Comment on About the The Scottish Football Monitor by Auldheid.
Here is a link to the kind of thing all clubs should me made to publish based on their application for a club/UEFA licence. Now THAT would be true transparency.
Auldheid Also Commented
About the The Scottish Football Monitor
Probably linked to earlier
It is a detailed look by the St J lad who did the tv analysis at Sevco’s business case based on the higher wages they seem to be offering.
The interesting thing is that if you use the wage figure of £2658 in this exploration to the wage calculator already linked to then the annual loss is pretty similar in the £2.3m bracket This suggests that there is something to question the SFA on as to how they passed a business case that shows a club running at a loss in the first couple of years.
One would assume SFA got some assurances on funding from a source that looked solid and with good reason to be involved in getting bums on seats at Ibrox aka Ticketus.
The point here is that neither business cases made provision for a Ticketus clawback (although it is easy to add to the wage calculator) but if they had the wage would have to come down or the debt would rise further.
It would be ironic indeed if the very thing that saw CW undone (using the fans money to pay off the debt) was a device continuing to be used unknown to the Sevco support as it would mean less of what they pay at the gate to watch would find its way on to the field of play. I mean if you are going to launch a share issue you would reveal to potential purchasers exactly what they were buying into would you not? Who owns the stadium and if they are taking a bite of the proceeds, the kind of information that would inform purchasers before they buy.
What CG will be selling potential share buyers is a return to the myth of a strong Rangers with no debt. The figures suggest this is a myth in comparison with their past, the kind of wages they can look forward to offering suggest it will be ordinary shares in an ordinary team that should be put on offer.
I’ve no idea of the mechanics but if I had been conned out of £27m by a guy who could not pay it back I would repossess what he bought with my money to see how much I could get for the asset.
Were I the kind of guy that operates in such murky territory I would have a horses head left in Mr Whyte’s bed to remind him I cngaf about floating charges or Virgins.
Do yourself a favour and look into the history of gaining on field advantage using money that was not a clubs to invest.
The principle was first raised when Leicester City used the Garry Lineker intervention to augment their finances and deny other clubs a higher finish.
Those clubs denied and asked questions and the FA recognised the principle of sporting advantage gained by illicit use of finance.Like paying players and not creditors.
This only became obvious when creditors forced administration (until then no one knew) but in 2004/05 the PRINCIPLE of unfair sporting advantage was codified by the introduction of the 10 pts penalty to offset the advantage using illicit financial methods be that unpaid (and the Rangers debt remains unpaid) debt or misuse of a tax scheme available to no one else provided.
Did Rangers field players they could only afford using a scheme HMRC say was not appropriate?Yes
Were other clubs competing on the same basis? No
Did they have to pay more to even stand a chance of competing? Yes and it proved unsustainable.
So on a matter of underlying principle Rangers embarked on a system of payment BECAUSE of the sporting advantage it provided not to save tax. Had it been to save tax ALL of the tax saved would have stayed in the Rangers bank account. Not telling the SFA was to protect that advantage and the SFA allowed it to continue.
Sorry but Rangers have been caught bang to rights cheating and the only thing that will stop that being declared is the fear of the subsequent questions such an outcome will ask of the SFA, for it happened on their watch.
Recent Comments by Auldheid
Here we go again
Thanks for the clarification.
I can see how the Brechin reason and Romanov reason got conflated back then so we can drop Romanov from the underlying issue to look at which is:
What was the argument in support of the change in SPL rules introducing owner and operator and if it was solely to deal with a potential problem in respect of Brechin having no “owner” of a share, how did that rule change in 2005 transform Rangers from being an incorporated single Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) earning its revenue from football to a Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) that overnight owned a club earning the same income from the same source?
In terms of conforming with UEFA FFP before 2012 was it Rangers FC PLC that applied for a UEFA Licence or Rangers FC as a stand alone club or was it Rangers PLC whom Rangers Football Club had a written contract with to be their operators? The application template suggests it was Rangers Football Club only.
Post 2012 if its not the current club (Rangers FC Ltd) applying for a UEFA licence but the football Company (Rangers International Football Club PLC) they have a written contract with and the football company’s (RIFC) main source of revenue is from the club activities, then how can a Company go bust unless the club ceases to be able to provide that revenue?
Now had UEFA seen the 5 Way Agreement there would be the satisfaction of knowing they were OK with it.
As it stands UEFA did what their rules told them to do, Waited 3 years to allow the club that had undergone a terminal change in its legal structure to satisfy UEFA requirements in respect of historical membership of the SFA before being eligible to apply to play in UEFA competitions in circumstances that were not to the detriment of the integrity of those competitions.
After 3 years, whichever club ie legal entity that applied for a UEFA Licence, it was not the Rangers Football Club (PLC) that last applied in 2012 (which was rejected because they had no audited accounts and the wee tax bill of 2011 was admitted , unlike March 2011 when described as a potential liability, as a payable that as the world and its wean knew in 2012 was outstanding.)
Here we go again
HirsutePursuit 13th March 2021 At 21:31
3 0 Rate This
On the subject of a franchise…
At the very least the possibility that the 5 Way Agreement has turned Scottish Football into a franchise should be explored by UEFA just in case.
On McDonalds I remember reading McDonalds Behind The Arches many years ago and one of the fascinating things to come out is that their wealth was not based on burgers but on the land and buildings owned . Kind of fits your point to your family member.
Here we go again
On exclusions zones because supporters might turn up for invented reasons I think recognition of “knuckleheadessness ” as an all pervading human condition is necessary.
I think it is an American term.
I quite like it, kind of onomatopoeic quality to it. Not so much sounds like but looks like.
Anyhoo it is a denial of reality that the support of Celtic and “Rangers” do not have their share of knuckleheads and they recognise each other.
The knuckle in the head stops the consequences of the emotions reaching the brain.
It’s a condition that most grow out of but it’s also one that we grow into before we grow out of it. A human condition.
So best not deny it and deal with it free from judgment of which support has the most knuckleheads or which kind of knucklehead is worse than the other.
Just say that anyone turning up at CP will be taken as evidence of knuckleheadedness to become huckleheads into a police van.
Set a perimeter around the ground and any one approaching without valid reason to do so will be huckled.
HuckleberryTim or HuckleberryHun.
Here we go again
Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 18:45
0 0 Rate This
Auldheid 13th March 2021 At 16:15
It is the huge incentive that CL money provides that in my opinion is the creator of an incentive to cheat to get at it, PARTICULARLY if the ability repay the debt depends on getting the CL money.
Absolutely agree with that. Financial Fair Play in Scotland post 2012 would have been a good move, although the new Rangers would have suffered more than anyone because of it in my view.
And there you have it. Canny have rules that hinder Rangers business model .
If the 5 Way created a franchise like McDonalds but selling hateburgers then sectarianism is only the sauce that goes on the otherwise tasteless moneyburger to make it tasty.
Here we go again
Thanks for your response useful as ever.
If the intent was to create a franchise is that not questionable of itself?
If it wasnt then SPFL misused it.
Either way the SPL appear het, it’s just from when?