http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...s-mike-4919126Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Hibby
Printable View
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...s-mike-4919126Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Hibby
The SE isn't open yet, so that's unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Hibby
However, :-
Easdale gives Rangers emergency loan http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30678270
Dave King has been on the phone to the Daily Record feeding them an article I think....Quote:
Originally Posted by silverhibee
Secured against the sale of Lewis McCleod, assume this against some future payments?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Apparently its 500k upfront then 500k over three payments for McCleodQuote:
Originally Posted by Iain G
This doesn't correspond with previous stories that Ashley had first call on the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain G
What really annoys me about this whole saga is that a blind man could see what was coming - if you pay players £5-10K a week (more in the case of McCulloch and Wallace I believe) and a manager £750K a year, but have revenues far less than your outgoings then you will have big problems.
It seems like the whole of Scottish football could see what was happening but nobody in any position of power at Ibrox could? Also what have the Scottish Football authority done about this whole mess again - living up to their name - SFA.
It's difficult to see what the SFA could have done or should do. It's not their call to advise clubs on their financial dealings.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
We have the licensing system in place. When RFC next apply for their licence, at the end of the season, their losses might be relevant, but until then......they haven't actually broken any rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Hibby
But does he have "wealth off the radar"?
On a more serious note; weren't their a number of Yanks linked to takeovers during the Admin period, in 2012? He's not one of those guys, is he?
Is there not some sort of FIFA rule about player salary budget not exceeding income or a proportion of it? Or have I invented this? :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If there is (and I haven't studied the SFA FFP regulations), it wouldn't be acted on until the next time RFC apply for a licence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
In the world of financial fair play, rules should be there! Of course the SFA aren't there to advise clubs but they are there to safeguard the league and its reputation. So whatever way you look at it the SFA/SPFL are at fault. :agree: [I'm not suggesting its your fault just because you're telling us :greengrin]Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sevco haven't had the funding in place to last the season and that's been the case since before the season started. Its not just a case of maybe bumbling through, they were around 50-75% short* of what their spending profile suggested they'd need! They've already built up £3.5m in loans and goodness knows what as far as the potential creditors list is concerned.
I'm not sure if you're saying licences are applied for and issued each season. If that is the case then at the beginning of this season would/should have been the time the authorities had the power.
As I said I'm not getting at you because you're a cold blooded accountant who knows how to apply the rules as they currently stand. Did you ever want to the a lion tamer?
* I'm not sure if the £3m loan to Ashley is or isn't included in the £8m they need to take them through to the end of the season.
I have a lion tamer's hat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
At the start of the season, the accounts (and the auditor's report) hadn't beeen published. If RFC submitted forecasts at that time (and I'm not sure that they had to), I'm sure that the expected deficit would have been covered by the intended Share Issue. As things stand, that Share Issue may still happen in time to get them out of the mire.
Against the background of that, what could/should the SFA do? They can't say "we don't believe your forecasts".
The BBC report indicates that the loan is to cover the next few days which suggests to me that it covers the period until Brentford's cheque for the first instalment gets cleared. If the report about HMRC threatening to wind them up is correct things are even worse than was generally known.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain G
How can they get through January except by selling any player they can get cash for? Our play-off chances could look a lot better by the end of the month.
I believe they could have and indeed should have if they had the opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Any bank they approached would most certainly have said as much.
.. and then what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Weststandwanab
What would be their course of action?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weststandwanab
Therein lies a very murky path.
Not all clubs have sufficient money available at the beginning of the season to pay all bills for that season. In fact, I'd be surprised if (m)any Clubs had that. The authorities really have to take it on trust that the Clubs have done their sums correctly.
I'm not convinced it's within the remit of the SFA to second guess financial calculations of member Clubs.
BBC article now changed to confirm that HMRC provided them with a 7 day notice to pay National Insurance monies.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__ther...1411980004.pdf
Section E20 deals with HMRC
I wonder if The Rangers notified the SPFL that they were overdue?:cb
We must be getting into signing ban territory
I think they have already put themselves into that category. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by lord bunberry
True, but it's normally the beginning of the endQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think those in power at Ibrox (Green et al) were well aware that things would implode within 3 years. That's why they made a killing with wages, bonuses and the "share issue" and then bailed, to leave the rest to scrabble for power and the blame game.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
They should have some rules in place to ensure a team can finish the season and could start by making rules on expenditure similar to Football League in England. In the event of a projection being totally inaccurate a points penalty and/or withholding of tv money should take place for the following season.Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Finally a The Rangers supporter in the office next door was telling me that SFA are holding £250k back from Lewis McLeod's transfer money to meet the outstanding legal bill.
Never rains but it pours eh!
They certainly should have seen it they way thery were going.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
I still don't understand how it has happened.
Even starting again they had crowds of over 30,000 each week so they already had the second biggest budget in Scotland. It was overkill of course but surely that would have allowed them to spend the daft salaries they were handing out?
How have they managed to also burn through another £40 million or whatever level of ionvestment they also had over the past few years?
How did any of these guys involved ever make their money in the first place if they can't put simple budgets together that would have seen Rangers walk their leagues without having to spend any more than the income from the gates?
I gues it leaves sheer theft which is probably what has largely happened with the money going out the club to those involved in the last few years.
I am struggling to see how rules can be put in place to ensure that a club can finish the season. Other than a bond, which would actually make things worse in cashflow terms for just about everyone, I can't see how anything would prevent the Rangers situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
On the legal bill stuff, I wasn't aware that transfer money went via the SFA.
"does not within twenty eight days of a Tax Liability becoming due by the Club on or after 1 June 2014 pay to HMRC the full amount of that Tax Liability"Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
Good spot. If they have indeed been given 7 days to pay in full, then it's pretty much guaranteed that they've exceeded the "within 28 days" date set out by the SPFL.
Tell him he's talking "single fish". Why would the SFA receive any transfer money? it would go directly to the club that sold the player.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
They may well be holding back payments due, but it'll be nothing to do with the recent transfer.
Their first few games in Division 3 they were regularly getting bigger crowds than Sellik.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy74
They got something like 49,000 for a game with East Stirling which is quite frankly bonkers. There's little doubt that they have a string of ludicrously overpaid players with no resale value (Black, Shiels, McCulloch, Boyd, Miller(who wants out anyway)) who should be released/told to get new clubs ASAP but the real damage has been done at Board level with crooks like Green, Ahmed etc all 'wetting their beaks' and complete incompetence and theft thereafter at Board level.
They may well go into Administration (and probably quickly back out again) or the American guy will buy them and clear out their board but there is little doubt that the club as a whole needs restructured from top to bottom.
I don't like sticking up for the Huns but I don't think their current predicament is as much to do with over paid players as it is to do with the amount of money that has left the club to the likes of Charles Green and friends and the fact that all their normal revenue streams like shirt sales have been sold to third parties.
Had the new Rangers been properly run from day one then they could have had all those high paid players and been well on their way back to the top tier.