Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottB

He never took a single penny.

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

---

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

The man's a sociopath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

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

---

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

From the SFA statement..

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

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

Ibrox is now apparently a sell out for tomorrow.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smidge

OK, thinking aloud here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

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

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

---

... which is why there are no accounts.

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

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

Part of statement from Scottishfa.co.uk

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

More hot air or a genuine attempt at creating fairness?

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

Part of statement from Scottishfa.co.uk

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

More hot air or a genuine attempt at creating fairness?

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soupy

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

---

The bizzies will a chapping his door soon methinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soupy

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

---

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

i thought it was probably the cleaners myself ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mca

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

i thought it was probably the cleaners myself ???

---

Was Super Ally in one if the bags

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldenhibby

Was Super Ally in one if the bags

---

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



id still do her tho.. :agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mca

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



id still do her tho.. :agree:

---

What's the story about those two

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mca

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

i thought it was probably the cleaners myself ???

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldenhibby

What's the story about those two

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mca

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

i thought it was probably the cleaners myself ???

---

so thats what happened to mad vlads planning application

:greengrin

Courtesy of Desperate Dan

:lolrangers:

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

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

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

---

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

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

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

Just saying likes! :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

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

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

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

---

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

I have my doubts though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TornadoHibby

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

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

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

Just saying likes! :wink:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TornadoHibby

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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

---

Floating an idea here ....

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

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