Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EuanH78

I mean, I fully expect them to dodge the tax bullet and though it's cynical in the extreme I'm not sure theres anything illegal about it, pretty morally skewed though. I mean about the pheonix companies re-admittance to the SPL, if that comes to pass they really will have got away with everything and thats something so unpalatable to me I dont think I could continue to support Hibs while they remain part of scottish football (not that they have an alternative).
The thought of which saddens me quite a bit, Hibs are a clean and well run club but if the games rigged whats the point?

---

And you just know once the huns have done this, and are out of debt. The next club to do so would be slaughtered, and driven out the game by the same people who sat back and watched the huns run all over the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

And you just know once the huns have done this, and are out of debt. The next club to do so would be slaughtered, and driven out the game by the same people who sat back and watched the huns run all over the rest of us.

---

Yeah but that's most likely to be the diet-huns which would be kinda hysterical in it's own way :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiberlin

So in other words they've not only ripped off HMRC but also their own fans?

Know what I'd tell them to do if they asked me to pay again for something I'd already paid for.

---

Well - like I said, I don't know anything about it, so I may well be wrong about that........I'm guessing, though, that the administrator gets to choose whether to honour previous committments or not. Does someone who DOES know about these things know the answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

I dont see any sense in what he says, as in essence he's saying its fine for all of us to screw each other and not pay the taxes we owe, how does that work? :confused:

---

The FM was very clear that RFC should pay their tax obligations at whatever level was agreed.:agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ancienthibby

The FM was very clear that RFC should pay their tax obligations at whatever level was agreed.:agree:

---

... and did he demand that pay the Hertz for Lee Wallace? :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Can someone remind me how much the Sky money is, and how it is split?

---

+ All revenues generated by the SPL are effectively put into one pot. This money comes from TV deals and other commercial contracts.

+ A support payment to the SFL and parachute payments to recently relegated clubs are then removed. All associated costs of running the SPL are also deducted.

+ The remaining amount is split two ways to the member clubs: 48% is divided equally between all 12 clubs while 52% is distributed to teams dependant upon their final league position.

+ The higher up the table that a club finishes, the more money they will receive - see table below. For season 2007/08, more than £18m was paid out to SPL clubs.

League position - % of cash pot

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%
2 - 4% + 11% = 15%
3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%
4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5%
5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0%
6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5%
7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0%
8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5%
9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0%
10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5%
11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0%

12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5%

We probably fall in the middle somewhere, giving us about 7.5% of the pot.
If that's the same for the new contract, that would give us a maximum of 7.5% of £80m over 5 years= £1.2m per season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I don't think... and hope he isn't... saying that. He will be coming from the point of view of the lost jobs, the community stuff..etc etc.

Of course, in an independent Scotland, our tax authorities would never have allowed things to get this bad.....:greengrin

---

Aye in an independant Scotland there will be no tax. :greengrin I understand about lost jobs and the community stuff, but this happens every day with firms going bust, and little thought or help goes out to them.

If they are allowed to get out of this mess, then its over for Scottish football imo. Not only do they spend much more than the rest, but they are even allowed to cheat their way too, while the rest of us play by the rules, they just make them up.

This will finish a lot of folk with the Scottish game imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

+ All revenues generated by the SPL are effectively put into one pot. This money comes from TV deals and other commercial contracts.

+ A support payment to the SFL and parachute payments to recently relegated clubs are then removed. All associated costs of running the SPL are also deducted.

+ The remaining amount is split two ways to the member clubs: 48% is divided equally between all 12 clubs while 52% is distributed to teams dependant upon their final league position.

+ The higher up the table that a club finishes, the more money they will receive - see table below. For season 2007/08, more than £18m was paid out to SPL clubs.

League position - % of cash pot

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%
2 - 4% + 11% = 15%
3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%
4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5%
5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0%
6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5%
7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0%
8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5%
9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0%
10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5%
11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0%

12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5%

We probably fall in the middle somewhere, giving us about 7.5% of the pot.
If that's the same for the new contract, that would give us a maximum of 7.5% of £80m over 5 years= £1.2m per season.

---

Great stuff.... ta.

Okay, it's a fair chunk.....more than 10%...of our income.

Sack the Board?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I don't think... and hope he isn't... saying that. He will be coming from the point of view of the lost jobs, the community stuff..etc etc.

Of course, in an independent Scotland, our tax authorities would never have allowed things to get this bad.....:greengrin

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17035992

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, First Minister Alex Salmond admitted he was "very concerned" about the future of Rangers. Mr Salmond has appealed to the club and HM Revenue and Customs to hold talks about how any money owed could be paid back and over what timescale.

---

I think that's fair enough. I mean we seem to be faced with two extreme alternatives at the moment: either Rangers go bust completely, in which case a significant amount of economic activity is lost; or Craig Whyte forms a Rangers newco, in which case all or most of the money owed to HMRC is lost to the public.

A better alternative is where Rangers and HMRC come to some sort of agreement where the amount is paid back within a reasonable period. I don't think that is what Mr Whyte is planning, however. In which case the state (through HMRC) needs to pursue him vigorously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ancienthibby

The FM was very clear that RFC should pay their tax obligations at whatever level was agreed.:agree:

---

The SNP are no friend of RFC. Public statements about support will be regarding people losing their jobs which is fair enough. Lip-service that's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

... and did he demand that pay the Hertz for Lee Wallace? :greengrin

---

He pointedly did not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

I dont see any sense in what he says, as in essence he's saying its fine for all of us to screw each other and not pay the taxes we owe, how does that work? :confused:

---

What Salmond was saying BH, was that Rangers surviving and the debt being paid would be the best result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

What Salmond was saying BH, was that Rangers surviving and the debt being paid would be the best result.

---

Unless i watched a different interview, his first words were, the most important thing was the survival of Rangers football club. Now that maybe his opinion, but it does carry a lot of clout, as i dont feel that is anywhere near the most important thing in this?

The most important thing in all of this is we all play by the same rules, and clearly Salmond does not think this way, or he'd think the most important thing was we all pay our taxes so the country runs smoothly?

We dont fiddle our way out of what we owe, and leave all the creditors with penny's in the pound?

Saying that he is a politician, most couldn't lye straight in bed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

[/B]...We probably fall in the middle somewhere, giving us about 7.5% of the pot.
If that's the same for the new contract, that would give us a maximum of 7.5% of £80m over 5 years= £1.2m per season.

---

Very roughly with 19 homes games a season and an average of £20 a ticket, that would equate to us needing an extra 3,157 punters through the turnstiles every home game to make up the loss, and tht ius assuming of course that every single penny of TV revenue drops away. If you assume it halves, for arguments sake, then we would need an extra 1700 or so to come. Neither figure unreasonable for Hibs if they're up there challenging and playing decent football. I concede it is more serious for smaller clubs in the league where this increase wouldnt be feasible.

What is more important though is the reduction in income from punters (myself included) who would seriously be thinking about the value of watching a chronically unfair and laughable competition if they are allowed back relatively unscathed. I'd suggest it would be bigger than this.

I feel sorry for the SPL - damned if they do, damned of they dont, so take the morally correct route and make it work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17035992



I think that's fair enough. I mean we seem to be faced with two extreme alternatives at the moment: either Rangers go bust completely, in which case a significant amount of economic activity is lost; or Craig Whyte forms a Rangers newco, in which case all or most of the money owed to HMRC is lost to the public.

A better alternative is where Rangers and HMRC come to some sort of agreement where the amount is paid back within a reasonable period. I don't think that is what Mr Whyte is planning, however. In which case the state (through HMRC) needs to pursue him vigorously.

---

I am reminded of the words of Noel Coward

Let's be meek to them
And turn the other cheek to them
And try to bring out their latent sense of fun.
Let's give them full air parity
And treat the rats with charity,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwoCarpets

Very roughly with 19 homes games a season and an average of £20 a ticket, that would equate to us needing an extra 3,157 punters through the turnstiles every home game to make up the loss, and tht ius assuming of course that every single penny of TV revenue drops away. If you assume it halves, for arguments sake, then we would need an extra 1700 or so to come. Neither figure unreasonable for Hibs if they're up there challenging and playing decent football. I concede it is more serious for smaller clubs in the league where this increase wouldnt be feasible.

What is more important though is the reduction in income from punters (myself included) who would seriously be thinking about the value of watching a chronically unfair and laughable competition if they are allowed back relatively unscathed. I'd suggest it would be bigger than this.

I feel sorry for the SPL - damned if they do, damned of they dont, so take the morally correct route and make it work.

---

There are many regular attendees that prefer to stay and watch the match in the pub/on-line if it's an early kick-off.
Perhaps the T.V. companies will need to work a bit harder building up interest in the lesser teams rather than only talking about the O.F.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

There are many regular attendees that prefer to stay and watch the match in the pub/on-line if it's an early kick-off

---

:agree: Me, i miss most early kick offs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

:agree: Me, i miss most early kick offs.

---

Lot's of parents have other things to do on a Saturday or Sunday morning.

But in your case it's just the drink taking it's toll.



:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

Lot's of parents have other things to do on a Saturday or Sunday morning.

But in your case it's just the drink taking it's toll.



:greengrin

---

:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

+ All revenues generated by the SPL are effectively put into one pot. This money comes from TV deals and other commercial contracts.

+ A support payment to the SFL and parachute payments to recently relegated clubs are then removed. All associated costs of running the SPL are also deducted.

+ The remaining amount is split two ways to the member clubs: 48% is divided equally between all 12 clubs while 52% is distributed to teams dependant upon their final league position.

+ The higher up the table that a club finishes, the more money they will receive - see table below. For season 2007/08, more than £18m was paid out to SPL clubs.

League position - % of cash pot

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%
2 - 4% + 11% = 15%
3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%
4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5%
5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0%
6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5%
7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0%
8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5%
9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0%
10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5%
11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0%

12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5%

We probably fall in the middle somewhere, giving us about 7.5% of the pot.
If that's the same for the new contract, that would give us a maximum of 7.5% of £80m over 5 years= £1.2m per season.

---

Excellent stuff - thanks.

So we boot the Huns to Division 3, then organise the other clubs to vote through a more equitable split of revenue with first getting 11.5% (4%+7.5%, down 5.5%), second getting 10.5% (4%+6.5%, down 4.5%) and the others staying the same. If Sky insist on a new deal then this can be arranged on the basis of a 10% cut and only Celtic will lose out on their currently unfair share for finishing first/second every season.

Even if the next deal comes in at 20% less then Hibs are only down £120k. Hardly big money when we will have a much better chance of European football and cup success with Rangers out of the picture, so the increased crowds will offset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyrie

Excellent stuff - thanks.

So we boot the Huns to Division 3, then organise the other clubs to vote through a more equitable split of revenue with first getting 11.5% (4%+7.5%, down 5.5%), second getting 10.5% (4%+6.5%, down 4.5%) and the others staying the same. If Sky insist on a new deal then this can be arranged on the basis of a 10% cut and only Celtic will lose out on their currently unfair share for finishing first/second every season.

Even if the next deal comes in at 20% less then Hibs are only down £120k. Hardly big money when we will have a much better chance of European football and cup success with Rangers out of the picture, so the increased crowds will offset.

---

Not a chance. It'll be more like a 50% cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

Unless i watched a different interview, his first words were, the most important thing was the survival of Rangers football club. Now that maybe his opinion, but it does carry a lot of clout, as i dont feel that is anywhere near the most important thing in this?

The most important thing in all of this is we all play by the same rules, and clearly Salmond does not think this way, or he'd think the most important thing was we all pay our taxes so the country runs smoothly?

We dont fiddle our way out of what we owe, and leave all the creditors with penny's in the pound?

Saying that he is a politician, most couldn't lye straight in bed.

---

:agree:exactly what I thought when some SNP no mark was interviewed this morning. All they were saying was the RFC must survive.

What about the £million they have scammed out of the State ? What about justice and fairness to those who have played the game and paid their taxes - and effectively suffered as a result.

The Huns have had their Fun, now it's payback time. Let the buggers go to wall - if nothing else as an example to others. Otherwise, it appears that crime does pay after all. What other privately owned company in Scotland owing the Revenue £50million could get a government bail out ??? This is all about politicians chasing votes - nothing else. I understand the banks getting bailed out as it affects the hole economy, but football is a game - nothing more - and apparently the source of bigotry, domestic violence, racial and religious hatred. You got to ask the question, WHY the rush to bail out RFC ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EasterRoad4Ever

:agree:exactly what I thought when some SNP no mark was interviewed this morning. All they were saying was the RFC must survive.

What about the £million they have scammed out of the State ? What about justice and fairness to those who have played the game and paid their taxes - and effectively suffered as a result.

The Huns have had their Fun, now it's payback time. Let the buggers go to wall - if nothing else as an example to others. Otherwise, it appears that crime does pay after all. What other privately owned company in Scotland owing the Revenue £50million could get a government bail out ??? This is all about politicians chasing votes - nothing else. I understand the banks getting bailed out as it affects the hole economy, but football is a game - nothing more - and apparently the source of bigotry, domestic violence, racial and religious hatred. You got to ask the question, WHY the rush to bail out RFC ?

---

Missed this bit. Who said the Government were bailing them out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EasterRoad4Ever

You got to ask the question, WHY the rush to bail out RFC ?

---

Because the politicians think they will lose votes if they upset Rangers fans.

They need to realise that supporters of other teams and those with no interest in football whatsoever far outnumber the Huns, and this is public money at stake. Would any of these politicians be so keen to let a bank off the hook for using a similar tax evasion scheme?

Hypocrisy of the usual order from our elected representatives.

It's worrying that someone at Duff & Phelps assisted Whyte with the takeover of Rangers.

I thought administrators were meant to be wholly independent?

I don't see it as any more than lip service, enough positive noises to placate Rangers fans, no actual offers that would enrage the rest of us.

Would anyone honestly expect Salmond to come out and say 'let the Huns burn for it!' then? It's pretty unlikely, at the end of the day these speeches and soundbites are aimed at the fans / general public, not the club hierarchy.

Even if the Government wanted to bail them out, where the hell would they find the £100million plus needed to settle their debts and get them going again? Holyrood can't borrow, and they wouldn't even consider cutting it from something else important.


Flying pigs will be playing up front for Rangers before they get bailed out by the Government!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Eh? Where did I say that? I was talking about our ability to compete in Europe, you know, something ambitious footballing nations want to do.

If we want players of a decent standard in Scotland then we have to pay decent wages. Don't we? Without the TV money the ability of our clubs to do that will be limited.

---

Can you provide proof or evidence of TV money being advantageous to Hibs.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2ueiemv.jpg

:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killie-hibby

Can you provide proof or evidence of TV money being advantageous to Hibs.

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

lol

---

Why LOL?