can you buy a history of another club? They bought the right to use the name. They bought the assets. That's it. You can't buy another team's history. Absolutely ludicrous. As you say, if it's the same club then they pay back that historical debt. Simple as that.

---

You'd think that that was the case but it does not appear to be the view of Lord Nimmo Smith

"The club is a separate but non-legal entity which continues notwithstanding transfer from one owner to another. Rangers Football Club therefore continue as before even though ownership has been transferred."

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...e-gound-rules/

I don't really understand it either but that's probably why I'm not, and never will be, a QC!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by banchoryhibs

You'd think that that was the case but it does not appear to be the view of Lord Nimmo Smith

"The club is a separate but non-legal entity which continues notwithstanding transfer from one owner to another. Rangers Football Club therefore continue as before even though ownership has been transferred."

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...e-gound-rules/

I don't really understand it either but that's probably why I'm not, and never will be, a QC!

---

At some stage, this question might be the subject of a definitive Court case.

It is bound up with the notion that football debts come before other debts in an insolvency, which seems to be the stance of the SFA. For me, that is against insolvency law; paying off other clubs is, I think, an unfair preference. It may be that the liquidators will challenge that position, and such an action would help to clarify things.

I agree with LN-S that a "club" is an entity of its own (the "emotional" concept), but there is little in law to support that idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

At some stage, this question might be the subject of a definitive Court case.

It is bound up with the notion that football debts come before other debts in an insolvency, which seems to be the stance of the SFA. For me, that is against insolvency law; paying off other clubs is, I think, an unfair preference. It may be that the liquidators will challenge that position, and such an action would help to clarify things.

I agree with LN-S that a "club" is an entity of its own (the "emotional" concept), but there is little in law to support that idea.

---

Thought that football debts don't take precedence in Scotland. The payment of football debts owed by the original club to Scottish clubs was a condition of The Rangers being allowed into the SFL and for The Rangers to get the players registration rather than it being returned to SFA. Think this was due to the ridiculous position whereby you could find Lee Wallace playing against Hearts whilst no fee was paid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Thought that football debts don't take precedence in Scotland. The payment of football debts owed by the original club to Scottish clubs was a condition of The Rangers being allowed into the SFL and for The Rangers to get the players registration rather than it being returned to SFA. Think this was due to the ridiculous position whereby you could find Lee Wallace playing against Hearts whilst no fee was paid.

---

AFAIK, they don't take precedence. But there was a point during the administration where the Oldco paid (I think) Dunfermline which, in my view, was an unfair preference; I remember railing against it at the time. The SFA seemed to be okay with that, which to me says that (tacitly) they accept the notion of football debts coming first.

The Rangers seem to have a strange case of the Benjamin Button's with their 140th year anniversary celebrations today. Next year will they be celebrating their 139th year? :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

AFAIK, they don't take precedence. But there was a point during the administration where the Oldco paid (I think) Dunfermline which, in my view, was an unfair preference; I remember railing against it at the time. The SFA seemed to be okay with that, which to me says that (tacitly) they accept the notion of football debts coming first.

---

IIRC it was the orcs who attend castle greyskull that paid money to dunfermline, not oldco.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17543328

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonty

IIRC it was the orcs who attend castle greyskull that paid money to dunfermline, not oldco.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17543328

---

Cheers.

It may have been another one I was thinking about then.

Some Celtic fans on Twitter having a look at the Rangers Share Prospectus:

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster Page 62 sets out the "fair value adjustments". Most of the "negative goodwill" profit [in the prospectus] comes from the RFC brand, bought for £1 now worth £16m

Also uncovering a story about The Rangers sueing the players who didn't TUPE across from OldCo. Looks as though some of them didn't follow the detailed legal advice which I thought had been provided by the PFA. It shows a certain class, I think, to sue your own (albeit in a different company) employees.

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster
Sevco is suing McGregor, Lafferty, Aluko, Naismith, Whittaker & J Ness for breach of contract, as they failed validly to object under TUPE.

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster
Davis, Fleck & McCabe were also sued by Sevco for this, but those cases have settled. The dispute is going to arbitration early next year

Some are fighting back

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster
Page 106: "Sone Aluko, Kyle Lafferty and Jamie Ness have raised employment tribunal claims against Newco. They claim constructive dismissal"

[QUOTE=jonty;3441261]IIRC it was the orcs who attend castle greyskull that paid money to dunfermline, not oldco.


But Castle Greyskull was where the goodies lived. Surely the orcs drag their knuckles along to Snake Mountain, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Some Celtic fans on Twitter having a look at the Rangers Share Prospectus:

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster Page 62 sets out the "fair value adjustments". Most of the "negative goodwill" profit [in the prospectus] comes from the RFC brand, bought for £1 now worth £16m

Also uncovering a story about The Rangers sueing the players who didn't TUPE across from OldCo. Looks as though some of them didn't follow the detailed legal advice which I thought had been provided by the PFA. It shows a certain class, I think, to sue your own (albeit in a different company) employees.

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster
Sevco is suing McGregor, Lafferty, Aluko, Naismith, Whittaker & J Ness for breach of contract, as they failed validly to object under TUPE.

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster
Davis, Fleck & McCabe were also sued by Sevco for this, but those cases have settled. The dispute is going to arbitration early next year

Some are fighting back

Law & the Last 16‏@mdkster
Page 106: "Sone Aluko, Kyle Lafferty and Jamie Ness have raised employment tribunal claims against Newco. They claim constructive dismissal"

---

Do not have the knowledge or ability to verify it but stuff I was reading today suggested that the figures in the share offer are somewhat creative. The suggestion is that the Zombie Huns are still looking at losing circa £10M a year and the negative goodwill etc makes it look like they are profitable for now. At least until after the share issue when supposedly Chuckie and co will flip their shares and head off into the sunset.

I can but hope :greengrin

Just finished off my Christmas Card list and decided to include The Rangers.

I've wished them a very Merry First Christmas and look forward to see them on their FIRST ever visit to Easter Road in few years time. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Just finished off my Christmas Card list and decided to include The Rangers.

I've wished them a very Merry First Christmas and look forward to see them on their FIRST ever visit to Easter Road in few years time. :greengrin

---

:thumbsup:

I can see that one taking off......... :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunnyLeith

The Rangers seem to have a strange case of the Benjamin Button's with their 140th year anniversary celebrations today. Next year will they be celebrating their 139th year? :greengrin

---

:greengrin

http://twitpic.com/bkld4h

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EuanH78

:greengrin

http://twitpic.com/bkld4h

---

Brilliant! :greengrin

On STV news today...................

Sixty-seven players are involved in legal action against Rangers over the handling of their contracts.
PFA Scotland has raised an employment tribunal claim, which Rangers say is on behalf of 67 unnamed players, relating to a failure "to inform and consult".
The action relates to the transfer of player contracts between the oldco and newco Rangers following the sale of the oldco's assets to Charles Green's consortium.
In addition, three former players Sone Aluko, Kyle Lafferty and Jamie Ness are taking Rangers to a separate employment tribunal over the circumstances that led to them leaving the club, citing "constructive dismissal".

STV understands both claims have been lodged with HM Courts and Tribunal Service in Glasgow, though no dates for hearings have yet been set.
Lawyer Donald MacKinnon explained the situation: " Where a company is sold or otherwise changes hands, there is an obligation on both the old company and the new company to consult with the affected staff.
"In this particular case, if there is a failure to consult with the affected staff then the player's representatives or the company or the employees' representatives can make a claim to an employment tribunal for that failure and the tribunal may award up to 90 day's pay for each affected employee.
"That is a sum that can be awarded against both oldco and newco and they are jointly liable for that."
A spokesman for the Ibrox club said: "Rangers position is that these claims are baseless and invalid and affect, in reality, a small number of players who left the club in the summer."
A consortium of businessmen led by Charles Green bought the assets of Rangers old company while it was in the hands of administrators. Player contracts were transferred to the new company under TUPE legislation when Mr Green’s consortium took control of the club.However, several first team players refused to transfer their contracts and left for other clubs, a matter which has been taken to the Scottish Football Association for arbitration and will be heard next year.
Details of the claims being raised were detailed in a share prospectus issued by Rangers ahead of their stock market flotation.
In the prospectus, the Ibrox club challenged PFA Scotland’s right to bring a claim on behalf of 67 players and said it wants a pre-tribunal hearing to dismiss their claim.
Rangers also said that they will defend the separate claim by Aluko, Lafferty and Ness.
The share proposal also states: "They claim constructive dismissal. [Rangers Football Club Ltd] has challenged the right of these players to bring such claims for a number of separate jurisdictional reasons, but in any event these are low value claims."
Rangers believe the claims have been made "for tactical purposes" relating to the dispute over the transfer of their registration which the Scottish FA arbitration is to settle.

Maybe Bully Boy Green is at last getting a bloody nose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

On STV news today...................

Sixty-seven players are involved in legal action against Rangers over the handling of their contracts.
PFA Scotland has raised an employment tribunal claim, which Rangers say is on behalf of 67 unnamed players, relating to a failure "to inform and consult".
The action relates to the transfer of player contracts between the oldco and newco Rangers following the sale of the oldco's assets to Charles Green's consortium.
In addition, three former players Sone Aluko, Kyle Lafferty and Jamie Ness are taking Rangers to a separate employment tribunal over the circumstances that led to them leaving the club, citing "constructive dismissal".

STV understands both claims have been lodged with HM Courts and Tribunal Service in Glasgow, though no dates for hearings have yet been set.
Lawyer Donald MacKinnon explained the situation: " Where a company is sold or otherwise changes hands, there is an obligation on both the old company and the new company to consult with the affected staff.
"In this particular case, if there is a failure to consult with the affected staff then the player's representatives or the company or the employees' representatives can make a claim to an employment tribunal for that failure and the tribunal may award up to 90 day's pay for each affected employee.
"That is a sum that can be awarded against both oldco and newco and they are jointly liable for that."
A spokesman for the Ibrox club said: "Rangers position is that these claims are baseless and invalid and affect, in reality, a small number of players who left the club in the summer."
A consortium of businessmen led by Charles Green bought the assets of Rangers old company while it was in the hands of administrators. Player contracts were transferred to the new company under TUPE legislation when Mr Green’s consortium took control of the club.However, several first team players refused to transfer their contracts and left for other clubs, a matter which has been taken to the Scottish Football Association for arbitration and will be heard next year.
Details of the claims being raised were detailed in a share prospectus issued by Rangers ahead of their stock market flotation.
In the prospectus, the Ibrox club challenged PFA Scotland’s right to bring a claim on behalf of 67 players and said it wants a pre-tribunal hearing to dismiss their claim.
Rangers also said that they will defend the separate claim by Aluko, Lafferty and Ness.
The share proposal also states: "They claim constructive dismissal. [Rangers Football Club Ltd] has challenged the right of these players to bring such claims for a number of separate jurisdictional reasons, but in any event these are low value claims."
Rangers believe the claims have been made "for tactical purposes" relating to the dispute over the transfer of their registration which the Scottish FA arbitration is to settle.

Maybe Bully Boy Green is at last getting a bloody nose.

---

That bloody nose may have to be shared with the OldCo, unfortunately, which would be bad news for the other creditors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That bloody nose may have to be shared with the OldCo, unfortunately, which would be bad news for the other creditors.

---

Still a bloody nose though. Always though Green thinks that if he shouts loud enough it becomes a fact. Just like posters who put FACT at the end of a post which makes it a fact somehow.

I take it these "earnings" will take precedence over other creditors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Still a bloody nose though. Always though Green thinks that if he shouts loud enough it becomes a fact. Just like posters who put FACT at the end of a post which makes it a fact somehow.

I take it these "earnings" will take precedence over other creditors?

---

They will do.

I am intrigued by the mention of 67 players. Presumably, there are youngsters in there. If they have been shafted, I'm personally quite happy for them to get paid in full..... not so with the high-earners who can get other gigs.

Is it really 67 players? It's STV after all.... maybe they mean 67 staff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

They will do.

I am intrigued by the mention of 67 players. Presumably, there are youngsters in there. If they have been shafted, I'm personally quite happy for them to get paid in full..... not so with the high-earners who can get other gigs.

Is it really 67 players? It's STV after all.... maybe they mean 67 staff?

---

Would PFA represent non playing staff?

Maybe all isn't well at Castle Greyskull. Wonder how Chucky will react in the middle of his share issue. Awaiting a mad Vlad style rant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Would PFA represent non playing staff? Maybe all isn't well at Castle Greyskull. Wonder how Chucky will react in the middle of his share issue. Awaiting a mad Vlad style rant.

---

Indeed. :doh: Sorry, I just get cold sweats every time I hear the words STV and News together. (STV= Should Tread Very etc etc.)

Chucky and Vlad should go on the road together. Now that would make some money......:cb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Indeed. :doh: Sorry, I just get cold sweats every time I hear the words STV and News together. (STV= Should Tread Very etc etc.)

Chucky and Vlad should go on the road together. Now that would make some money......:cb

---

Think I would definately go and see that. Could be very entertaining

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That bloody nose may have to be shared with the OldCo, unfortunately, which would be bad news for the other creditors.

---

Could any decision be enforced against only one party, or would it have to be split between both?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyrie

Could any decision be enforced against only one party, or would it have to be split between both?

---

I'm not an employment lawyer, but I am guessing that they can choose whatever option they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm not an employment lawyer, but I am guessing that they can choose whatever option they want.

---

I'm not either, but I think it would probably be 'joint and several' liability to ensure that the injured parties are properly recompensed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

I'm not either, but I think it would probably be 'joint and several' liability to ensure that the injured parties are properly recompensed.

---

So, as long as OldCo had sufficient funds to pay their half in full, it would be 50:50?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

So, as long as OldCo had sufficient funds to pay their half in full, it would be 50:50?

---

I think it would be open to negotiation between Oldco (i.e. the liquidators) and Newco as to who pays up - if one can demonstrate negligence on the part of the other they would have a case for the negligent party to pay the lot.

That is purely my own reasoning though, no doubt a lawyer will be along in a minute to tell me how wrong I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

They are having a right go at number crunching on the Sevco thread over on Kerrydale Street.
Some interesting numbers and facts coming out but I'll wait until the dust settles before trying to make heads or tails out of it.
Does look like Chuckie and co. are lining their pockets rather nicely.

---

Has the dust settled yet?

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

Has the dust settled yet?

:confused:

---

In a word , No. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

In a word , No. :greengrin

---

Be sure and update us once it has. :wink:

140 years eh? Don't think so. 29.05.12...





http://i50.tinypic.com/20f8dw9.jpg

PFA Scotland clarify their position:-

http://pfascotland.co.uk/2012/news/s...e-award-claim/

Charles Green on Scotland Today talking about how HE has bought the history and the titles and NO-ONE is going to take them away from HIM.

Also claims the share issue is getting lodged so quickly because that's what the fans wanted, and nothing to do with them needing money quickly. Apparently £17m has already been bought up by outside investors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

Charles Green on Scotland Today talking about how HE has bought the history and the titles and NO-ONE is going to take them away from HIM.

Also claims the share issue is getting lodged so quickly because that's what the fans wanted, and nothing to do with them needing money quickly. Apparently £17m has already been bought up by outside investors.

---

He was a bit cagey on how the money would be spent. A lot needs to be spent on Ibrox... I think £9m was mentioned. (he also let slip that Ibrox has a reinstatement value of £150m. :rolleyes:).

If the stories about the £10m loss are true, that doesn't leave much left for the assault on Divsion 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

Has the dust settled yet?

:confused:

---

Here's a quick analysis of the numbers only - I'll keep opinion-based comments to a minimum:

Trading results – For the three months to 31 August they made a ‘normal’loss of £4,121,000 - on a simple extrapolation that’s £16.5m pa – but it was offset by player sales £12,000; non-recurring items (which I’ll explain below)£17,056,000 and a deferred tax credit £973,000(as CWG is the tax expert I’ll leave him to explain that one :greengrin ). Because these items are non-recurring that extrapolates to a profit of about £1.5m for this year, but that doesn’t reflectoverall profitability.
Non-recurring items – this includes costs of £2.8m football debt and £609k acquisition expenses but the main item is negative goodwill of £20,465,000. Broadly, his was arrived at by taking the ‘fair value’ of the assets acquired from the amount paid. The main items here are: Property - fair value £6.5m, acquired for £1.5m and ‘Brand’ fair value £16.042m acquired for nothing. After other adjustments the fair value of assets was £27.215m and these were acquired for £5.5m plus £1.25m pre-acquisition costs giving a negative goodwill of £20.465m
Negative goodwill – this is effectively the discount that D&P gave for taking Rangers FC off their hands and can be partially explained by the losses incurred since. It’s difficult to separate from the ‘Brand’ though, and a swing of £36.5m in three months is ‘remarkable’. That ‘Brand’ goes some way to explaining Green chuntering on about buying the history.
Property valuations – Having established that the ‘fair value to the Group’ was £6.5m the properties have now been revalued at £40.5 while the depreciated replacement cost (which is how Hibs and most other clubs value their stadia) is noted as £79.2. Maybe someone else can explain this ‘cos I sure as hell can’t.
Staff costs – For the three months to 31 August staff costs were £3.5m – that’s not far off what Hibs paid for the full year to 31 July2012. The directors and McCoists salaries deserve a separate post – they’re noted from page 84 onward in the Prospectus.

Apologies for the font - I did it all on Word first then cut and pasted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Here's a quick analysis of the numbers only - I'll keep opinion-based comments to a minimum:

[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]Trading results – For the three months to 31 August they made a ‘normal’loss of £4,121,000 - on a simple extrapolation that’s £16.5m pa – but it was offset by player sales £12,000; non-recurring items (which I’ll explain below)£17,056,000 and a deferred tax credit £973,000(as CWG is the tax expert I’ll leave him to explain that one :greengrin ).

---

First off, I'll do you for defamation. :greengrin

Secondly, ah, um, I shall need more information, er, before I , ah um, take a view on that. (rough translation..... not a scooby, mate). I hate the words "deferred" and "tax" in the same sentence, because they are damned difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain.

Are they perhaps quantifying the amount of tax they are saving by making losses? :confused: Bit cheeky, if so.

These speculators giving Sevco 17m obviously have money to burn, the chances Sevco stock will be trading at 70p in 12 months... :faf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby

These speculators giving Sevco 17m obviously have money to burn, the chances Sevco stock will be trading at 70p in 12 months... :faf:

---

Chuckie was reticent last night about who they are.

In McCoist-speak, the fans deserve to know who they are. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Here's a quick analysis of the numbers only - I'll keep opinion-based comments to a minimum:

Trading results – For the three months to 31 August they made a ‘normal’loss of £4,121,000 - on a simple extrapolation that’s £16.5m pa – but it was offset by player sales £12,000; non-recurring items (which I’ll explain below)£17,056,000 and a deferred tax credit £973,000(as CWG is the tax expert I’ll leave him to explain that one :greengrin ). Because these items are non-recurring that extrapolates to a profit of about £1.5m for this year, but that doesn’t reflectoverall profitability.
Non-recurring items – this includes costs of £2.8m football debt and £609k acquisition expenses but the main item is negative goodwill of £20,465,000. Broadly, his was arrived at by taking the ‘fair value’ of the assets acquired from the amount paid. The main items here are: Property - fair value £6.5m, acquired for £1.5m and ‘Brand’ fair value £16.042m acquired for nothing. After other adjustments the fair value of assets was £27.215m and these were acquired for £5.5m plus £1.25m pre-acquisition costs giving a negative goodwill of £20.465m
Negative goodwill – this is effectively the discount that D&P gave for taking Rangers FC off their hands and can be partially explained by the losses incurred since. It’s difficult to separate from the ‘Brand’ though, and a swing of £36.5m in three months is ‘remarkable’. That ‘Brand’ goes some way to explaining Green chuntering on about buying the history.
Property valuations – Having established that the ‘fair value to the Group’ was £6.5m the properties have now been revalued at £40.5 while the depreciated replacement cost (which is how Hibs and most other clubs value their stadia) is noted as £79.2. Maybe someone else can explain this ‘cos I sure as hell can’t.
Staff costs – For the three months to 31 August staff costs were £3.5m – that’s not far off what Hibs paid for the full year to 31 July2012. The directors and McCoists salaries deserve a separate post – they’re noted from page 84 onward in the Prospectus.

Apologies for the font - I did it all on Word first then cut and pasted.

---

I'm still waiting for your follow up post about directors salaries.... :Grrr
Is it right that they made a £4m odd loss in the months that season ticket money came in? If they have no 'external debt' as chuckie keeps saying, how have they paid for this loss? They really do need the share issue pronto to cover a £16m loss in the first season and I can't see income increasing dramatically in the 2nd division, so next year will be interesting. Can't see Jumbo Jim Traynor bringing in £16m in income through media rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

First off, I'll do you for defamation. :greengrin

Secondly, ah, um, I shall need more information, er, before I , ah um, take a view on that. (rough translation..... not a scooby, mate). I hate the words "deferred" and "tax" in the same sentence, because they are damned difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain.

Are they perhaps quantifying the amount of tax they are saving by making losses? :confused: Bit cheeky, if so.

---

Looking at the notes in more detail, that's exactly what they have done - they've also provided a deferred tax liability for the property revaluation. Unless the rules have changed since I stopped doing that stuff neither is an approriate entry IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergio sledge

I'm still waiting for your follow up post about directors salaries.... :Grrr
Is it right that they made a £4m odd loss in the months that season ticket money came in? If they have no 'external debt' as chuckie keeps saying, how have they paid for this loss? They really do need the share issue pronto to cover a £16m loss in the first season and I can't see income increasing dramatically in the 2nd division, so next year will be interesting. Can't see Jumbo Jim Traynor bringing in £16m in income through media rights.

---

I was hoping someone else would do the salaries thing - I'll get on to it shortly though. On the season ticket point, the income is spread over the whole year, so only the proportion relating to the three months is recognised in the trading account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

As Cav said, it's not a £16m loss for the full year. He reckons £1.5m profit.

---

Their profit is all on paper though - due to the revaluation of the assets. It won't help cash flow at all.

Right, directors' salaries:

Charles Green: £360,000 pa plus all expenses and accommodation including rent, utility charges and local taxes, backdated to June 2012. He is also entitled to a bonus of 100% of salary if the club wins promotion from the SFL or transfers to another league. 3m notice by him, 12m by the club

Brian Stockbridge:£200,000 pa plus 100% bonus if the club wins promotion or transfers to another league or division. Notice as per Chuckie.

Malcolm Murray: £60,000 pa as non-exec director.
Ian Hart: £40,000 pa.
Walter Smith: £50,000 pa.
Phillip Cartmell: £40,000 pa.
Bryan Smart: £40,000 pa.

All on 1 months notice each way.

Key employees

Imran Ahmad: £350,000 pa plus unquantified bonus - backdated to 1 June 2012. Notice - club 12m IA 3m.
Alistair McCoist: Continues on old contract - salary commensurate with experience and market. He was paid £175,000 in the three month period - eqivalent to £700,000 pa. Bonuses for winning the SPL, treble, CL group stage qualification, CL last 16 and from prize money for other European competition. Notice 12 months each way.

All for a SFL3 club - similar to Elgin's pay structure I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

Charles Green on Scotland Today talking about how HE has bought the history and the titles and NO-ONE is going to take them away from HIM.
Also claims the share issue is getting lodged so quickly because that's what the fans wanted, and nothing to do with them needing money quickly. Apparently £17m has already been bought up by outside investors.

---

Was just thinking about this guy's style and it seems that the more he gets away with the more arrogant he becomes, he is at the point where he seems to feel that he is powerful enough for whatever he says to actually be reality irrespective of legality / reality, for example there is absolutely no doubt that the business he fronts was incorporated and established in 2012 - he registered it.

The problem with this sort of person is that they set their own agenda and if others do not stand up to them they become emboldened and go for more and more, this one is about the football and tax authorities continuing to be brow beaten and Green utilising the loyal Hun press. Mind games.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...28510807_n.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Right, directors' salaries:

Charles Green: £360,000 pa plus all expenses and accommodation including rent, utility charges and local taxes, backdated to June 2012. He is also entitled to a bonus of 100% of salary if the club wins promotion from the SFL or transfers to another league. 3m notice by him, 12m by the club

Brian Stockbridge:£200,000 pa plus 100% bonus if the club wins promotion or transfers to another league or division. Notice as per Chuckie.

Malcolm Murray: £60,000 pa as non-exec director.
Ian Hart: £40,000 pa.
Walter Smith: £50,000 pa.
Phillip Cartmell: £40,000 pa.
Bryan Smart: £40,000 pa.

All on 1 months notice each way.

Key employees

Imran Ahmad: £350,000 pa plus unquantified bonus - backdated to 1 June 2012. Notice - club 12m IA 3m.
Alistair McCoist: Continues on old contract - salary commensurate with experience and market. He was paid £175,000 in the three month period - eqivalent to £700,000 pa. Bonuses for winning the SPL, treble, CL group stage qualification, CL last 16 and from prize money for other European competition. Notice 12 months each way.

All for a SFL3 club - similar to Elgin's pay structure I suppose.

---

Sally McCoist gets £700,000 per year to manage in Div 3? I wonder what the total annual wage bill/expenses payments of all the div 3 clubs apart from Rangers is? It can't be much more than that you would think.

If Rangers get promoted, Green gets £720,000 plus expenses for the year? That seems crazy. He'll make his £5.5m back in no time....